Your Looks And Your Inbox

Tres interesting. In my life, I've found women to be less shallow than men. I just didn't expect that it was because they think that friggin' everyone is ugly. Assholes.

Freakonomics has a bit about this, and it mentions that women usually look to see what sort of job the guy has before messaging them. Men with high-paying jibs get lots of messages, but low-earners and students do not.

The only anomaly for low-earning men comes with jobs which connotate ultra-masculine badassery like soldier, policeman and fireman - all of these get as many messages as the high-earners.

Badassery means you won't live long and we get a shweet insurance nest egg to remodel our curvy parts.

By the way, I'm so glad I'm not single.

Oh, and RP, women are just as shallow as men.

The difference is, when it comes to looks, women accurately judge their their own attractiveness and factor in attractive men's propensity to meep average-looking women as long as they have functional vaginas. So, they act accordingly.

The more attractive a woman is, the more likely she is to seek a high-earning mate or a stable-earning mate who meeps bravado and produces his own sweet elk musk. All men want to meep them, so they avoid low-status, low-earning men.

Average-looking women know that they might get caught in a meep 'em and forget 'em situation, so they don't go by looks alone. They look for mates who will commit. Sometimes it takes a few dumpings for them to learn this, and sometimes they end up being punched or spitting out four kids before they come around.

Yes, the thought has occured to me. I have always wondered why average-looking women come to act that way far more often than average-looking me, though. I can think of many reasons, but none that seem.... comprehensive; so I have chalked it up to women being less shallow, probably for some evolutionay gender-dynamic reason. I was suprised by the first and third graphs, though. I expected the first to be skew-left (because men should be more shallow), and the third to be skew-right (because women should be less), but I was suprised in both cases: Men had a perfect textbook bell-curve, which I hadn't given them enough credit for, and women held opinions in a manner I thought men would.

So it seems that, yes, men and women are just as shallow as each, other, just in different ways. Men are very reasonable when it comes to others, but shallow when it comes to themselves (or- what they want for themselves). Women, on the other hand, are shallow when it comes to others, but reasonable when it comes to themselves.

This perplexes me, as women are supposed to be nurturers.

I think that Asian men are less shallow than women... do you see all the fugly women they get stuck with in the ole US of A. Poor meepers, they must have evolved beyond the need to have an attractive mate.

This perplexes me, as women are supposed to be nurturers.

It's because of this they act that way. Becoming pregnant is serious business - they must be far more selective than men. Men can go for quantity over quality because they can ditch at any time.

Also, sidenote, human females commit infanticide more often than any other primate.

Hm. I see what you mean.

Respect + for men

Respect - for women

In this unassuming thread, we see the hapless richardparker continue to seek acceptance amongst the herd.

Having earlier tried several painfully unsuccessful tacks -- gaudy highbrow pomposity, undistinguished lowbrow vilification -- that met only with revulsion and condemnation from the very herd he yearns for meaningful congress with, the richardparker casts about and eventually alights upon a third strategy -- middle-brow chin-stroking, a porridge neither too hot, nor too cold, but hopefully just right.

Spying a small open clearing on a quiet edge of the teeming pack, the questing richardparker sidles up casually in direct view of the other ruminating inhabitants, strokes its recessed hairless chin quickly, then hoots a low, measured 'hmmm'.

'Hmmmm', offers the feckless richardparker, 'hmmmm.'

First of all, the group acceptance theory is Bigd's originally, if I recall correctly. Secondly,

http://www.linkswarm.com/links/55024/jonathan-haidt-talks-about-the-healthcare-debate/#155847

This happened before this whole fiasco. Nothing new, sir. Nothing new. And there are others. You can find them, though.

The haughty richardparker speedily thumbs through its stack of index cards, searching out just the right one. Suddenly it straightens, and holds an index card triumphantly aloft, its crudely humanoid face bent into a retard's grimace of self-pleasedness. It brings its other finger carefully into its mouth, wets it, and slowly, majestically draws a quiet 1 in the night air[1], taking greedy measure of the faces nearby.

[1] My apologies to whoever crafted this gem -- I'm not finding the proper index card for attribution.

I say something that contains information, you distract from that information with shiney things. It all seems so familiar.

shiney.

no points for gryffindor : (

Move along folks nothing to see here....keep moving...