Saturday, June 20, 2015

Matching with people who love life

All the same people are on that are on Tinder, and Match costs like, 60 dollars. I'm not sure why ANYONE is on it, to tell you the truth. Maybe if you like bots but can't figure out how to log onto ashleymadison?

Especially since most people have the exact same thing to say. This thing is "I am loving the life I'm leading" which means, as a friend put it "I'm drinking away my pain". Nothing wrong with that, but let's review:

"This girl is cute, but if she's not energetic then I'm .... wait!" 

"How many times can I say 'family' and hope they get the hint? Maybe one more. Also, let's be honest, when I say I want someone to have their own faith, I don't mean Islam."

Apparently in this world there is a dearth of people who love to laugh. Most people just 'like to laugh', which is not enough for miagirl1223. You have to love it. But where will we find a guy who both LOVES TO LAUGH and DISLIKES DRAMA?

I think maybe "looking for someone who loves to laugh" is a way of saying "I've lowered my standards about as far as they can go."

This is what a good profile looks like - instead of saying she loves to laugh, she is FUNNY. She has layup questions in her bullet list ("Which is the third tattoo you are considering?") and she managed to love her family and her life just for irony points, but you get the feeling she actually might be living a pretty cool life. She even avoids saying she wants a "partner in crime", which is a nice touch.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Basic Openers

So yesterday I spent some time with my room-mate talking to a friend of mine as she logged onto Tinder the first time. It was what this blog was built for!

So to start: Even girls very comfortable talking online find Tinder's "get something started from scratch" intimidating. The skillset of "go into a room and elicit information from someone" that spies learn is counter-intuitive. This is the same skillset as "get a guy to ask you out" via Tinder-message though. People who are good at it tend to have no idea why they are good at it. "You just flirt with them and be funny", they say helpfully.

Nobody can just "be funny" or "be flirty" via willpower.

And of course, women face another stigma. It is supposed to be EASY for women to snag a date. And maybe if they want to date ANYONE it is. But that doesn't help the 40yo woman trying to start a new relationship with someone she actually likes. For that, it's best to stand out from the crowd a bit, and use some technique. You start with "openers".

Ok, so without more ado, the standard PUA "controversy" opener.

"Hey, since you're here, settle this thing for me. A friend of mine and I are arguing about whether guys prefer it when girls research all about them before the first date, or whether they want a girl to go into it completely fucking blind. You're a guy, how much stalking do you prefer? :)"

Then you move from there to questions about him, disguised as flirty "stalking" followups. If you like him, follow up with "I guess we don't have to have a first date then? ;)" If not, then don't.

Guys have a very limited number of shit-tests to weed out women before they invest in a first date. By even starting to talk to you, they've already invested in asking you out. I.E. it is your turn in the line.

If he asks you "what you're looking for" say "I'm open to different things, but I have to admit I like meeting new people. You never know!" He's checking for that scent of desperation that you sometimes find. Don't say "I've never met anyone from Tinder before" because that adds to his pressure rather than subtracts from it.


A classic example from Nick Notas:

Monday, June 1, 2015

I don't believe in the FriendZone

It sends the powerful message of: "This conversation is obviously fake"

I think maybe the whole FriendZone thing happens when you are young and have no idea how to communicate with other people, or maybe have no patience, and it's a concept definitely perpetuated by movies and TV. But anyone old enough to have their own mortgage knows that at some point they're going to have sex with their attractive friends. Because adults all reach this "life is short, why not" mental state, plus booze exists.

Also, sex with people you are friends with is generally better because there's room for error. You know them well enough to know when it's not working and how not to make it a big deal. You have a smaller social circle as an adult than you do as a person in your twenties, but much closer. There's real affection there between you and your friends. They aren't just people who happen to be in your clique. You make a real choice to get to know them and vice versa. That's also the definition of people you're likely to want to have sex with.

Plus, I'm not sure how many women I've asked "How did you meet your boyfriend?" And they said "Oh, I've known him for years. We were always friends and then when I got divorced it just happened...".

Sociology is not useful for learning about relationships (I read the papers so you don't have to bother)

In this post I try to talk about WHERE to learn things and WHY.

From a new article:

The paper compared the likelihood of married people age 18 to 32 cheating on their spouses with the percentage of the household income they contributed. Of men who were completely financially dependent on their wives, 15% had an affair, compared to 5% of women. The numbers dropped as household income became even, at which point 3.4% of each cheated.
At that point the behavior by gender significantly diverged. The greater the portion of household income women earned, the less likely they were to cheat, with only 1.5 percent of women who were the complete breadwinners having an extramarital affair. However, as men brought in a larger portion of the total income, the chance of their cheating increased, to 4% of those who brought home all the money.
As men provide more of the family’s income, they are more likely again to cheat. Munsch thought that opportunity may be the reason. “These men are probably in fairly powerful positions,” she said. That could mean travel, resources to hide infidelity, “and they have more people interested in having sex with them [because of their position and standing].”
Although women who were in the upper economic bracket also likely had similar powerful positions, there are some differences. “We don’t see men throwing themselves at very successful women in the same way,” Munsch said. “Women [also] go to extreme lengths in this situation to shore up their husband’s masculinity. Because we know that women go to these lengths to keep their potentially strained relationships intact, they probably aren’t going to cheat.”
Or in other words:

But it's weird that they've completely ignored any attempt to explain themselves with evolutionary biology or basic game theory. If you're in any relationship, and you lack power, you can try to establish a backup relationship. This is a risky strategy because if you are found out, you ruin your primary relationship, and you find out you really needed that backup (which may be a mirage).
Sociology is one of the sciences that has a lot of natural disadvantages. 
1. Normalization is nearly impossible. Every sociology paper including his quotes the idea that women are graduating from collage more than men now, but if you look around you at the degrees that actually have ROI (e.g. STEM), they are not. The world does not need more communications majors. Those are just people who are so bad at math they think paying 100K for a job that starts you at 40K is a good idea.
2.  People are stupidly sensitive to results in the sociology area. This makes it more likely to be click-bait or politics than science. You can see this directly in his paper linked above, where he laments progress in gender revolution having "stalled or slowed". If he was studying humans as the animals they are, he'd be using more objective language.
3. Human societies change quickly compared to most other sciences. The modern trend may not be to less infidelity, but perhaps also less fidelity-requirements. Everyone in the Peoples Republic of California appears to have an Open Relationship, and we may find that people just tend to opt out of marriage in general. To his credit he tried to normalize by race and cohabitation in his paper. But his normalization on age is terrible, as it almost has to be.
In conclusion: you CANNOT LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS from Sociology's work when it comes to romantic relationships. You are much better off learning from pick up artists and sales people and sex workers who all have vast amounts of experimental data in their field. Or of course, going to the Big Data source of AdultFriendFinder, JDate, FetLife, OKCupid, Google, Facebook, or