As for the rest, potential apophenia on raw numbers of plausible candidates. being around more candidates makes you get less target focused, sure, but it also gives you many more lottery tickets on every other dimension whether legible, illegible, optimized or no.
That is a strong counter explanation for the one summer 2019 observation. So really there were three candidates on that hike, and maybe 8 others the rest of the summer.
The stronger evidence probs comes from when people lose interest (the timing). Basically, right after you double text people often stop responding. But hard to be mathematical about the timing. Hmmm.
This “but” is nonsensical. Try “My friend has childhood issues that cause her to only semi consciously prefer aloof and unavailable men.”
I agree the line is bad. What I mean is her explanation felt like a rationalization and a just-world explanation. Like “If I was healthy, then I would only want to date men I expect to treat me well”. A simpler explanation is that women prefer guys that are a bit unavailable at first. But this is a tangent.
I want to reject people’s rationalizations of their behavior. But doing so makes me a dick. Have not figured that one out yet.
Thank you for the criticisms. Helps me make better arguments.
Thanks for the serious engagement with my argument, I have updated off of it! That’s awesome!
I should better explain my goals. My goal is not being perfectly attractive to every women, just to attracting more women/year. While lots of behaviors may appeal to types of women, picking the behaviors that work most often requires less updating and data and work. I want marginal gains, not perfection.
Secondly, I have trouble getting a first or second date. I tend to keep em after the third date. I doubt my particular problem is in validation, which probably dominates the later stages of relationships. If I start being more aloof and teasing more and I get tons of first dates, but no 3rd dates, then I will revisit your advice.
For a long time I understood dating by assuming people are instrumentally rational and coming up with complicated arguments to explain their behavior. I no longer use that strategy because people will rationalize any behavior they make. Revealed preferences predict future behavior, not rationalizations. I expect better predictions by building the simplest toy models that do not require complicated reasoning or non-hyperbolic discounting.
Perhaps some people do like “picky cats that pick them” and this causes their behavior. I doubt it strongly determines first date choices. Basically, I don’t think the picky-cats argument really turns women on. If I notice 3rd date attrition I will update and revisit the validation component.
Yes strong emotions do cause people to bond. There could be some niche strategies there. I would love to hear your ideas!
Yes being unavailable is one of many strategies. My experiences suggest that a reasonable does of unavailability is the most effective strategy in most cases for engendering initial romantic interest. There are lots of examples of people being not aloof and succeeding (I’ve done it several times). They are just less common. I can make marginal gains by being more aloof.
Also, I come on really strong when I like someone. Because I am on an extreme of the spectrum, being marginally more aloof seems safe.
My plan
I will experiment more with being unavailable. If this behavior is hard to change, I will just work on other stuff.
After I get good at teasing I will study other ways of causing strong emotions.
Edit: All edits straight outta Stunk & White