The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Social Science Is Slowly Catching Up To Red Pill Wisdom

Academia is ponderously following behind what Red Pill men have known for years. The journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest will be releasing an article that can nicely referred to as the “No shit, Sherlock” study of online dating. The story is covered in a recent CNN piece. Here’s a quote from the review:

That’s partly because daters don’t always know what they want in a mate — even though they generally think they do. Studies suggest that people often lack insight into what attracts them to others (and why), and therefore the characteristics they seek out in an online profile may be very different from those that will create a connection in person, the review notes.

Um, duh?

This is the result of the conflict between social expectations and the biological imperative. So often our words parrot back the social expectation regarding dating and relationships but our actions fall back on the ol’ biological imperative. The rationalization hamster is a busy critter.

“I want a nice, sensitive, emotionally available guy” are the words on an online dating profile but the actions result in a cad with online charisma seducing a dame in a night of rough, intense sex on a bearskin rug. The cad doesn’t call back, by the way. Men aren’t much better. “I want to commit to a strong and independent woman”. But he dates a few of these types only for sex and then marries a sweet, pleasant woman who happily defers to him.

Back to the article:

The abundance of profiles online also may make daters too picky and judgmental, the authors say. The sheer number of options can be overwhelming, and the ease with which people can sift through profiles — and click on to the next one — may lead them to “objectify” potential partners and compare them like so many pairs of shoes.

“Online dating creates a shopping mentality, and that is probably not a particularly good way to go about choosing a mate,” says Harry Reis, Ph.D., one of the review’s authors and a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, in Rochester, New York.

Sounds like this remark is aimed squarely at women. He’s right, that’s exactly what women do when faced with a huge number of incoming messages from guys playing the numbers game with cut and paste text. Women completely and utterly objectify mean in the context of online dating. They can’t help themselves. When single women blog about their dating experiences, note the names men are given. Those bloggers can’t even bother to create pseudonyms, just nicknames based on the men’s appearances, physical characteristics, or job title. When women date, men aren’t human beings, they are human “doings” just like machines.

Here’s a fascinating bit of advice from the article:

“Don’t assume that more time spent browsing profiles is going to improve the odds of meeting someone who is really compatible,” he [a researcher] says. “Be as quick and haphazard as you want with that process, because it’s not meaningful.”

For women, that’s not a bad bit of advice. As women actively look for reasons to reject a man based on his profile, perhaps they’d do better if they just sent out messages to random guys within their search criteria regardless of photos and profiles. That would be quite an interesting exercise and might even  yield a soul mate (hate that term) faster.

For men, that advice is dreadful. The average guy must have a system to go along with an excellent profile with good photos. As men and women have different dating and mating behaviors (based on evolution) men and women must have different online dating strategies.

Online dating can work well because there isn’t a real alternative outside of face-to-face interactions out there in meet space (yeah, a pun, sue me). Given that we are increasingly replacing those real-life interaction with technology, online dating will only grow bigger but only haltingly more sophisticated.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

6 thoughts on “Social Science Is Slowly Catching Up To Red Pill Wisdom

  1. “I want a nice, sensitive, emotionally available guy” THAT I HAVE THE HOTS FOR (fixed that for all the women out there who spout that tired line).
    Remember, even if you’re all that and a bag of chips … if she doesn’t like YOU,
    YOU are wasting your time.
    Why do so many women feel strangely compatible with movie stars and fund managers?
    It must be that good ol’ “female intuition” 🙂

  2. Pingback: 8th Feb 2012 « Men's Voices

  3. This (and articles like this) makes me glad I took the Red Pill years ago.
    For fun, I used to ghost online dating sites (POF is a classic example) just to read the profiles there and mentally translate the ‘female speak’ back into plain English (e.g., “strong and independent” translates to “bitchy and domineering”, “Rubensque” translates to “fat”, “large and in charge” translates to “fat and bitchy”, etc.), but that only lasted a few months because — just like an old joke — you can only hear the same thing again and again before it gets tiresome. Just like shaming language, ‘female speak’ rarely uses anything new and become worn-out rather quickly.

    “No wife, no kids = No Problems!”

  4. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of February 12, 2012

  5. Chicks really dig guys who understand their emotional needs.

    I think this was a great article.
    Here are 3 more great articles about men and their emotional needs in dating
    http://postmasculine.com/emotional-needs-part-1
    http://postmasculine.com/emotional-needs-part-2
    http://postmasculine.com/emotional-needs-part-3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: