Now, this has indeed been my personal observation for literally decades, so I have not bothered to research this any more than I would research water being wet, however, I randomly happened across a Substack post that was in my feed and it is rather fascinating. 1
This however is the smoking gun in the hands of the assassin, live, on multiple video, including VHS tapes so you know it wasn’t produced by AI>
What 50 Million Online Daters Proved
If speed dating is a microcosm, online dating is the full-scale experiment. And the data from online dating platforms tells the same story at industrial scale.
In 2009, OkCupid’s data team published an analysis of how users rated each other’s attractiveness. Men rated women on a normal bell curve – roughly symmetrical, centered around “average,” which is what you’d expect from an accurate perception of reality. Women rated men with a dramatically skewed distribution : they rated a full 80% of men as “below average” in attractiveness.
Eighty percent. Below average. That is not a perception of reality. That is a filtering mechanism operating at a level that women themselves may not even be conscious of.
Now, keep that in mind. On what is essentially one of the most important metrics in life for anyone, and arguably more so for a woman, since we’re ultimately talking about who they are more likely to allow to get inside them. Their bell curve looks as the red one below, when compared to reality, which is also equivalent to the male bell curve, in blue.
Imagine then, if this is how they “see” one of the most important aspects of life, how they “see” pretty much everything else as it relates to their own fantastic idea of themselves and who they are, which, by the way ALSO doesn’t even match their OWN perceptions of “reality”.
That is, that is how they “see” the world, as described and defined and “seen” by them, so if they were at least CONSISTENT in their delusions, they would also act accordingly. Right. Wait… right?
Eh…
But here is where the stated-versus-revealed gap gets even more interesting: despite rating 80% of men as unattractive, women still messaged many of those men. Their messaging behavior tracked much more closely with the normal bell curve that men used to rate women than with their own brutal attractiveness ratings. In other words, women’s stated evaluations (the ratings) bore almost no resemblance to their revealed behavior (the messages).
They said he was a 2. Then they wrote to him anyway . Two different systems. Two different outputs.
Separately, economists Günter Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely at the University of Chicago and MIT analyzed behavioral data from a major online dating platform – not surveys, but actual messaging decisions. They found that women’s revealed preferences (who they actually contacted) diverged from their stated preferences in several key areas. Most notably, women displayed strong same-race preferences in their actual messaging behavior that they did not express – and in many cases actively denied – in their profiles. For men, stated and revealed racial preferences roughly aligned. For women, they did not.
The researchers concluded that online dating data provides “evidence on mate preferences that people might not truthfully reveal in a survey.” They were diplomatic about it. I will not be. Women’s dating surveys are, at best, aspirational fiction. At worst, they are social performance designed to present a version of themselves they want to be perceived as, not a version that predicts their behavior.
Now, I don’t necessarily rate the poster of this as being correct in his assumptions. As he concludes (by implication) that those women messaging the 2 will also be willing to actually meet up with him. I don’t assume that at all. Women will use the messaging and the resulting responses, as psychic blood-lust. Energy vampires, they will soak up the validation without ever having any intention of actually starting anything with he poor 2.
In short:
- Women lie about what they want when compared to what they really go for.
- Women are overall quite incapable of seeing pretty much anything objectively, and the more personally it involves them, the less objective they will generally be.
- Their behaviour is “rationalised” by them in ways so spectacularly false, irrational, and flat out false that most normal men can’t even imagine.
But here is the key thing:
While it may well BE done with malice, and often can be, it is not NECESSARILY done with malice. In some cases, they pretty much can’t help themselves. Their emotions are very strong and driven by various factors outside of their control.
Which is all fine. If you HATE all women in general because of these realities, well… that’s like hating oxygen. Good luck with that.
That said, if you are surprised by such behaviour, well… you probably should take notes. Or read Caveman Theory . Or have secret offshore accounts and duel nationality. Possibly a name change too. Anyway, my point is made, and the science is settled!
I do have this tendency to not be interested in things once they are obvious to me, and this is not always a good thing, because the details do matter if one wants to go on to produce other work that is genuinely interpreted as valid by the teeming masses.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
