View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelExit/comments/1f1mxh5/what_women_really_want/
Lets take a look in here
65,000 women and only 2000 men participated in this survey? Seems pretty skewed but ok. Also, they never mention where they found (in the original pdf) their target
audience to participate in this survey. (Important, will get back to this)
How irresistible! I cant blame them
From the original post:
A tangent: The coined term 'dad bod' means nothing at all. Most men without any intention have "dad bods". If you are way below or above average in being fat or skinny, you do not fall in the category of 'dad bod' (or very obviously hit the gym, swole).
Everyone calls both of these 'dad bods' without questioning the term
I am sick of it THIS, this is what they see the average body type as. A normal white man with a semi-athletic build, in plain, good fitting clothes.
Not the 50 year old, out of shape truck driver physique they're peddling as "dad bod"
Here is where it gets interesting
So that's settled it! We've been proven wrong all along
Guess I must have secretly been a chad with an awful personality this entire time.Now here is where I wished both graphs had the same metrics. Why would they leave out obviously important information for (physical) attraction, choosing to use different metrics?
At this point I decided to do some digging because something was not adding up.
I came upon more details on here: https://osf.io/bnjfh
From their own description of the study and its main purpose:
Research Questions:
1. Ideal partner preferences.
1.1. How is the intention to become a parent linked to the preference for a partner’s intention to become a parent?
1.2. How is the intention to become a parent linked to preferences for kindness and supportiveness (~warmth-trustworthiness)?
1.3. How is the intention to become a parent linked to preferences for attractiveness (~vitality-attractiveness)?
1.4. Is the link between intention to become a parent and preferences for attractiveness (~vitality-attractiveness) moderated by gender?
1.5. How is the intention to become a parent linked to preferences for financial security and successfulness (~status-ressources)?
1.6. Is the link between intention to become a parent and preferences for financial security and successfulness (~status-ressources) moderated by gender?
It is established on the registry that they are for the intention to gain insight on those partner's preferences . On the original pdf posted on reddit there aren't any indications that that was the original intent of the study and answers given on the graphs. Mind you that OP never brought it up once, but I think that was a tremendous oversight for the conclusions they're trying to make.
I'm seriously starting to question how valid these numbers really are
Surely to get an accurate representation it would be important to take both into account, right? Especially short term Whatever then. And these 2000 men you ask?Of the men who did participate, they were guaranteed to be mostly chads who routinely got laid enough to the point they regularly bought custom fucking condoms
So, why does kindness score the highest of them all in this survey?
This is very important to note. Guys, which of these would you pick if you had to raise a child for 18 years? A 9/10 who makes it very obvious, deliberately or not, that they have PLENTY of options available to them, simps, chads, everything in-between. Or a 6/10 who is loyal, helps out, loves spending time with you and is generally nicer to be around.
In effect, these are the two options most women have available to them currently.
This is why I think they opted to use the word 'kind'. And we already know women are extremely selective with looks so them choosing someone 'kind' is essentially them playing their bargaining chip when they realize, "this is it, It can't get any better then this", and choose settling down.
Overall there are far too many discrepancies that reveal themselves when a study/survey is done this way. If people say they preferred other qualities over others on a survey format, that doesn't necessarily mean the absence of those other qualities (base level attraction) would indicate that that is what they explicitly look for in a partner. Moreover in the context of the article and the IncelExit post, they are extrapolating far too much information than there is in this to properly go off of in a coherent manner.
Not to mention that they mostly want everything deemed as good in a "short term partner" anyways, and on top of that, they use different metrics for the LTR graph. This effectively makes whatever they were asking useless if the intent of the questions were solely for finding LTR's and STR's (which is why it was never intended to be perceived the way the article and reddit post made it seem to in the first place
).To put into perspective, the study is about as useful as trying to pair people based on their preference of alcoholic drinks and measuring how much they enjoy the beverage, as a way to as a way to positively correlate relationship compatibility with. Obviously those of us on here know how silly that sounds
, but we cant fault redditors and normies for thinking otherwise. The study in a way feels as if it is trying to undermine how attraction ultimately plays a role in the deciding factor for partnerships by deliberately excluding better, more definitive terms over general ones.
This unintentionally led me down a rabbit hole of Partner preference related paper/s.
Ideal partner preference Mechanism | Mechanism Description | Mechanism example | Possible explanation for A ↔ B effect | Possible explanation for A × B → C effect
| 1. Assortative mating plus self- enhancement | People with popular traits pair up and my own traits affect my ideals. | Attractive people get to date other attractive people due to market forces (i.e., assortative mating). Unrelatedly, attractive people also think attractiveness is an ideal trait because it characterizes them (i.e., self-enhancement). | Yes | No |
| 2. Passive ideal change | The people around me affect my ideals. | Highly educated people are surrounded by other highly educated people. This causes them to (a) value education as an ideal and(b) meet and date highly educated people. | Yes | No |
| 3. Motivated ideal change | My partner affects my ideals. | My partner is ambitious, which motivates me to value ambition in an ideal partner | Yes | No |
| 4. Perceiver effects | My ideals affect the way I see the people around me. | I think warmth is important in an ideal partner and I generally think people (including my partner) are warm. | Yes | No |
| 5. Motivated projection | My ideals affect the way I see my partner. | I think intelligence is important in an ideal partner and so I am motivated to believe my partner is intelligent. | Yes | No |
| 6. Situation evaluation and selection | I select environments filled with people who do (vs. do not)match my ideals. | I ideally want a partner who is humorous, so I join a comedy group rather than a musical group. Thus, I am more likely to meet and date humorous people. | Yes | No |
| 7. Partner evaluation and selection | I positively evaluate and select partners who do (vs. do not)match my ideals. | I ideally want a partner who is adventurous, so I am more likely to positively evaluate and select partners if they are adventurous. | Yes | Yes |
The paper itself has further statistical analysis, but the TL;DR is this: Ideal partner preference hypothesis in itself is a very flawed way of scraping data, because as mentioned before, there are multiple factors at play into why someone decides to get into a relationship that aren't overtly clear from get-go. The paper in this case argues from a psychological standpoint.
This helps put to rest the le
personality cope our friends on IT love to throw around so much. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQq__D8C5e0
In a crude attempt to takedown the blackpill, they inadvertently steel manned it
Additional Resources:
Ideal Partner Preferences —
pauleastwick.com
