OLD and the paradox of choice

[bluefeather]

Dont get confused.. no one is arguing and no one is upset.. this is a forum and we are exercising view points and information.

 

I did not think anyone was upset at all. But you quoted me with your response, and in trying to relate it to what I was talking about, that was about all I could conclude Anyway, please proceed with the convo! As you were

[road]

Sweetfish, these stats are fascinating and really helps put OLD in perspective for me. These numbers, combined my personal experiences, only reinforce my opinion that the fallacy of choice plays a really strong role for women on OLD. I'm sure it affects some men, but not most and certainly not me.

 

The study claims that only 4% of women respond to men their same age. I'm 6'1, 180, have good career, and have a degree from a top 25 school. On paper, I'm a "catch". I also own a home in an expensive neighborhood and drive a $60k car, but I don't mention any of that on my profile. Should I? I don't think so, but I wonder what other male profiles look like. Do other guys brag or lie??? Anyway, I'm also a decent writer though I intentionally avoid making my profile look "crafted". I just answer profile questions matter-of-factly with a little personality and humor interjected. I can objectively say that my profile doesn't stand out but it also should not be a turnoff either. Really, my only glaring negative is that I'm half Asian. I definitely notice white girls who seem like they are looking for a guy named "Brett" are by far, the least likely to reply to my messages. I initially thought my other big deal killer, is that I have a 3 year old daughter. At first, I didn't mention her but later decided to add a pic of her and be totally upfront about it. But my overall response rate didn't change one bit. There was a shift in that older women or moms were much more likely to respond than before, with a corresponding drop-off in younger women with no kids, but the overall response rate stayed exactly the same.

 

I signed up on OKC about 4 weeks ago and as of this morning, I have sent 235 messages (thankfully OKC conveniently lists the total in your inbox) and had 60 replies. That's just over a 25% response rate. Of those only about 20 went past one reply. So over 90% of women find me unattractive for one reason or another. It's not my kid. Is it really because I'm half-Asian? Or because I don't brag about my material possessions? I chose to go the "Straight Man" profile i.e. Jason Bateman. That's what 9/10 women "claim" they want. Not the actor/model selfie taking "look-at-me" guy. But maybe I need to go that route? Or do I need to shamelessly pander to my audience and write some BS prose about "work hard, play hard, I love to travel" and take photos with my friend's dog, even though I don't own one right now (I love dogs but am not home to justify one). "Oh look at him! He loves dogs and travelling!"

 

Myself I only have 2 criteria to message a woman online. She must be very attractive (pretty face and look good in a bikini) and not be a Trump supporter / religious nut. Once we actually meet, there are plenty more attributes I'm looking for, but I think it's pointless trying to gauge those before meeting. And honestly, if I added all those filters before meeting, I'm going to get one or two dates a year.

 

So of those 20 or so convos, I got about a dozen numbers. Only 6 dates. A couple of them got shut down for random reasons. Ex. I'm a musician (not my career) and while texting, mentioned I was on tour so they are asked how often I go on tour. I said a lot during the summer, but not much the rest of the year. Instantly ghosted. I totally get the feel they have 10 suitors and are trying to find ANY reason to cross me off the list...

 

Of the 5 dates (the sixth is Friday), 4 were interested in me and wanted to see me again. The other pretended to be responding to a text (but called an Uber) and rudely bailed mid-convo - I wasn't interested either so found her stealth exit amusing. I was only interested in 1 of the 4. I slept with 2 of them, obviously the one I was interested but also another who made herself available. The only one I liked dumped me after date #3.

 

Now I'm going to contrast myself to my ex. When people saw us together, they always said we made a great couple. That was code or just an inarticulate way of saying we are what psychologists call a "matched" couple. A phenomenon I very much believe in. People of the same attractiveness level wind up together. Now my online profile "should" be much better than hers. She has no career, dropped out of college, and is now a single mom (the latter is a much bigger stigma for women). She's a great person, but on paper, the only thing she has going for her are her looks. I have no idea if she uses OLD. But I guarantee, 1000% that if she does, she could 50 numbers a day...

 

You are mixed race which can be a no go for some.

 

Then average looking, so a 5, and you only want to date

the 9's and 10's and wonder why you get a low level

of response.

 

Any mirrors near you?

[JuneJulySeptember]

Has nothing to do with valuing women. Guys on average, find a lot more women attractive than vice versa. That fact combined with the fact that some guys are oblivious as to what "league" they're in leads men to send a message to every woman he finds attractive. You can't determine who the quality women are until after meeting in person anyway. Is it a game? Of course it is, dating is a game.

 

I'm still not sure what 'league' I'm in. There was a point where I just messaged women I thought I had a chance to get a response from. And they came in all shapes, sizes, and walks of life. And I'm not ashamed to admit it ... at least on LS.

 

In any case, I think 90-95% of women operate like ... "I'm going to pick out the very best guys I can from my pool and go from there." How 'good' their pool is varies.

 

But another 5-10% just kind of ignores the profiles as a whole and picks out a few guys to message or wink to that aren't the BEST, that they just 'kind of feel'.

 

That's why my GF winked at me. There's no other explanation.

 

In any case, and I've said this many times before, if you only message the women who view your profile, you'll do a lot better.

[CryForNoOne]

You are mixed race which can be a no go for some.

 

Then average looking, so a 5, and you only want to date

the 9's and 10's and wonder why you get a low level

of response.

 

Any mirrors near you?

 

How exactly is 25% a low response rate? The average is 4%. It's total BS when I see 3rd guy on LS comes on here and says he's pretty average looking but gets a 50% response rate. If one guy sends 100 messages and gets 50 responses, that means 10 other guys sending 115 messages each would get ZERO responses to keep things on average:

 

1 guy, 100 messages, 50 responses, 50%

10 guys, 115 messages, 0 responses, 0%

11 guys, 1250 messages, 50 responses, 4%

 

And how exactly did you surmise I was a "5"?

[Miss Spider]

Average they mean 5 on a scale from 1-10. Except on that stupid scale 6, 7 is actually avg. looking. Average people get super offended when you calm them a '5'

[CryForNoOne]

In any case, and I've said this many times before, if you only message the women who view your profile, you'll do a lot better.

Why limit yourself to that? Many women are so inundated they don't even bother browsing profiles. I rarely message the ones that like me and have yet to reply to one that messaged me - honestly, the selection is terrible...

[CryForNoOne]

Average they mean 5 on a scale from 1-10. Except on that stupid scale 6, 7 is actually avg. looking. Average people get super offended when you calm them a '5'

I know the 1-10 scale. I was wondering how he determined I was a "5"...

[JuneJulySeptember]

How exactly is 25% a low response rate? The average is 4%. It's total BS when I see 3rd guy on LS comes on here and says he's pretty average looking but gets a 50% response rate. If one guy sends 100 messages and gets 50 responses, that means 10 other guys sending 115 messages each would get ZERO responses to keep things on average:

 

1 guy, 100 messages, 50 responses, 50%

10 guys, 115 messages, 0 responses, 0%

11 guys, 1250 messages, 50 responses, 4%

 

And how exactly did you surmise I was a "5"?

 

My success rate was about 15% (success meaning just getting a response). But keep in mind as I said, there was a period where I just messaged women whom I thought would respond, and also was most of the women who viewed my profile.

 

Why limit yourself to that? Many women are so inundated they don't even bother browsing profiles. I rarely message the ones that like me and have yet to reply to one that messaged me - honestly, the selection is terrible...

 

I found that my success rate with cold-messaging (messaging a woman who hasn't viewed your profile first) was miserable. No matter whom I was messaging. It probably has a lot to do with the race and height for me. My profile was adequate enough. I'm educated, no kids, and I have a lot of common hobbies: skiing, music, hiking.

 

It depends on the guy I'm sure.

[Miss Spider]

I know the 1-10 scale. I was wondering how he determined I was a "5"...

 

I have no clue. You're at least a 9.5

[Larryville]

I have to disagree with this conclusion. Some of us, often due to attributes completely outside our control, naturally receive significantly fewer responses. Thus, in order to see any sort of results, we need to send out significantly more messages than "normal". It has nothing to do with how we value women.

 

Look I completely understand and for a time (right after my 2nd divorce) I did just that because I was actually not specifically wanting or caring about actually being with any woman. I guess I said what I did because after my divorce I did not see women as “women” they were purely a source of entertainment and a means to an end. I went thru a thought process of going online and “browsing” as if I’m looking at objects and not people.

 

Has nothing to do with valuing women. Guys on average, find a lot more women attractive than vice versa.

 

Ok, being the investigative nerd that I am, I went to POF just put up my current profile a month ago.

 

You can go to (who you viewed) and I went thru all of the primary images, there were 288 that I have viewed. I said ok how many of these women without thinking quick yes or no do I find attractive (in my age/search range, rating a 7 and above) there were 31.

 

Out of 31 I have contacted 9 and out of those 4 wrote back, out of those I am only having “semi-frequent” conversations with and 1 talking to on the phone.

 

That fact combined with the fact that some guys are oblivious as to what "league" they're in leads men to send a message to every woman he finds attractive. You can't determine who the quality women are until after meeting in person anyway. Is it a game? Of course it is, dating is a game.

 

Well me being a 53 year old dude, and having done this for a while I have a good sense of “my league” so I’m not trying to go after someone much younger, or someone really hot, white, blonde, (me being a person of color) with pictures of her and her girlfriends partying and while they may not specifically say something in their profile there are just some things you read into which does not make any sense to even send her an intro email.

 

I get that some guys feel like “what the heck” what do you have to lose. Maybe I should not assume anything.

 

Wow, you've been using OLD for over 20 years? I'm really curious what it was like then compared to now. How has it changed?

 

The biggest change, people simply did not nor needed to lie or work so hard to deceive (at least the women) and the conversations were much more honest and open. Kinda like the difference in “Reality TV Shows” then and now, they are hardly real life and scripted and staged. Today there is so my phoniness you have to deal with.

 

Anyway, how could you have sent fewer messages in over 20 years than I have in 4 weeks, but claim you're not suffering from the paradox of choice???

 

I’m not suffering at all, because the point of OLD is meeting someone and what happens after that is up to you.

 

I have never been disappointed by anyone I have met via OLD. Things did not work out or you just knew they were not the right person at the right time but I feel because for the most part I have taken it serious and been open and honest and treated those with basic respect I don’t nor have I ever had the issues most have.

 

I have sent out fewer messages because I send messages only to those with whom I not only found attractive but also had substance, intelligence and something to say.

 

There are literary thousands of women online at any moment. You can't possibly have a shortage of women to message unless you are shy or extremely picky - hence paradox of choice.

 

Never said shortage...

 

Kinda like what I said before, every woman on OLD is NOT available to you for one reason or another. Age, race, religion, height, education, kids, income, distance, politics, looks/league. I guess some people overlook the obvious.

[JuneL]

OP: Just curious, you described yourself as super selective in terms of a woman's looks (she has to be very attractive and look very good in a bikini), and yet you managed to find almost 250 women to message?

[JuneL]

I suspect age may play a role here. Those statistics are average figures. I think the gender roles may have reversed a bit in the middle age group, namely, women often take more initiative to message guys, partly due to the imbalance of single females:males ratio in that age range.

 

Look I completely understand and for a time (right after my 2nd divorce) I did just that because I was actually not specifically wanting or caring about actually being with any woman. I guess I said what I did because after my divorce I did not see women as “women” they were purely a source of entertainment and a means to an end. I went thru a thought process of going online and “browsing” as if I’m looking at objects and not people.

 

 

 

Ok, being the investigative nerd that I am, I went to POF just put up my current profile a month ago.

 

You can go to (who you viewed) and I went thru all of the primary images, there were 288 that I have viewed. I said ok how many of these women without thinking quick yes or no do I find attractive (in my age/search range, rating a 7 and above) there were 31.

 

Out of 31 I have contacted 9 and out of those 4 wrote back, out of those I am only having “semi-frequent” conversations with and 1 talking to on the phone.

 

 

 

Well me being a 53 year old dude, and having done this for a while I have a good sense of “my league” so I’m not trying to go after someone much younger, or someone really hot, white, blonde, (me being a person of color) with pictures of her and her girlfriends partying and while they may not specifically say something in their profile there are just some things you read into which does not make any sense to even send her an intro email.

 

I get that some guys feel like “what the heck” what do you have to lose. Maybe I should not assume anything.

 

 

 

The biggest change, people simply did not nor needed to lie or work so hard to deceive (at least the women) and the conversations were much more honest and open. Kinda like the difference in “Reality TV Shows” then and now, they are hardly real life and scripted and staged. Today there is so my phoniness you have to deal with.

 

 

 

I’m not suffering at all, because the point of OLD is meeting someone and what happens after that is up to you.

 

I have never been disappointed by anyone I have met via OLD. Things did not work out or you just knew they were not the right person at the right time but I feel because for the most part I have taken it serious and been open and honest and treated those with basic respect I don’t nor have I ever had the issues most have.

 

I have sent out fewer messages because I send messages only to those with whom I not only found attractive but also had substance, intelligence and something to say.

 

 

 

Never said shortage...

 

Kinda like what I said before, every woman on OLD is NOT available to you for one reason or another. Age, race, religion, height, education, kids, income, distance, politics, looks/league. I guess some people overlook the obvious.

[Miss Spider]

Larryville, I can totally relate to your post, but I'm a woman. Some people are more selective and it's not right or wrong, it just is I envy people who can go through 100s of people and find half or more physically attractive, but that's not for everyone. And then look at all the compatibility you mentioned, narrows is further. I don't go for men above my league (in my assessment) because it makes me uncomfortable.

[CryForNoOne]

OP: Just curious, you described yourself as super selective in terms of a woman's looks (she has to be very attractive and look very good in a bikini), and yet you managed to find almost 250 women to message?

 

I live in a beach community in LA. There is no shortage here...

[Larryville]

women often take more initiative to message guys

 

I did not even factor that.

 

I wish more would do that frankly:laugh:

 

My profile is kinda blunt, but very specific about what I am looking I make it clear I am not looking to hang out, serial date, treating someone to free meals and I'm open.

 

I have been contacted by a number of women and while some of them I would never be interested in, many who have contacted me first I am still friends with, I can think of 5 I speak to on a regular basis. Although nothing "romantic" came of it, they were cool good people.

[Larryville]

I envy people who can go through 100s of people and find half or more physically attractive…

 

Cookie I guess for me there are more subtle things that make someone attractive.

 

eyes are the window to our soul

 

I have always believed that this is so true. To me eyes are one of the most important features, I want someone to look at me when talking or conveying a message so it is important to that I like their eyes, which is why women who have on sunglasses is the worst thing that can do on profile pics.

To cover your eyes to me convey you are hiding something. Also eyes convey trust, and what does everyone want in a partner… to be able to trust them.

 

There will never be 100’s of people that I would find attractive on any website.

I truly get everyone is wired different but I just don’t understand that.

You learn what you are attracted to damn near from birth. If I could show you the little girls I liked at a young age, also some of my family members, beautiful women who had an influence on me at a young age that clearly had an influence on who I find attractive even at 50 plus.

[knabe]

I think wew tend to overestimate which attributes are "our of our control."

 

Your height is out of your control. Your race, the size of your eyes, the size of your hands, whether or not your hair falls out...those are all out of your control.

 

Being more positive, being less jaded, having a good attitude, being friendly, getting a better job, etc. ALL those things ARE in your control, at least to an extent.

 

Guys in a certain age range like to moan that all this stuff is out of their control when the reality is they are negative and/or lazy.

[normal person]

I did not even factor that.

 

I wish more would do that frankly:laugh:

 

It probably has a lot to do with demographics and not so much to do with you as an individual. As someone said, some things are out of your control. You're at the age where most people area married, and you live in Kansas. But if you travel to a city with at least a few million people, you'll be astounded at how many women will message you, from 10 years younger to 5 years older. In New York or when I travel to other major cities, the messages/matches are pretty frequent. When I'm in the middle of nowhere, not so much -- there's simply no one there to message you. That's not a reflection of you, that's a reflection of population density, age, and supply/demand.

 

My profile is kinda blunt, but very specific about what I am looking I make it clear I am not looking to hang out, serial date, treating someone to free meals and I'm open.

 

Hopefully this this is still on topic, but people likely won't want to contact you based on what you're looking for. They contact you based on what they're looking for. So saying you're looking for X, Y, and Z is irrelevant unless that person likes you to begin with, then happens to fit the criteria. You have to have the appeal to them first before you start making delineations between them. So if your profile is blunt, make sure it's at least interesting, engaging, unique, etc, and not just "I'm looking for X."

 

 

There will never be 100’s of people that I would find attractive on any website.

I truly get everyone is wired different but I just don’t understand that.

 

Food for thought on this topic: "Who You Find Attractive is Dependent on How Hot You Are"

Edited August 17, 2017 by normal person

[Miss Spider]

interesting vid. Dan Ariely is cool. Love his books!

 

I wish looks didn't matter at all though

Edited August 17, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Larryville]

but people likely won't want to contact you based on what you're looking for. They contact you based on what they're looking for.

 

Yes, I get that I don’t put specifically what I want in my profile, I just basically say if you are not ready for or are simply not looking for a relationship then I would not be compatible.

 

Bottom line again, I don’t rate my OLD experiences as bad, or not being able to find people even in Kansas or even having nice women contacting me. In recent years and life circumstances have simply changed me and I don’t fret about finding someone and just have a healthier attitude about stuff.

 

BTW good video.

[CryForNoOne]

interesting vid. Dan Ariely is cool. Love his books!

 

I wish looks didn't matter at all though

 

I wish looks didn't matter but they do. I'm just like Larryville in that the women I find attractive today are EXACTLY the same was when I was a little kid. The only difference is now it is sexualized as well. But it suggests to me that I don't have much control over it.

 

I've dated women I'm not physically attracted to but I like very much in other regards and it's not good for either of us. I wind up taking them for granted and am always looking for something better to come along. They sense it and get clingy. I hated myself for being that way so now I'll never put myself in that position again.

[Shining One]

I think wew tend to overestimate which attributes are "our of our control."

 

Your height is out of your control. Your race, the size of your eyes, the size of your hands, whether or not your hair falls out...those are all out of your control.

In my case, I was specifically referring to race.

[JuneL]

If you are looking for women in their 40s and 50s, then I'm not surprised that the response rate is much higher than average (as the females:males ratio is reversed). Actually it seems common for older guys on here to state that they would only contact someone who looked at their profiles first or message them first. I don't think such strategy would be too realistic for a younger guy when he's targeting women in their 20s.

 

 

I did not even factor that.

 

I wish more would do that frankly:laugh:

 

My profile is kinda blunt, but very specific about what I am looking I make it clear I am not looking to hang out, serial date, treating someone to free meals and I'm open.

 

I have been contacted by a number of women and while some of them I would never be interested in, many who have contacted me first I am still friends with, I can think of 5 I speak to on a regular basis. Although nothing "romantic" came of it, they were cool good people.

[carnelian]

I see that POF and online dating has not changed since I used it several years ago and gave up in total frustration. It is not the fault of the site, really, but the attitudes of users that ruins it. This should be a very last resort not a choice of preference but because it is so easy and appeals to our desires to be lazy.

I agree with most of these comments. It is like gambling and when you get a few payoffs (phone calls, messaging, meet for coffee) we naturally want to keep going---until it turns into a DEADEND Whereas if you go NOthing at all we would stop completely. This is called intermittent reward and psychologists know that it is hardest to break the habit.

 

I think women know that men seem to need them more than they need a regular man in their lives (no thanks to the radical women's movement that raised women's self esteem over the top and it is said that women get along without a man better than men do without a woman. Men's lives are shorter

and prone to poorer health--this is a generalization.

 

I have found that age, height, money and religion to be important to them.

Some girls will look for any excuse, even mediocre writing skills, to hit the delete button.

 

Keep your expectations very low, and do not blame yourself for failures.

Thats my 2 cents

[normal person]

It is not the fault of the site, really, but the attitudes of users that ruins it. This should be a very last resort not a choice of preference but because it is so easy and appeals to our desires to be lazy.

 

Why should it be a "last resort?" Why can't it be a supplementary method of meeting someone? It's not like you can "only" meet people in person, or "only" meet them online. Smart people will capitalize on both. I think OLD is a godsend, I've met so many amazing people on there I never would've met otherwise. If someone's preferences are incongruous to their own market value, they won't have any luck. The "lazy" people who don't adapt will continue to be unhappy.

 

I agree with most of these comments. It is like gambling and when you get a few payoffs (phone calls, messaging, meet for coffee) we naturally want to keep going---until it turns into a DEADEND Whereas if you go NOthing at all we would stop completely. This is called intermittent reward and psychologists know that it is hardest to break the habit.

 

But if it it wasn't working enough to justify its existence, it would stop being profitable, and would've died out years ago. Now it's more successful and acceptable than ever. Is everyone successful with it? No. Are enough people successful with it for it to be considered a totally viable option? Absolutely. It's just a method of meeting people you didn't know before. Ultimately you still have connect with that person on your own merits through and beyond the website. Merely making a profile and expecting that to be "enough" is incredibly nearsighted.

 

I have found that age, height, money and religion to be important to them.

Some girls will look for any excuse, even mediocre writing skills, to hit the delete button.

 

What's wrong with that? Why would she settle for someone she doesn't want? Do they not care about those things in person? If she can afford to be that discriminatory, it's her right. If she can't afford to be that discriminatory, she'll suffer her fate and then eventually come around, or continue to be alone. As I said, if someone's expectations are incongruous to their market value, they won't have any luck. So let them not have luck until they realize they need to change.

 

Keep your expectations very low, and do not blame yourself for failures.

Thats my 2 cents

 

But at what point do you accept some responsibility for your success or failure? You make it sound like every women has the power to determine your fate, so it's like you've automatically assumed undesirability. If a user thinks women have so much supposed power, it's because that user gave it to them and hasn't earned it himself, or doesn't command it otherwise. Is that the fault of OLD? Of woman? Not in my opinion. I think the market is always right, but you have the power to change and gain success. Things are not totally out of your control unless you let them be.

 

One thing that irks me is the guys who complain that women don't respond to their messages. My instinct is always to ask "why would they?"

 

Guy A has phoned it in his whole life, makes an OLD profile that doesn't do much more than highlight how mediocre he is, and doesn't have much luck at all. Guy B has worked like crazy, pushed himself, and done everything he can to optimize every aspect of his life. Who do you think a girl is more likely to desire?

 

People make the assumption that because they're interested someone, there's an implied obligation of reciprocity. That's not really how attraction works at all. You like someone for a reason -- maybe they're funny, attractive, smart, etc. They have to like you back for a reason that justifies their interest too, and they might have totally different tastes or desires. So while I agree with your statement "don't blame yourself," I think it only applies part of the time. I'd say, don't blame yourself if you're circumstantially just not someone's type. But you should blame yourself if you're unrealistic about your own market value and what you bring to the table. If you expect success just "because," then you're not being realistic and that's likely to blame for a lot of lack of successes.

Edited August 19, 2017 by normal person