We studied what happens when guys add their cats to their dating app profiles | Hacker News Reader

We studied what happens when guys add their cats to their dating app profiles

universal-sci.com

57 pointsedward70 comments

I wish they published more raw data. The counts they have in the paper are over the whole group without a split over preferences. Then the paper says: "only female respondents who identified as a “cat person” found him more desirable for short-term or long-term relationships." and we find out that 21% were "cat people" compared to 44% who were "dog people".

This seems more "people like dogs more frequently than cats" than anything else. Or "people presenting minority trait X are not preferred (apart from others who present the same trait)".

The paper itself is at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/6/1007/htm

> found him more desirable for short-term or long-term relationships

You forgot to include the second half of that sentence "or say they had no preference". So at most you get a +1 from cat ladies but more likely a neutral score. But a -1 or worse from all other women. It's clear that if optimizating for the most potential options their takeaway of don't take pictures with your cat is correct.

We don't know how many say no preference and how many do have positive one. Which is part of the issue I'm trying to raise. We don't have that data.

Also, my quote is from the paper itself. It doesn't include your quote. The article seems to change the claim a bit.

Yes, women seems to be attracted to guys with dogs. As a guy, I have a dog, every time I take him out to dog park without my wife, I get hit on.

But dogs are so much work and they are needy. If I had to do over, I would get a cat. My friends with cat can take wknd trip without taking or boarding their cats. Sometimes, they have no idea where their cat is.

My guess is having a dog is not about masculinity but it shows that this guy can handle responsibility and needs of others.

More likely it's the social proof of seeing the dog liking the guy.

damn, i oughta start taking my grandma's dog for more walks then lol

Hey give yourself some credit, maybe you’re just a handsome guy.

>sometimes, they have no idea where their cat is.

So true. And I always know where the dog is, really. XD

Yeah I think dogs convey responsibility in a way that is only second to a wedding ring.

The cat vs. dog data is common knowledge in the online dating community. I would speculate that dogs evoke masculine associations because early species of dogs bred from wolves were used for hunting and that association is forever in our primal brains. Going out further on a limb I would speculate that the men showing dogs are not displaying poodles or shih tzus but rather dogs that were traditionally trackers and hunters like shepherds and pit bulls.

One thing that the release of dating site data like [1] has shown that we are replaying evolutionary dynamics using high tech apps. Which is _not_ surprising as our species is the product of evolution. For anyone in the dating market, male or female, I high recommend The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by David Buss. Lectures by Dr. Gad Saad and Dr. Diana S. Fleischman on youtube are also interesting and worth the effort. More than anything else it allowed me to understand my mating preferences and those of my potential mates which often go against stated preferences.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IHS3XE2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

Nit picking here, but dogs weren't bred from wolves; they both descend from a proto-dog.

Dog ancestors were scavengers that ate remains left by humans and were eventually domesticated.

I've never heard of that. The dog was domesticated recently, long after wolves existed as a species. So I don't see how you could even reconcile that with your story.

I think the confusion comes from the colloquial use of "wolves"

Dogs most likely evolved from a species of wolf , with an intermediary proto dog like a dingo or pariah dog in between. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0117/Did-dogs-really-...

However when most people say "evolved from wolves", there's a weird association with modern grey wolves without an intermediary step.

So in effect you're both right, but depending on what your respective perceptions of wolf is.

They're right though. It's the same with the human, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are both related to Homo Erectus but not each other, like the modern dog and modern wolves do not relate to each other.

Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are not related to each other? Modern dogs and wolves are not related to each other? This makes no sense given what I know of biology. What are you trying to say?

We share a common ancestor with Neanderthals but they're not some sort of precursor to Homo sapiens. They're actually just as far evolved as homo sapiens. If you visualize it as a family tree, Sapiens and Neanderthals are siblings with the same parents.

Many of the people reading this thread are descendants of at least one Neanderthal. Family trees aren't trees, they're DAG.

> because early species of dogs bred from wolves were used for hunting and that association is forever in our primal brains.

Or, we are marketed this image on a daily basis.

Most likely a little bit of both.

> Going out further on a limb I would speculate that the men showing dogs are not displaying poodles or shih tzus but rather dogs that were traditionally trackers and hunters like shepherds and pit bulls.

That is out on a limb because:

- poodles were traditionally used for hunting ducks

- this is sort of a case in point where people often don't know (or need to know) the history of dog breeds, so their traditional uses per se are often irrelevant.

However, I think people's understanding of modern breed-specific associations (e.g. a belief that pit bulls are prone to attack, use of german shepherds by police and search-and-rescue) are perhaps enough to explain how people would use them in social posturing.

The mental image most people have for a poodle isn’t the standard poodle, that are large, fast, and as a general rule very smart. They’re thinking of a miniature poodle that is associated with small, fluffy, and high maintenance.

Someone else mentioned social proof. It's a better point IMO. Dogs show respect for their owner. It's a proxy for social dominance, which is typically desirable for women.

I used an app (not tinder, there I couldn't get a single match) where you could get a notification showing how many people looked at your profile.

I had a picture with my late dog and had ~12 visits a day. In that picture I had was wearing a hoodie, and the hood covering my bald head.

Removed that picture, and the number of visits went down to 1-2 per week at much.

The number of women who decided to get in touch with me plummeted proportionaly, but wasn't that high to begin with.

I hear you have to get in really good shape if you're bald. Maybe worth trying out.

and/or being able to grow a beard also helps. I recommend strength training or powerlifting. I honestly think you can squeeze out some really good noobie gains from doing a basic strength program or powerlifting program. Then swap out to whatever you want.

I also like to recommend BJJ / MMA to people, I love the sport and its also helpful knowing how to defend yourself.

Also running Amazon helps.

as a fellow bald person (went bald early twenties), I think there is confusing messaging around baldness. For example, things that disguise baldness are "for insecure men". I am also told that judging people's physical appearance is immoral or even shaming.

On the other hand I suspect it has likewise made it very difficult to get dates. If I conclude that being bald lowers my odds am I insecure? Am I diminishing women's sense of being shamed by men by claiming I myself feel rejected?

The data, however, makes things more clear. I've never tried an experiment like that. Thanks for sharing.

If you’re bald get jacked, tan, and grow facial hair

https://extrafabulouscomics.com/comic/180/

> I am also told that judging people's physical appearance is immoral or even shaming.

Those who told you that will also claim, on other contexts, that we have a right to our affectional preferences.

> I am also told that judging people's physical appearance is immoral or even shaming.

I think it's weird that we dance around the idea that looks aren't important when we all know otherwise.

It's why men fib about their height and are insecure about showing photos without hair, and why some women take photos that hide their true figure, and why both take very flattering angles that are unlike day-to-day appearances. There's also a plethora of data from dating websites that show being a certain ethnicity and gender have very different outcomes.

There might be some outliers but the data I've seen from online dating websites show handsome looking men get matched up a substantially higher rate than not-so-handsome guys.

Men lie about their height because women don't know how the numbers actually correlate to looks.

Women would do the same of waist/hip size was in the profile.

this is a pretty ignorant comment. plenty of women know how to gauge height from a number. men lie about their height because they are insecure.

It's overly generalised yes, but a vast proportion of the world is not over 6ft, yet this is often remarked as a minimum requirement on dating profiles. However in reality it often turns out that their real "height requirements" are far lower from anecdotal experience. The perception that being 6ft is the norm and that men should always be tall is highly prevalent

What was that app?

https://adopteunmec.com/

Worth noting that despite it's a women oriented thing (they get in touch with you only if they want to) on their website you could look at others' stats - how many visits they had get, how many "charms" they've received (how many men expressed their wish to get in touch with them) and how many messages they've sent - which for the time I was there could estimate than the number of messages could be around 3-10% of the total of "charms" they received

Anecdotally, I was once told many years ago by a woman on a date that men are supposed to like dogs, not cats, because something adjacent to "dogs are for boys and cats are for girls". The date went well, but I did not follow up.

So, I see truth in their assessment, but I strongly question their conclusion.

> if heterosexual men are looking to get a match, it’s probably a good idea if they save showing off their photos with their favorite felines for the first or second date

Or you might not want to build a relationship with someone who thinks that owning a cat isn't "manly", and this becomes a good filter.

It’s expected that you show your best on your dating profile. And the dating market is oversaturated.

It is not about not liking someone because he is not manly enough with a cat in his hands. It is about a multitude of unconscious factors that make a woman swipe left without even thinking a single word in their head.

> show your best

> It is not about not liking someone because he is not manly enough with a cat in his hands...It is about a multitude of unconscious factors

Unconscious factors like thinking that a man with a cat isn't manly or "best".

Sounds like there's nothing unconscious about it, at least in the case you described.

In the meantime photoshop a picture of a dogs head on your cat and you guys are set.

What about guys who had dogs in the first pic I wonder...interesting stuff. Speed boats would be interesting too always fascinated by this stuff even though I’m in a relationship I think it really shows how attraction is more about perception than reality just like any marketing overall.

> attraction is more about perception than reality

This seems kind of obvious? A person cannot know reality, only their perception of it.

"is more about perception than reality" does not refer to reality in the literal sense you have used it here; if it did, the phrase wouldn't mean anything. But it does mean something.

In the phrase, "perception" refers to superficial perceptions such as what a person looks like via their photo, and how they are imagined to be, the perceiver filling in a lot of gaps to fit their ideas; "reality" refers to perceptions from experiences with the person, such as you might get from actually hanging out together, talking, arguing, living together, getting to know each other.

The conclusion favours quantity over quality, which is a wrong conclusion in my opinion.

> Women who self-identified as “cat people” were more inclined to view the men pictured with cats as more dateable or say they had no preference.

So if you're a cat person and you're looking for another cat person, the study's results should suggest keeping pictures with cats up.

>But in the meantime, if heterosexual men are looking to get a match, it’s probably a good idea if they save showing off their photos with their favorite felines for the first or second date.

Except if the cat is a tiger!

I guess further studies are needed. :)

I was immediately wondering how Joe Exotic fit into this picture. He's an outlier though, and gay (not sure if relevant). Are tigers masculine, like dogs and unlike cats? Or feminine due to their relation to cats?

Also, say you are male and a cat person. Am I to believe you should lie about your fondness of dogs? I actually dislike dogs. I'm not into the dating scene as it is, but a love for dogs (with or without owning a dog) is a big minus for me. I am a cat person.

I have a picture of my cat in my dating profile and I do ok.

I find it interesting they phrased it as "men holding cats." I did make the conscious choice to exclude any corny "hey look me and my cat are best buddies!" type photo. I have the photo more for full disclosure, ie "hey I have a cat, if you're horribly allergic we should plan ahead."

Original article I think, fwiw:

https://theconversation.com/we-studied-what-happens-when-guy...

Original original article https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/6/1007/htm

No, that's the report. The article in the OP is a mirror.

Edit: I missed the joke (original original), sorry!

I suppose every bit helps for those on these things, but I can't help finding people doing this level of research and tweaking for their own profile-creating as maybe trying a little bit too hard.

I think they need to redo their study and look at the difference between a guy holding/nursing a cat and a cat simply being in the photo with them. The former would be a negative while the second could potentially go either way depending whether the viewer identified as a cat/dog person.

You could also test for holding/not holding a dog. I would think there is also likely to be a difference of perception between a guy with a border collie and one with a teacup poodle.

I don’t think it matters of you hold the animal because it’s more of a symbolic thing, as in the cat as a symbol has a certain culturally ingrained meaning, see: cats are usually a Godess. Tigers are Gods. Feminine/Masculine. Women prefer masculine men. You said it yourself with the teacup poodle example

If a straight or lesbian woman or even a gay man identifies as a cat person, they still find you more attractive if you have a dog. Male beauty is judged to a different standard

I would probably disagree on that I would attribute it to an vestigial evolutionary trait rather than a learned or subjective ideal. Cuddling a cat could evoke a man as nurturer, where standing with a dog (a real doggy dog) is evokes the hunter/protector.

Comparing a tiger to a cat would require the person having knowledge of tigers which wouldn't be universal if you go back a few centuries, so that would have to be a learned/cultural idea. Or in saying that you're just trolling a life-long Geelong Cats supporter who watched their team lose the Richmond Tigers in the AFL Grand Final last night?

I think ppl are offended cus the science is telling then something they don’t want to hear...so the science must be wrong

> Most of the women found the men holding cats to be less dateable. This result surprised us, since previous studies had shown that women found men with pets to have higher potential as partners.

Is it really that surprising? Pictures that make men appear more masculine tend to do better, and pictures that detract from that tend to do worse. I'm sure you'd receive a similar result if you tested men who were pictured with show poodles.

Sampling bias? Start with the premises that:

a) “needy” women prefer a man with a dog, since that signals that the man likes a needy pet and is more likely to be after a needy partner,

b) there are many more needy woman on dating websites (I can think of many reasons that could be true!)

"Our sample is a very specific population – heterosexual, primarily white women, aged 18 to 24 years and living in the United States."

I did not even start dating until I was older than that.

I wonder what the verdict would be for a guy who has a bird?

It would be interesting to see similar studies in other countries. I wouldn't be surprised if in some countries, the opposite result was observed.

tl;dr men holding cats were "less dateable" as women apparently look for more masculine men (or so says the article), and cats apparently make you appear less masculine.

I dislike cats, they can't be trusted. Cats dislike me, I can't be trusted ;)

A dog might give attention to everyone present. A cat might just act as if ignoring the person. Women prolly don't want to compete for attention with a cat. And I have known ppl will cats, they act weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com