Why a woman's attractiveness acts as a repellent, explained using probability.
plus.maths.org
plus.maths.org
From anecdotal evidence: I got to know this cute and smart girl, but she was in a long term relationship at the time. At some point I learned through a common friend that she broke up a month and a half ago. I asked her out, and she told me she has been dating this other guy for a month. So, basically, she was single for two weeks.
With my friends, we call "high quality" girls, girls that are good looking, smart and nice, have a job/passion in their lifes, or have something going on for them. They are very rare. Actually, extremely rare around here. You might meet good looking girls, but that have nothing else going on for them in their lives, you might meet smart girls, but that are just not attractive to you. The combination of smart + good looking is a real killer, and often is ruined by "bitchiness", but that is very subjective.
It seems that women become "nicer" and easier to talk to as they get older. Especially in their 30s and so, when they clock is ticking. But in their '20s', it is tough to find a girl like this Carol.
Maybe Carol needs to move to SF. She will have the pick of the litter.
The fact is, beautiful women get approached. A lot. Like, to the point where they find it annoying. Tens of times a day. This is why they get skilled at brushing men off: so much practice. The reason beautiful women give off a "don't talk to me" vibe is to reduce the number of approaches to something manageable--and filter down them approachers to just the true social alphas.
No doubt there are a few beautiful women who don't get approached. There is something else going on in those cases besides probability theory. They're also giving off a vibe that makes them unattractive, or they're living in a community of nerds. Hell, even alpha nerds approach beautiful women.
Well quite. The article mentions Uma Thurman... Well, Uma, perhaps you can't get a date because you're a bit weird? Perhaps "kooky" isn't what the men in your social circle are looking for? Men find normal women confusing enough, the actually mad ones terrify us. Maybe she's actually a really nice person, but for whatever reason she's picked up this rep and it sticks.
It doesn't make sense to me that evolution would program men to find X list of characteristics simultaneously attractive and repulsive. It does make sense that a woman's ego would have her believe she's "too pretty" rather than a more honest appraisal. It's exactly the same in the male syndrome of being "too nice".
Especially in their 30s and so, when they clock is ticking.
It is true that in most cases a female at 20 has many more options than a male of the same age. The opposite is true at 40. 30 is where the balance of power starts to shift.
I'm in my 40s, and happily married, so I'm not in the game anymore, but I can tell from the people I know that in the 40s and beyond the entire teenage/20s power situation is reversed. In fact, I'd guess it starts mid-30s or so.
It's weird and unexpected. So for all you nerds out there who can't get dates now -- immerse yourself in what you love and work hard. If you can wait now, in a decade or so it'll be a whole new game.
I think a big factor is just that I never learned how to play the game until around age 40. In my 20s, I was more interested in stuff like arithmetic-logic units. For a man, knowing how to approach women and "lead the interaction" makes a lot more difference than "attractiveness". Women are in a very different situation.
But dating is like marketing, not like sales. You're not trying to win one particular girl, you're exploring all the options, making yourself known, and seeing where the opportunities might be.
It's a numbers game.
I think the guys who realize this early in life get lucky a lot more than the rest of us, sadly.
On the other hand, I've also experienced the case where someone I wanted to date (beautiful and smart) was single for only a week or two, and I was too late in finding out. Amazingly, this happened during the six weeks when I myself was single! I'm sure glad I didn't end up with her, though. Compatibility was pretty low.
I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.
I'm not sure they're looking.
But you are asking for two 99 percentiles in categories which share a pretty dubious correlation.
I'm not sure that's true - attractiveness is in a large part about facial symmetry, which is a proxy for "good" DNA.
Why would you think so? Isn't it the case that smarter guys make more money (or are otherwise more successful), allowing them to chose among more potential partners, some of them being physically attractive and selected for that reason? The offspring would be both smart (after the daddy) and pretty (after the mummy).
Depends on what you are looking for, of course. One great thing about being single is that you have the opportunity to temporarily wrap your life together with someone who isn't necessarily much like you at all. It's like traveling. You can visit many places that you wouldn't want to call home.
"This is a condition that may be experienced by a woman who is so beautiful, so alluring, that any man with half a brain isn't even going to think about asking her out, because it's obvious she's too grand for the likes of him. This leads her to believe that the problem is at her end, and that there must be something wrong with her. This persists until she meets a man who does not have half a brain (i.e. is too stupid to realize she'll likely reject him, or is so used to rejection that it doesn't bother him, or has some other flaw that stems from an even more major flaw), and he does in fact ask her out, and she is so grateful that she says yes".
A woman may be so attractive that a guy won't ask her out, because she's a 10 and he's a 1. However there'll always be people too stupid to count and can't tell the difference between 1 and 10 and will ask her out anyway.
And maybe the smart guy doesn't need to be so super smart but simply an attentive observer.
Also, chances are that Carol is smart (and courageous) enough to approach a guy herself once she becomes fed up with her own situation.
Therefore, it is somewhat independent of the man's assessment of his own attractiveness. This model is probably oversimplified, however, as self-confidence must play a role in there somewhere.
'Cooperate' (C) = to publicly approach an attractive girl
'Defect' (D) = to ignore the girl, read the paper instead
So, imagine yourself walking into a cafe and seeing Carol at a table. She has been there for a while, and you have no way of knowing if some other guy has already approached her (or if Carol has a boyfriend). Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the first man who dares to approach Carol always gets her telephone number (her nice way to reward him for being brave). That automatically means that the second guy will be rejected and feel bad.
The outcomes are (in order of preference):
CD = You dare to speak to Carol, you are the winner, the other guys didn't dare to approach her.
DD = Every man in the room reads the paper, Carol sits alone.
DC = You choose to ignore the girl, then some lucky bastard walks across the room and gets her number. Bad, but you have not lost your face.
CC = The worst outcome. You have approached Carol, but she is already involved with someone else. You walk back to your table, feeling miserable.
You notice that second and third outcome are somewhat identical, there is no gain, but also no real damage. A rational person may well prefer to do nothing and land in the 'neutral' area where 50% of total outcomes lay, rather than to approach Carol and to have 25% chance of success vs. 25% chance of a complete disaster.
---
I think it is not the women's attractiveness that acts as a repellent, but uncertainty of her status (has or has not a partner already). The way for Carol so improve her situation is to develop some sort of signalling that says she doesn't mind to be approached (flirting used to do the trick in old times).
The reason a lot of guys, especially nerds, won't approach Carol is that they see her as holding higher social status than they do, so it feels extremely uncomfortable. The "popular" (high-status) guys will approach her confidently and playfully. People tend to group with others of approximately the same social status.
To really learn about this stuff, you have to put the math book away and socialize with people.
I know, it seems too hard to be true. I had to work up my courage for months to ask for a phone number upon meeting a woman, even after I decided that I would try it since I had nothing to lose. The first time I tried it, the woman gave me her number. The second time I tried it, that one gave me her number, too. And on and on and on. I've only been turned down a few times. And I'm a nervous, skinny, nerdy guy.
Once, I asked a lesbian for her phone number, in a bar, right in front of her girlfriend. She gave it to me. It wasn't bogus! She never returned my call, but it's an amazing data point about how women will usually give you their phone number if you ask.
If the suitors are all risk averse, that is if they perceive that the pain caused by rejection is greater than the pleasure of success, none of them will approach her. On the other hand, if the suitors are risk seeking (or even risk neutral) where pain <= success then there will be those who approach her.
There is a lot to be said regarding their perceived probability of success, and the distribution of perceptions. If unattractive and uneventful suitors are all risk seeking, chances are that they will approach Carol and be promptly rejected.
The article does mention Guy's evaluation of himself as a candidate. And, intuitively, if Guy considers himself to be extremely attractive, then he should consider p(a) to be accordingly higher.
Of course, there is also the issue of persistence, which cannot be entirely discounted.
Its easier for men to "chat her up" online (Option 1); and not feel too bad when Carol rejects their move (Option 3). Essentially, Option 2 becomes a non-option and Carol would have more men approaching her and to choose from.
Anecdotal: I saw this girl online. I considered her "out of my league". But what the heck, I picked Option 1. Now we are engaged. If I had seen her in the real world, I would have picked Option 2.
(a) He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week.
(b) He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus).
(c) He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
A week? Guy needs to lighten up, and not take rejection so seriously. His attitude may have just cost him a date with an intelligent and attractive woman.
So if you're single and looking, the easiest way to connect with people you're attracted to is to approach them with no agenda. Become as sexually detached as you can and treat them like a buddy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA
and here:
Regular, socially outgoing men approach. It's nerds who talk themselves out of it. Think of salesmen. Salesmen start conversations with strangers all the time, and turn them into sales or network connections or women they sleep with that night. Starting conversations with strangers is for them the bread and butter of life. For nerds, it isn't.
Just saying, its purely a function of our own MOTIVATION, not necessarily our self-image, which we can change.
I remember a research paper finding that the only people who consistently acted rational in the game theory sense were economists and sociopaths.
I'll take physical pain over extreme social pain/embarrassment pretty much any day of the week.
In the case of the Carol Syndrome (or the "solution" from A Beautiful Mind), the players will have plenty of reasons to want to change their initial strategy.
Proper headline should be attractiveness + refusal to take the first step leads to fewer dating opportunities.
Oh, so that's how it works? No wonder this situation seems out of balance.
Instead, I would suggest that in the p_star case, N is only the number of other guys who (from Guy's perspective) are more interesting (attractive, well-spoken, outgoing) which helps to keep N down for any suitably attractive, confident Guy.
That changes Carol's p_none too. Now she's getting the product across some distribution of p_stars from guys around her, each of which is related to the apparent value of the dating pool and individual confidence.
I haven't worked the math, but it definitely seems like p_none < 1/2 only when none of the guys are very confident in their worth. I don't really think you needed to use game theory to get that result.
I'd offer that we don't see many beautiful, single women because we irrational agents take the risk to chat her up anyway. And HEYYO, turns out that, empirically, maybe that's the right thing to do.
Deleted comment
From the article: 1. He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week. 2. He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus). 3. He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date. If he does feel miserable for a week, he's got serious emotional problems or instability issues. A few minutes, maybe. A hours, possibly. if he has a really sensitive ego.
Finally, as to the anecdotal evidence at the bottom of the article which inspired the article, I call bullshit again. Uma Thurman and Jessica Simpson were both referring to boyfriends, not dates, and discussing how their careers and financial success was scaring off men who were intimidated by the spectre of being in a relationship with a more successful woman. (I watch Extra, so sue me.)
"No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2.
In fact, it's a non-option."
Some of us happen to be shy and/or introverted...
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
Picking option 2 is a "bah, she's out of my league" decision. It may not be a smart choice, but it's a choice that a whole lot of men make.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date.
A lot of men have a fear of failure in this game, however irrational it may seem. Being rejected by a woman can make a man self-conscious about his own attractiveness. A typical pessimistic guy would not take it very well and will try to avoid a situation like that. This is probably why the author uses 0 as the reward for outcome 3.
The best explanation I've heard for this is that it's an evolutionary adaptation. If you're in a tribe of mammals with a strict social hierarchy, trying to mate with the alpha male's partner is an excellent way to get expelled from the tribe if you're lucky or killed if you're not. So we developed a survival instinct to not approach females that we see as above us socially.
This could be another evolutionary psychology just-so story, but it fits exactly with my experience. If I seriously consider approaching an attractive woman I get an immediate physical reaction very much like vertigo, which I believe is the primitive part of my brain frantically trying to signal danger. Of course this is actively harmful in our current environment, but our genes don't know that; we're adaptation executers, not fitness maximizers (see http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessma...).
1) I was new there, unfamiliar with the social mores, and didn't want to earn an undesirable reputation
2) She was with a group of friends, any one of which she could've been involved with--and, indeed, did embrace one of the guys about an hour later
3) She was intent on what she was doing; I wasn't at my most impressive; I'd likely have a repeated chance, and a failed intial approach would negatively bias later chances
4) Likely other more or less subconscious, more or less rational reasons as well.
I'm so averse to feeling miserable from rejection I haven't asked anyone out on a date since the 5th grade. It ended poorly. I feel miserable from just listening to their thoughts. It probably varies for different guys.