Reddit mentions of Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game

Some thoughts
One thing that got me thinking was his slide on the how and the why. Basically the chart looks like this:

Advice | Reason |
--------|-----------|
confidence | risk taking |
charisma | social hierarchy |
competence | provisions |
leadership | overall survival |

Talking to a stranger is risk taking. Having good charisma makes you seem higher up on the totem pole. Who gathered the most animals? A big question in women's hypergamous brain is who have the most provisions.

This got me to thinking about how I would develop social confidence? "The most important mark of confidence a man can do is to start a conversation with somebody... approach, approach, approach." (@~34:00)

So I brainstormed:

Advice | Reason | Action|
--------|------|--------|
confidence | risk taking | Approach
charisma | social hierarchy | Work in Bar/Meet Ups/ ...
competence | provisions | Job/Budgeting/Investing/show dangerous side...
leadership | overall survival | Get in Leadership Positions/Volunteer...

How feasible are the actions? Approaching can be done today by going outside, but I am [insert hamstering] and she is [hamstering]....

Here are the books he recommended @~40:18

1. A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the Internet Tells Us About Sexual Relationships
   
   Shows what men and women want.
   
   
2. Dataclysm
   
   
3. Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game
   
   
4. What's the most popular book for women? 50 shades... (a man taking charge is attractive and dominant)
   
   Advice:
   
   Become keen observers of human nature and behavior based on reality. One way is to take walks with your dog, sit at a cafe and eavesdrop on people on dates.
   
   He also recommended getting social history books and getting a book list together. Not sure if the list above is the list or a quick glimpse.
   
   Background:
   
   Man is dying. I saw him on reddit offering free advice and skype sessions before. I thought there may be a catch and I was insecure. Fast forward today I see him on the stage, I wish I have taken up the offer
   and am thinking about spending a day with him. Usually never have someone like that in my life, wonder about how a day with him would be like. Crowd in the room are tired and silencing his side jokes, but sometimes the
   crowd (or one person) comes alive and responds. I would of been stoic/quiet/beta (on and on) in the audience, but would fantasize about his points. At end no one seem to have questions so he have to probe the audience "anyone want to know about my eye patch?"
   
   questions around @48:00
   
   
5. your pickup line?
   
   
6. charisma and leadership?
   
   etc.

There was a study done on college campuses showing that "when men are in oversupply, the dating culture emphasizes courtship and monogamy. But when women are in oversupply—as they are today at most U.S. colleges and universities—men play the field and women are more likely to be treated as sex objects."

https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became-Lopsided-Numbers/dp/076118208X

I'm going to expand on this comment because I've read the book and I think the gender ratio is HUGELY important when discussing this topic. Here's a link to it.

> According to 2012 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, there are 5.5 college-educated women in the U.S, between the ages of 22 and 29 versus 4.1 million such men. In other words, the dating pool for college graduates in their twenties really does have 33 percent more women than men - or four women for every three men. Among college grads age 30 to 39, there are 7.4 million women versus 6.0 million men, which is five women for every four men. These lopsided gender ratios may add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women - especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock - they represent a demographic time bomb.

The book goes into more detail with almost an entire chapter on Manhattan itself, as the much larger gay and lesbian population in NYC skews the ratio even more than the national average.

> Gates's analysis helps explain why the Manhattan dating market feels so much tougher on heterosexual women than the raw population count implies. If 11 percent of the under-40 male population is gay and 1.5 percent of the under-40 female population is lesbian, that means Manhattan's man deficit among heterosexual, marriage-age, college grads is not smaller than the national average, but larger.

> Much larger.

> Subtract the estimated gay and lesbian population from Manhattan's total population count, and you wind up with a hetero dating pool with 39 percent more college-educated women than men age 22 to 29 - not 26 percent more. For the youngest college grads, the math is even gloomier ... For college grads age 22 to 29, removing the gay and lesbian population from the numbers pushes the over supply of women relative to men up from 39 percent to 54 percent - the equivalent of three women for every two men. And even these adjusted numbers may be too low, as gay men are more likely to be college educated than straight men, according to Gates.

Having such a ratio also changes the behavior of men in the city, making them less likely to settle down. There were studies on fish where they introduced more females than males to a population, and conversely more males than females. You can probably guess the results.

> Consider the behavior of pond cichlids, a species of fish that is typically momogamous during mating season. When zoologiest experimented with altering sex ratios in a controlled population of cichlids, even small manipulations had profound impacts on the male cichlids' likelihood of staying committed to their female mates.
>
> Increasing the ratio of male cichlids to females from 6:6 to 7:5 cut the male desertion rate in half - from 22 percent to 11 percent. It also rendered females choosier about males and made the successful male suitors more protective of their families. The end result was a kind of underwater patriarchy - one in which male cichlids fought each other for access to mates, jealously guarded their females after mating, and then, after the fry were born, made greater investments in parenting (be it through direct parenting effort or via the providing of resources such as food or protection)
>
> Some of these behavior patterns are surely quite familiar to anyone who has spent time in nightclubs, dive bars, or other spots where single men and women routinely socialize. Like the male cichlids, men get reflexively more protective of "their" women when more men enter the physical space.
>
> A more surprising finding from the animal studies involved what happened when sex ratios were manipulated to make the females more plentiful. Fro the cichlids, a decrease in male-to-female sex ratios from 6:6 to 5:7 yielded a hugely disproportionate behavioral response. Male desertion rates more than doubled - from 22 percent to 51 percent. In other words, a seemingly small shift in the female share of the cichlid population transformed the prevailing mating culture from one of monogamy to one of polygyny, which is males mating with multiple females but females mating with only one male. "Males increasingly deserted their mates and the young in their care as the opportunity to re-mate increased in their environment," wrote Mart Gross, a University of Toronto zoology professor, in an article published in 2005.
>
> Presumably male cichlids do no act this way out of piscine malice or misogyny. They do it because it is biologically rational. A goal for males of all species is to pass along their genes to the next generation. When sex ratios are balanced or are lopsided in favor of more males, males have a strong genetic incentive to stick with their original mates and to actively participate in the care and protection of young. When females are more abundant, however, the mating game shifts in favor of the male having multiple broods. Even if one or more broods are abandoned by the male and left vulnerable to predators, the male cichlid is still likely to produce more offspring overall. In such an environment, male reproductive strategies tend to emphasize mating effort at the expense of parenting effort, simply because the value of monogamy declines as the ratio of males to females declines. In nature, when females are plentiful, natural selection favors those males that mate with more than one female.

I could cite the book all day but seriously, go read it. There are other cities that don't have as much of a gender disparity and where you'll have a statistically better chance of finding a boyfriend (like the bay area for example). I mean who knows, maybe you'll get lucky here?

...maybe.

Yeah, but the guy in the article also wrote a book and did a lot of studies for it based on economics. The article you linked was based on surveys, so essentially it's just anecdotal evidence too. Why trust one set of anecdotes aver another?

> Simply put, the less women need to rely on men for financial stability, the more they can focus on other qualities in a partner

I'm not denying this, but it does still seem like women will not drop their own hypergamous drives when it comes to things like education level and money. They might marry a man who makes the same as them and is similarly educated, but most don't want to marry down. Essentially, their preference is to mate up and across the dominance hierarchy but never down, whereas men will mate across and down.

Believe it or not, male behavior and attitudes towards women (and vice versa) is largely defined by the demographics of their environment. In places where women outnumber men, men tend to be more interested in sex than romance, they want sex sooner, they're more aggressive in pursuing it, and they're quicker to use & discard female partners. This also applies in reverse to environments where men outnumber women (see rates of female partner infidelity on military bases, and how monogamous men tend to be at male-majority STEM colleges vs. what players they tend to be at female-majority liberal arts colleges).

I highly recommend the book Date-onomics, it's fascinating how much our environment shapes our romantic and sexual goals and standards.

I'd recommend you check out Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game so that you keep it fresh!

NYC is actually one of the worst dating markets for women since there is an oversupply of them.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/076118208X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486447780&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=how+dating+became+a+lopsided&dpPl=1&dpID=51Lx1JaOMfL&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became-Lopsided-Numbers/dp/076118208X

Ultimately, move to a place that has a high ratio of men to women. Whoever is in the minority gets to set the terms for what they want. Women on average appear to want long term commitment.

Source: Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076118208X/