How do ERE men attract women?

[zbigi]

Though I suspect there is little correlation between IQ and sexual attractiveness for either gender.

I've read (can't remebember where now) that it's quite strongly correlated - possibly due to the factors discussed above (smarter people are better at making themselves attractive). Plus, the usual factors, like more money, and intelligence just being attractive in itself.

[chenda]

Wait how did we take it as a hard fact that only the top 20% of men can mate

I don't think we did...just women are disproportionately attracted to them. The male dating economy is like a banana republic, with a small elite controlling most of the wealth. The female is more like Scandinavia, moderately egalitarian.

[jacob]

Dating is not like a market because it is not dominated by efficiency. If you want to compete in the stock market, you have a lot of really smart people trying to do the same thing. Your average performance matters a lot. In dating your competition is much much lower because everyone has terrible information and not everyone is trying to do the same thing.

The online dating market is vastly bigger than the local (bar, colleagues, friend-of-a-friend-network) market and also has more efficiency. Especially when interactions are so reduced (swipe left or right) that differentiation is materially reduced to photoshopped pictures and clever one-liners. As such, everyone may not want the same thing but the format forces the same thing on everybody, e.g. "looks" and "witty pick-up-lines". Basically regressing the whole situation to the bar scene.

As a former online-dater, from 20 years ago, I'd likely be SOL if I had to go back on the open market today. I had a natural advantage back then when 1000 word profiles and clever programming (think Myspace) distinguished "persons of interest" from "other" (from my perspective). Now that this is all app-ified, it seems that there environment is Pareto/Zipf in the sense that there are a few huge markets serving the lowest common denominator (must fit on a 3" screen) and then a few specialized markets e.g. Christians, high-income, sugar-babies, farmers, ... and even FIRE.

Has anyone tried https://firedating.me/ ? I love the fact that this was started on a kitchen table and seemingly still runs that way? Perhaps it's all taken over by fatFIRE now. Are there any ERE people on there? Any successes? Kinda seems like searching that space would increase the odds significantly?

[7Wannabe5]

And I wonder if engineering perfect 10s would result in looks 'inflation', with minor differences between women becoming deal breakers.

No, because there are vast possibilities for variety. It would be like shopping at a high end florist's shop. You would only need to define around 20 different qualities with 3 options each to make 4 billion unique models.

Most men have terrible social/ emotional skills. It should again be easy to get into the top 20% (actually I think it is easy to get into the top 10%).

Yes, and if you add one more level of abstraction, you will realize thats it is also true that if you are a female who is better able to DIY on emotional support, you can better "afford" other qualities in your male partners I can't relocate it, but I read a pretty good article on polyamory by a guy who was also into systems dynamics, and he suggested that there are two types of men who do best in polyamorous situation, those who check-off the looks, money, skills typical success list at modernity, and those who have the time and skills to be emotionally supportive partners. So, ERE men should be well placed to do both.

I believe that being in the top 20% of almost anything is possible, but I also think it requires so much effort that people don't find it worthwhile compared to spending their effort on other things despite how much they're complaining.

Very true. I would estimate that getting into top 20% (which actually is not necessarily the same as being rated an 8, because not uniform distribution, many more 5s than 10s out there) would, on average, require approximately the same time and financial commitment as getting a Master's Degree, and as with most things, the maintenance would be the bitch. I tend towards yo-yo-ing a good deal in this realm (maybe as much as from 3 to 8?), so I tend towards thinking of attractiveness as something I can have IFF I make the effort. It has also afforded me a good deal of insight into how people behave in relationship to me when I am having a Red Carpet success year vs. Red Carpet disaster year.

[Henry]

Many years ago I was walking down a Manhattan Street and lo and behold coming my way was Claudia Schiffer. Everyone stopped and stared. Claudia and I had open, non-occupied space between us and I kept walking so we would pass each other. As we came within feet of each other, my reaction surprised me. As I began to actually absorb the extent of her beauty, I burst out laughing. It was so transcendent, literally the Platonic ideal of beauty, as if no human being could possibly be more beautiful, more perfect, that it mocked everyone who observed it. There was no 1-10 in the face of it. It was qualitatively different. It was Helen of Troy walking amongst us. It was not mortal. Like Michael Jordan on a basketball court. We did not make eye contact but she was smiling and I like to believe that she appreciated my acknowledgement of the divide she created between herself and the rest of humanity.

I'm not sure I have a point, but I do believe the majority of people are within striking range of each other. Avoid the people who are discernibly out of your league as well those who are not but pretend they are and rest assured, you'll find someone willing to play hide the salam with you.

[chenda]

She did that famous advert back in the 90s for a Citroen. Apparently her fee for stripping off in it was so high it added hundreds of pounds to the cost of each car sold. There's a probably a relevant lesson in their somewhere but I can't quite grasp it right now.

[Henry]

Apparently her fee for stripping off in it was so high it added hundreds of pounds to the cost of each car sold. There's a probably a relevant lesson in their somewhere but I can't quite grasp it right now.

Gas, grass or ass. No one rides for free.

[okumurahata]

France is a truly beautiful country, but the major issue is that it’s filled with French cars.

[chenda]

Very true Henry.

It's interesting to speculate what cars people from history would have used today. Henry 8th would obviously have a fleet of land rovers, Jefferson would probably have enjoyed tinkering around with one of those home made kit cars, and Napoleon would go bombing around in one of those ridiculously oversized Hummer vehicles whilst sat on a pile of cushions.

Jesus of course would have just used a bike.

[guitarplayer]

France is a truly beautiful country, but the major issue is that it’s filled with French cars.

I think once I'd heard a more politically incorrect version of this joke. It must've been an English telling it.

[Jin+Guice]

Dissenting opinion:

Maybe I've been unclear... I am still talking about how ERE men attract women? The basic premise of this forum is that it is relatively easy to spend money at least 4 times as efficiently as the average. One must not possess some innate genetic ability to do so, one must only realize that average spending efficiency is laughably poor.

This is my argument for ERE men with dating. Your competition sucks. It is precisely because of the narrative that dating for men is difficult that it is easy.

I do not believe that women date only the top 20% of men. I do not believe the dating "market*" is dominated by a few star players.

*This argument is tricky bc, as has been noted upthread, "dating" can have several different goal outcomes from one-night stands to lifetime partnerships. Depending on your goal, competition will vary. Since the goal is undefined it's difficult for me to make a precise case.




The fact that being attractive requires some skill is why it is easy to be in the top 20%. The fact that it requires a small amount of skill and that most men do not put in effort is what makes achieving top 20% attractiveness easy. Bc not everyone is trying or even understands how to try. It is difficult to be in the top 20% of attractiveness among attractive men. It is not difficult to be in the top 20% of attractiveness among all men.

The common narrative is that women are only attracted to men with a lot of money. This narrative is also untrue and realizing that it is untrue represents another advantage. But this makes being in the top 20% of attractiveness among men easier because men do no believe attractiveness is as important as money and therefore don't compete on attractiveness as much. It should also be easy for an ERE man to get into the top 20% of income if he desires it (I do not recommend doing this to achieve dating success, merely pointing out top 20% of anything, but not everything, is relatively easy).


Presumably all one needs to do to be in the top 23% percent of men is not be overweight**. I'm aware that by definition this means for American men not being overweight is difficult. But again, this is ERE. Maintaining your body in a way that discourages the massive expensive of lifestyle diseases (also difficult to avoid for the majority of American men) should put you in the top 23% anyway. But if dating success is in your WoG, isn't it good news that getting into the top 20% (aim for 10% tho) is relatively easy and not much more difficult than maintaining minimum personal health?

**I'm focusing a lot on weight bc it's an easy metric to pull up. I've struggled with weight my whole life and I know how difficult it actually is to lose weight, so my apologies to anyone who is currently struggling with this. It is possible to be physically attractive while being overweight and it is possible to have success dating if you are not physically attractive, so if you are struggling with weight, don't wait to make other, faster easier improvements. Attractiveness is not the most important skill in any type of dating (social and emotional are) and improving attractiveness superficially through grooming and clothing is quicker and easier in most environments than improvement through fitness and diet.




Online dating should only expand your dating pool as it does not eliminate IRL options, but expands possibilities beyond them.

Tinder swipes are not indicative of preference. Men and women face different but complimentary challenges dating and this is reflected in online dating. It's not worthwhile for men to look at profiles when swiping bc the majority of "yes" choices will not be matches. The majority (or a significant enough minority) of women's' "yes" choices will be matches. Generally, in the initial stage of dating, women face a quality problem and men face a quantity problem. The IRL counterpart of a man's swipe is him approaching a women to start flirting with her and the IRL counterpart of a woman's swipe is her receptively flirting back.

Text based internet dating does still exist although it is less popular than app based dating.

I've done FIRE dating, but there was no one within 500 miles of me

App based dating (as with all other forms of dating) is its own skill. This is again a good thing bc it is relatively low-effort to become good at it, but the majority of people will not put in that effort. I agree that putting time into this skill will detract from other skills, but that begs the question whether dating success is part of your WoGs or not?

I'm again not sure why a group of people who value skill acquisition feel that differentiation through low-threshold skills is a downside?



To restate my thesis: There is a huge advantage to be had in dating because of asymmetric information. Thus it is more akin to spending efficiently than zero-sum games like the stock market. As with ERE or FIRE, step one is overcoming commonly held cultural narratives. This in itself will not improve your dating, but it will illuminate a pathway that shows you that success is achievable and that you aren't going to find that success by listening to and copying the average person.

[Western Red Cedar]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something? Is the assumption that the men are trying to sleep with the most attractive women they have ever met? I'm assuming their goal is to sleep with/ date/ marry someone they desire, which should make the pool of potential people very big. I agree that it is somewhat more difficult to sleep with the most attractive women.....

Aside from the fact that it is easy to get into the top 20% of attractiveness if you are a man, there is a ton of leverage to be had. Most men have terrible social/ emotional skills. It should again be easy to get into the top 20% (actually I think it is easy to get into the top 10%). Sex/ dating/ romance is highly emotional and people are famously bad at predicting what they want or will be attracted to.

It is my understanding that the 80/20 dynamic is a new observation in the dating world that specifically relates to contemporary, app-based online dating. Tinder is the most notorious, and IIRC they adjusted the format at some point to gamify the process and highlight aesthetics above everything else. There are tips and tricks to have a higher rate of matching success (like males posing with a dog ) but it still comes down to the impression one makes in a few seconds.

This removes the chance to sway someone with your sense of humor, intellect, or social/emotional skills as one might do at a bar, concert, yoga class, or poetry reading. If you are lucky enough to match, you might have an opportunity to do this via text, but that is a separate skillset IMO.

As a result, the majority of women are targeting the most attractive men, and a large cohort of males have little success in the dating world while a small cohort of attractive males have an abundance of choices. They could shift their strategy back to IRL scenes, but I've read that the cultural paradigm has shifted a bit among younger millennials and Gen Z, so that IRL flirtation is viewed with suspicion. Dates that result from matches often fizzle out quickly because each party is thinking of the wide pool of matches online, thinking of opportunity cost, and are less willing to compromise than they were in previous generations.

When you combine this paradigm with the fact that a large percentage of relationships previously met at work (perhaps more than half?), but that avenue is often off limits in the current cultural climate, you have a trickier dating scene.

With that said, I still think an ERE man can have success by following the advice of @J&G and others. Get in shape, become an interesting person, and put yourself in social situations where you may meet other like-minded people. I always had the most success as a single guy when I stopped looking for a girlfriend and was engaged in interesting life activities. A weird irony in my dating experience.

*ETA - posted this after seeing you addressed some of this in your recent post.

[chenda]

I think once I'd heard a more politically incorrect version of this joke. It must've been an English telling it.

In fairness, they do at least still make them.

[Western Red Cedar]

I believe that the stability in marriages can be attributed to the adaptability of human beings. To put it differently, everyone might desire the Ferrari, but you end up with the Toyota and still find contentment. In ERE terms, you'd likely sell the Ferrari and stash the funds in the bank. Nonetheless, most wouldn't turn down the opportunity for a Ferrari rosso.

To riff on this analogy a bit more, I'd think that a good portion of EREers and even the broader FIRE community would shy away from the Ferrari. Sure it looks fun at first glance, but on further thought it is actually high maintenance, impractical, and really expensive. I'd take the Toyota. Even better if it comes with high clearance.

Not to mention, most guys probably don't even know how to properly drive the Ferrari

[Jin+Guice]

@WRC:

Ah ok, Tinder changing its algorithm to bias the top 20% of profiles is something that I believe is happening. My suspicion is that competition is higher to get into the top 20% of profiles than the top 20% of attractiveness... but that it is also less time consuming than getting into decent physical shape. The majority of men's profiles are very bad.

I don't think that most people imagine all of the potential people online, because the perception is that the quality is low. I think what is happening is that people perceive a swipe or a match as a higher impact interaction than it is, partially due to intentional engineering on the part of the apps. Swiping on somewhat is barely above staring at them from across the room and getting a match is somewhere below getting a phone number. The dopamine hit from getting a match is very high though.

I actually think IRL flirting is easier now bc less people are doing it due to apps.

A lot of my friends had breakups during the pandemic and several of them tried app based dating for the first time. The number one predictor of success, as defined by the person dating, was attitude. Specifically, my friends who enjoyed every part of the process eventually found success and my friends who complained the whole time are still failing, regardless of gender.

[okumurahata]

Most mammals don’t have Tinder, and the same principle applies. The game changes, from offline to online, from seals to humans, but the principle remains the same. Females select from the pool of the top 20%, and then they might consider those below this level, but there is no guarantee they will do so.

In today’s world, where most dating starts online (via Tinder or through social media apps), profiles that are better curated, representing the top 20%, will have a considerable advantage. In the 19th century, perhaps the chosen were the best writers or the finest poets of that time. In the future, who knows what criteria one will need to meet to be in the top.

In conclusion, no matter how algorithms change, conditions change; if Tinder favors superficiality, if you can hack the algorithm to favor your profile, women would still choose the 20% best-perceived partner.

Just as I would recommend people to study Engineering or Computer Science, and be proficient in maths if they want to work in Tech, I would suggest people study what the top 20% most attractive people do to attract more women. Again, that doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s an indispensable requisite to have better chances in dating.

Finally, the difference I see between ERE and dating is that ERE is somewhat within your control. You save 300 times your monthly expenses and you’re set. Expenses and savings depend on you.

However, when it comes to dating, even if you believe you’re the perfect attractive partner, you might have some inherent flaws. For instance, if you’re a 1.65-meter man, you may never make it into the top 20%, no matter how much effort you apply.

[Henry]

When I was around Janice Ian age I had a girlfriend who had friends who were prom queen types. They'd get anything they want, quarterbacks, entrance into clubs etc. She was complaining about it which in retrospect was actually an insult to me but I'll deal with that later or better yet fucking never. I remember her saying it will always be like this and I didn't have a rebuttal. Now I do. Those girls are going to get old and run through like a hole in a border wall. Paulina Porzikova is still unequivocally beautiful but if she calls me up and says "Henry, I'm waiting for you" I'm going to be thinking maybe it's best to let that ship sail.

[Western Red Cedar]

Most mammals don’t have Tinder, and the same principle applies. The game changes, from offline to online, from seals to humans, but the principle remains the same. Females select from the pool of the top 20%, and then they might consider those below this level, but there is no guarantee they will do so.

In today’s world, where most dating starts online (via Tinder or through social media apps), profiles that are better curated, representing the top 20%, will have a considerable advantage. In the 19th century, perhaps the chosen were the best writers or the finest poets of that time. In the future, who knows what criteria one will need to meet to be in the top.

In conclusion, no matter how algorithms change, conditions change; if Tinder favors superficiality, if you can hack the algorithm to favor your profile, women would still choose the 20% best-perceived partner.

I'd argue that this happens with most other mammals because there is a strong association between physical dominance, and therefore the survival of offspring, in the top 20% of the mating selection. The calculation is different with humans.*

The podcasts I've recently heard on this topic argue that males still tend to prefer and value aesthetics highly in a female partner. It is at or near the top of the list when selecting potential mates. Females, on the other hand, are more likely to devalue physical looks for other traits that signal a partner will provide security and stability for herself and/or their children. In the modern world, this is likely something related to career or earning potential (intelligence, motivation, etc...). Though it could be other traits such as sensitivity, emotional intelligence, humor etc...

I don't deny that looks play a large role in human courtship, but it is difficult and more nuanced than the birds of paradise.

*Someone with a background in biology may be able to elaborate or correct me on this. I'm sure there are many examples in the animal kingdom where aesthetics aren't the only factor in the selection of a male mate.

[okumurahata]

I agree with you that women may prefer the traits you mentioned, but the key is that there’s a rigorous selection process. Consider that top men possess the qualities you mentioned along with an appealing physical appearance, which is why they’re at the top.

Intelligence, motivation, a successful career, earning potential are also signaled through via online profile. For instance, the process might go something like this: first filter, a woman sees your photo (if you’re not at the top, you’re out), second filter, she reads your profile (if she doesn’t see you as top-tier, you’re out), third filter, she engages in conversation with you (if she believes you don’t have earning potential, or a successful career, you’re out).

In reality (non-virtual environment), the sequence of filters may vary, but the outcome should remain consistent. If you falter at any stage of the evaluation process, you’re out.

It’s true that perhaps each filter carries a certain weight. For instance, you might be able to offset your looks or body shape with an exceptionally high earning potential. Conversely, you may not be particularly clever, but your physical appearance could be outstanding. The crucial point, once again, is that she sees you as being at the 80th percentile.

[ertyu]

I've read that the cultural paradigm has shifted a bit among younger millennials and Gen Z, so that IRL flirtation is viewed with suspicion.

It's not irl flirtation, it's the sleezy car salesman approach -- and pua's and their "craft" are very much at fault here. There's a difference between a relaxed, "hi, who are you, i'm curious about you, let's see if we'll hit it off and enjoy talking and hanging out" and approaching someone all strung out with only your needs and boner in mind, wondering how to manipulate them into "giving you sex," negging them cause some online dudebro told you to, and trying to direct the conversation towards sex because that's what would give you "bang for your buck." Just like with any other type of salesmanship, if you're only focused on manipulating the other into handing over what you want, people's hackles automatically go up, male or female

i know we rat on spending too much time online, but go online and see what women actually complain of when it comes to being approached irl.** it's men disregarding obvious signs she would rather be left alone (headphones in, etc), men intruding on people when they're in the middle of an engaged conversation, men being pushy despite a courteous and polite but curt response indicating no further interaction is desired, men being condescending ("you should smile more!") ... in other words, they complain of men being self-centered and completely disregarding the fact that they're dealing with human beings who exist in public for themselves (just like men do). Men ignore all that when they see an attractive body and are pushy like the puas told them. No matter your gender, would you have the time for someone completely self-centered who doesn't see you past what you could be doing for him/her? Most won't. I don't know why this is so surprising to people.

**my source is reddit, before it went to shit w the latest brouhaha