I guess my tentative actionable conclusion is that I need to aim for men who are either older, or bad-looking or doing poorly in their career despite still being intellectuals. Some kind of penniless artist types, maybe? Not sure where to find those...
FWIW, I think that you may get more mileage from a) self-improvement and b) numbers, than from targeting low status men. While there is a correlation between status and standards, it is an imperfect correlation, so for every point you lower your standards I’d expect the men will lower theirs by less than a point. Now, if there’s a niche of guys that you in particular value more than most women, that is probably a win.
Self-improvement seems superior to lowering standards because a) it actually improves—if everyone did this everyone would have better options, b) because of the imperfect correlation, every point of improvement likely opens up options more than a point higher on your preference scale, and c) many of the things that raise your romantic value also raise your own quality of life.
Ok, self improvement is better, but obviously there are limits to how much you can improve, so then don’t you need to lower your standards? Not necessarily (outside of having niche preferences as mentioned). In many cases, numbers may be a better strategy. You see a guy, who is out of your league. You can a) lower your standards or b) see if he likes you anyway. Human attraction is complex and the model of a 10-point single dimension scale is just so we can conceptualize things easier, not a reflection of reality. There’s a decent chance you hit the right combination of traits/dynamics with him. Now, at some point, you’ll be maxing your self-improvement and maxing your numbers and leveraging your niche preferences, and yes, lowering standards is what is left, but I think that self improvement and numbers have higher ceilings than many people realize. Most people, especially women, don’t consider just trying to flirt with every single guy in the place, which is ironic since this is a much better strategy for women, given how much more quickly men can generally determine whether they are interested.
FWIW, I think that you may get more mileage from a) self-improvement and b) numbers, than from targeting low status men. While there is a correlation between status and standards, it is an imperfect correlation, so for every point you lower your standards I’d expect the men will lower theirs by less than a point. Now, if there’s a niche of guys that you in particular value more than most women, that is probably a win.
Self-improvement seems superior to lowering standards because a) it actually improves—if everyone did this everyone would have better options, b) because of the imperfect correlation, every point of improvement likely opens up options more than a point higher on your preference scale, and c) many of the things that raise your romantic value also raise your own quality of life.
Ok, self improvement is better, but obviously there are limits to how much you can improve, so then don’t you need to lower your standards? Not necessarily (outside of having niche preferences as mentioned). In many cases, numbers may be a better strategy. You see a guy, who is out of your league. You can a) lower your standards or b) see if he likes you anyway. Human attraction is complex and the model of a 10-point single dimension scale is just so we can conceptualize things easier, not a reflection of reality. There’s a decent chance you hit the right combination of traits/dynamics with him. Now, at some point, you’ll be maxing your self-improvement and maxing your numbers and leveraging your niche preferences, and yes, lowering standards is what is left, but I think that self improvement and numbers have higher ceilings than many people realize. Most people, especially women, don’t consider just trying to flirt with every single guy in the place, which is ironic since this is a much better strategy for women, given how much more quickly men can generally determine whether they are interested.