|
DarkSteven -> RE: Professor's View On Dating Sites Odds (3/11/2014 4:33:00 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LorraineCA
I'm taking several classes, mostly in Law Enforcement and Sociology. One of the sociology classes touches on the subject of online dating.
Many men believe that women have better odds then men on dating sites.
1. For example, John can send 30 emails and receive 0 responses while a Jane will receive 30 emails.
2. So Jane has the opportunity to meet 30 different men whereas John won't be able to meet anyone.
3. Jane has better odds than John in meeting people.
This is what the Professor had to say, well, at least how I interpret it. And this is just one of the reasons. Let's say both John and Jane are two mature adults who aren't that interested in the physical, but rather, the personality. They are looking for someone who listens, understands, comprehends and knows how to communicate. It's important to them that the other person expresses their feelings and they are honest and faithful.
1. More women than men are more than likely to have these qualities.
2. So if John actually met 100 different women he would find women who have these qualities.
3. If Jane met 100 different men the odds are she wouldn't meet any man with those qualities.
Generally speaking, and although not all true, most men who have these qualities are probably already in a relationship and one wouldn't find him on a dating site. In other words, not all men on dating sites lack these qualities, but more women have them than men on dating sites. I hope I'm making myself clear.
I was curious how many people would agree with this, or disagree, or would add to it.
Makes no sense.
1. He said "women have better odds than men on sites." I agree. But then he first made up numbers to back up his theory instead of using actual numbers. Also, he defined success at getting initial messages and responses. I would suggest that a better criterion would be "meeting someone for three or more dates with that person."
2. The assumption is that the people in question are all single, mono, and straight, and looking for relationships. No allowance is made for people in existing relationships looking for a third or to cheat, for gays and lesbians, or for people just wanting a quick shag.
3. He ignored that some sites self-select. For example, Alt has ads on the other side of cm, showing young, attractive women in various states of undress, and disclosing in microscopic letters that those aren't photos of actual members. Alt has also given a guarantee that you will get laid within three months of getting a paid membership. AshleyMorgan.com has been accused of making fake profiles of beautiful women to drive men to the site. In short, some sites deliberately make it more difficult to get a suitable match, in order to drive men (who pay more) to the site.
If the study were to have value, what I'd like to see is a breakdown of the steps involved:
1. Initial contact success. If initiating, what percent of first messages are replied to positively? If receiving, what percent of initial contacts look promising? (How are ridiculous ones filtered out? For example, as a man, 90% of my received initial messages are obvious fakes calling me Master, from scammers.) The true value would be in finding out what factors - suitability of message and profile - will influence those ratios.
2. Success at moving from initial contact to an actual meeting. What are success factors in so doing?
3. Success at meeting a second time. Was the other person as advertised? if not, what was it? Undisclosed wife/husband? Pic not reflective of reality? Bad conversationalist? Or just no chemistry?
|
|
|
|
