snog toddgrass's Shortform

11 comments, sorted by Highlighting new comments since Today at 6:05 AM
New Comment

Preregister a Tinder Randomized Control Tiral:

In a previous post I suggested that early in a relationship hetero women prefer men who show only slight interest. I argued the optimal early dating strategy is to show only as much interest as she does and cultivate a state of "Is he into me or does he just want to be friends". This RCT is intended to test the theoretical issue, and advise future Tinder and Bumble policy specifically.

Method:

I will randomly select Tinder/Bumble matches to receive disinterested, low-energy messages and the rest will receive control messages. Matches will be split by flipping a coin. My swiping will continue as normal, as the algorithm is weird about it. The target sample size is 20.

The control group will receive my usual messages (Todd's). They begin with a comment on a mutual interest or interesting fact about the person from their profile. If I see nothing interesting on their profile, I will introduce a topic I would like to talk about. Average message length is 3-5 lines, and double messages are common. Control group will occassionally receive emogis and exclamation points as an expression of interest. This is my regular texting style. After 6-7 messages I will invite the person to a coffee date. Ghosters will receive a second, in-character message on an unrelated topic after 48 hours.

I altered the treatment variable on advice from a colleague.

  • In the treatment case I only write messages that can be responded to in 5 seconds.
  • Never use exclamation points or emojis
  • Steer the conversation to something vaguely praiseworthy about the other person. Reward them for the statement. Try to repeat that a couple times. Only reward attributes that are plausibly praiseworthy, do not reward just similar attributes "that's so cool, we both like Chinese food"
  • Respond to messages as quickly as possible but never respond when you lack time for a full conversation

Removed all standardization of response time

Analysis:

Control and treatment will be compared on the following four variables: number of first responses, number of total responses, number of coffeedates, and number of ghostings.

Edited because I changed the treatment on advice from a colleague.

Changelog

  • removed all discussion or response time, I just respond as quickly as possible when I can have a conversation (never during work hours)
  • big changes to treatment variable
  • I can't reward people for religious statements because I am too athiest, other than that the rewarding is going well
  • Replacing control group with my previous messages to save time

I wrote a blog post on this topic - https://textgameformen.com/2014/04/08/gradually-figure-out-that-she-meets-your-high-standard/

But anyway, this little optimization is nothing compared to a deep toolbag of conversation skills you could employ. Feel free to DM me for more specific advice.

Update on day 3 - I altered the treatment variable on advice from a colleague. In the treatment case I only write messages that can be responded to in 5 seconds. Steer the conversation to something vaguely praiseworthy about the other person. Reward them for the statement. Try to repeat that a couple times

For the control group I just use my old tinder convos, that's easier.

So far the results show massive increases in response rates. I'm stunned.

So the biggest change was to make wayyy simpler questions. I'm like... mad at myself for not noticing that earlier. But also like, if someone ghosts you have no idea why, so...

At least we know reductionism is a good philosophy. Occams razor: because it works.

Forecast- Conditional on the results being conclusive - 2:1 odds in favor of Aloof Alfie

The problem with mansplaining -

Why do men mansplain and why do people (particularly women) hate it? People sometimes struggle to articulate what mansplaining is and why they dislike it, but I'm surely not the discoverer of this argument.

Recently I was talking to a colleage during a strategy game session. He said "You are bad because you made these mistakes" and I said "yes I am bad at these aspects of the game. Alsol, you should have invested more into anti-aircraft guns". He immediately began repeating a list of mistakes I had made, as evidence that his investment in AA was optimal. But I have seen the AA formula so I made a technical argument for strong AA in the late game. He stepped back and said "Well you were trashtalking me so I had to...".

Then I realized that we were not explaining the game to one another or discussing the best build. We were really having a dominance fight, through vaguely technical arguments. Once you realize that men do this, you see it fairly often. Recently I said that transaction costs were built into the bitcoin code from the beginning, and a friend argued back that only third party exchanges charge transaction fees. It took me a while to prove him wrong because the content was about dominance, not about bitcoin[1].

Meanwhile I've been learning to flirt with women. Originally I though that you cannot disagree with a women while flirting, since it is a dominance play ala man world. But actually you can disagree in a non-conflictive way. For example, on Tinder I asked a women what she reads, and she said "I don't think reading indicates intelligence or curiosity". I responded by saying "I accept the argument on intelligence, but I expect curiosity and reading are correlated. Otherwise would be too surprising". I have found this type of disagreement actually gets a longer response (signal of interest). My theory is that the qualified disagreement shows intelligence, status and social intelligence.


1 - To his credit, he eventually accepted the technical argument

We were really having a dominance fight, through vaguely technical arguments. Once you realize that men do this, you see it fairly often.

This is a great observation! But, as often happens in political debates, "mansplaining" is a motte-and-bailey term, which could mean the thing you just described, or it could mean "a man tried to say something", or anything in between, depending on who used it and in which context.

Also, it is not an exclusively male behavior, despite the name. I have no strong opinion on whether it is a mostly male behavior, because I assume that most female dominance fights happen out of my sight, for various reasons. But I am pretty sure I have seen women fighting for dominance using supposedly factual arguments a few times.

Originally I though that you cannot disagree with a women while flirting, since it is a dominance play ala man world. But actually you can disagree in a non-conflictive way.

Depends on whether the specific woman finds dominance attractive. And that probably also depends on the type/degree of dominance, her mood, and how well you know each other. Yes, this "partially agree, partially disagree" strategy seems like the golden middle way between being disagreeable and boring.

I agree with all of those points.

Depends on whether the specific woman finds dominance attractive. And that probably also depends on the type/degree of dominance, her mood, and how well you know each other. Yes, this "partially agree, partially disagree" strategy seems like the golden middle way between being disagreeable and boring.

I think many women, perhaps a majority, find a more dominant man attractive. Basically ensure any fact-based dominance display doesn't make the other person feel stupid. Good rule for lots of interactions.

With a term like mansplaining that's used in quite different scopes by different people it would be helpful to start with a more clear definition before going into why people do it. 

True. I should rephrase my thesis "What people often mean when they say "mansplaining" is explanations which are intended to express dominance rather than to mutually arrive at better understanding".

[+][comment deleted]5mo 1