Explaining Sex Rate Changes

>> Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing?

> No, but women rarely respond at all so I'm not exactly surprised by that

Really? See, that's very weird to me, because I rarely saw women not respond at all. They've swiped right on you, so they've already accepted your pictures and bio, they're willing to be with you if you have a good conversation. If they weren't, why would they swipe right? Tinder, for example, limits the number of right swipes you're allowed to give over some period of time. So that right swipe truly means that all you need to do is have a good conversation with them. Again, I'm really not trying to bash you, and I personally enjoy having this debate with you on HN. But being good at a HN debate is very different from being good at a dating app conversation. I suspect that there was a problem with the conversations (despite the effort and best intentions - conversing well can be hard, especially for my/our generation). But I am sorry that you went through the pain of not getting replies most of the time - that definitely sucks.

>> Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms

// Wow, seeing that I wrote this makes me feel like such an idiot!

> I would say I actively detest messaging social norms. I write legible full English sentences just like you see here because I'm an adult. I specifically ruled out women who obviously felt differently.

Ok, perhaps this could be a big factor in why we had very different results. Unless we're surrounded by very, very, very different sets of people (or we're in very different age ranges), you're specifically ruling out most candidates. In my experience, even the people who write complete sentences in their bios will often follow messaging social norms once you start messaging with them. For a lot of people, following those social norms is required for the messages to feel casual. If I matched with someone and they used complete sentences with proper punctuation in 100% of our messages (e.g. sending "Hey." or something that looked like it could be in a letter), I would instantly feel like I'm in a more formal setting and cross them off the list of potential dates, and the most we'd become is friends. And I know people with much stricter rules about messaging social norms than me, such as feeling like things are too formal if there aren't enough emojis/memes/GIFs.

I'm not trying to convince you to change, and I respect your passion for detesting messaging social norms. But I do believe your messaging style could be a significant factor in why putting effort into conversation yields you no results. I'd be curious to see if the same happens with other people who also don't follow these norms. Thanks for all your responses!

There may be some miscommunication. I never used Tinder --because it's a shallow hookup app and I'm not interested in that... and come to think of it it may not even have existed at the time-- I was on OKC which lacked a "swipe-right" concept.

> you're specifically ruling out most candidates.

Yes, because the reality is I just can't stand emoji-laden text communication or single letter representations of words. Many of the women I messaged had said something similar in their profiles. If someone is going to be bothered by that then it was never going to work anyway.

> George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one.

Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.

You've attempted to claim my position as one that states that

1.) population outcomes being different are okay because men win

2.) population outcomes are different because women don't want certain careers

3.) promotions are fair

The problem is that I didn't make any of those points, nor do I believe them.

You can't make the case that our arguments are symmetrical, because they're not. Yours is an assertion, mine is a claim of insufficient evidence to substantiate your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I'm not making the claim that all population outcomes are the result of biology and everything is perfectly fair, you seem to just believe that this is my claim. What I'm actually saying is that I have a problem with an ideological position which assumes in the absence (or sometimes in the presence of) alternative explanations for why populations arrive at different outcomes, there is a tendency to be satisfied with a de facto position stating that outcomes are necessarily due to sociological forces, specifically patriarchy/sexism/racism. I'm saying that this is a totally unjustifiable position to work off of as a baseline. Working backwards from default conclusions, particularly when it comes to things that are as complicated as this, is not an acceptable strategy.

>If you're very attractive, yes. But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. By "low effort messages" do you mean "bad messages" or do you mean "fluid messages without overthinking or too much detail"

They switched from TCP to UDP because speed/reach is more efficient (in their mind) than deliverability/customisation