Hacker News Reader

Yeah, there is something off about the article. Too much math, not enough reality.

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.

I don't know any good looking, smart, and single women that can't get dates.

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.

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.

A data point in support of this: Extreme nerd in 20s, never dated, got a few dates in my 30s, and then everything reversed when I turned 40.

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.

Of course, if a girl didn't want you in her 20s, you certainly don't want her in her 40s.

Yes of course.

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.

The pairwise interactions over time aren't all that relevant. 20 years later, you have the field of all single women in their 30s/40s, not just the ones who snubbed you two decades earlier.

I know two totally beautiful, very smart women in my own city who have been single for months, in their late 20s and early 30s. My circle of friends includes any number of other attractive, smart women who have spent substantial periods of time single — not just not in a steady relationship, but not even dating anybody casually. (I can think of one who spent, I think, most of a year single in San Francisco. She has a steady girlfriend now.)

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.

As far as sexual market value goes, women in their late 20's and early 30's can't compete with those in their late teens and early 20's. Personal preferences aside, this is how the cookie crumbles. A woman's attractiveness marches in near lockstep with her fertility, and that begins to decline precipitously in her late 20's.

I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.

Many attractive women milk their attractiveness until one day they aren't the center of attention at around 30. At about 24 many women are physically not as pretty as they were in a downgrade.

I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.

I'm not sure they're looking.

Late 20s, early 30s usually means the women want a bit more out of a relationship than most guys are willing to commit to straight away. It makes no difference how smart/beautiful women are at this age, guys are just more likely to stay away from them.

A woman of beauty and intellect can go anywhere and do anything. Read his biography: Napoleon himself was starved for such a woman.

But you are asking for two 99 percentiles in categories which share a pretty dubious correlation.

Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence - or, if anything, have a very slight positive correlation. Also, he didn't say anything about 99th percentile. A girl who is even the 80th percentile for both looks and intelligence would be pretty desirable.

Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence

I'm not sure that's true - attractiveness is in a large part about facial symmetry, which is a proxy for "good" DNA.

Good infant health care, nutrition and a healthy childhood environment would also contribute to both looks and intellect.

> Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence

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).

Could the offspring not be dumb (after the mummy) and ugly (after the daddy)?

Yes, but those offspring would (theoretically) be less likely to reproduce.

Taking into account my trips to Walmart, I don't think that's an accurate statement.

The rich wouldn't shop at Walmart.

Nonsense. The mega-rich likely do not, but people with $1-10 million still do. My boss's wife still does.

Yeah, that (or something like it) is why I added the second half of that sentence.

Not uncorrelated. Consider the many guys who are into girls that wear glasses. It's not because the glasses make them look better per se, but because the stereotype (which has some truth embedded in it, but probably not all that much) correlates wearing glasses with being smart.

Don't forget availability. So that's beauty, intellect, availability. Oh, and her reciprocal interest in you. And mutual compatibility. Quite a tall order.

"And mutual compatibility"

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.