Last weekend I found Roissy's test designed to help men self-assess their dating value to women. I can't dispute that the guy knows his stuff, but by essentially giving each item an equal weighting, the scoring scale is less useful than it could potentially be. So on the basis of physical attractiveness, you're a 1, but the Hollister model standing next to you, who is a 10, tells the woman he's talking to that he has to use the restroom, while you just turn away from the one you're shooting it with in mid-conversation and go. According to the Roissy scale, all other things equal, the two of you are equally desirable in female eyes.
That is absurd, of course. Digressing, I can't believe simply walking away to use the restroom in mid-conversation is ever your best move--would it not be taken as a response to anxiety, the need for a private moment to regain your composure? I've actually been in that exact situation fairly recently. I told her to "wait here", and then went to relieve myself. When I came back, her mild curiosity and expectancy was met with an inconspicuous but relieved "whew" as I was a few paces away and then "okay, so you were telling me about your visit to Niagra Falls..." The response was good.
I've been a prickly skeptic of the game phenomenon not because I think it is fundamentally flawed, but because it is oversold. Confidence, assertiveness, wittiness, smooth operating, creating sexual tension both verbally and non-verbally, and everything else involved in game, ceteris paribus, raise a man's desirability. Roissy gives an estimate of 1-3 points worth. That sounds reasonable if a bit ambitious on the high-end, the gain depending on one's level of confidence to begin with.
To the extent that I disagree with him, it's in not seeing how he squares this with his ranking of game as being of greater importance than physical attractiveness. In addition to the restroom question, there are eight other scenario situations. Thus it appears that game is nearly an order of magnitude as important as physical attractiveness is for men. If you're doppleganger of Robert Pattinson, unless you are an extraordinarily agoraphobic mess, you're not going to have trouble running circles around witty, self-confident guys with crooked, crisco-infused faces and gorilla-hairy arms.
Tangentially, to gauge one's level of attractiveness, he suggests using the site HotOrNot.com. I created a profile there a few days ago and began rating people. I was immediately struck by how inflated the scores are. After giving someone a rating, you are shown that person's average score from all ratings she's received up to that point. After rendering judgment on 100 or so ladies, I was without exception always harsher than the stated average, but the mean score I dispensed was probably 6.0-6.5, which is presumably a bit overly generous (it's a scale of 1-10, after all).
It seems as though the site's scale as it actually exists is 5-10, not 1-10. I googled "hot or not score inflation" and the like to try to figure out if there are bots at work or the site intentionally filters out low scores but didn't turn anything insightful up, only a few people making similar observations. The picture I posted has now accumulated 52 ratings for an average of 9.9 and the caption "You are hotter than 99% of the men on this site!" It's a decent though candid shot taken by a friend, not dressed up by a professional photographer or anything, and I wasn't hit by the ugly stick as many times as I could've been in the womb, but I'm not model-caliber. Does anyone know why HotOrNot scores are so inflated? The women who spend time rating male photos surely tend to be on the lower end of the looks scale, but that alone is unlikely to be a full explanation.
Since this is already dripping in self-indulgence, AE's responses and score on the Roissy test:
1. Age: 26-34 yo (+1)
2. Height: 6' to 6'4" (+1)
3. BMI: 24.1 to 27.0 (0)
4. Bench: 81% to 170% of body weight (+1)
5. Hairline: Full, under 35 yo (0)
6. Income: Over $70k, under 40 yo (+1)
7. Car: Have one, over 21 yo (0)
8. Looks: HotOrNot aside, I'm going to say 5-7, not 8-10 (0)
9. Sports: Played leading role (+1)
10. Occupation: Neutral status (0)
11. Friends: 20+ (+1)
12. Friends via internet: over 2 (a proud -1, thanks to those who comment regularly here!)
13. Last house party: Less than a year ago (0)
14. Funny: Nearly everyone who knows me (+1)
15: IQ: 130 to 145 (0)
16. At party: I approach first (+1)
17. Fight: Never been in one (0)
18: Arrested: No (0)
In the interest of space, just the scores for the scenario questions:
19. +1
20. 0
21. +1
22. 0
23. -1
24. +1
25. +1
26. 0
27. +1
+11, which means I don't even get a label. I've not spent much time in bars, so I'm not sure how accurate the description is.
That is absurd, of course. Digressing, I can't believe simply walking away to use the restroom in mid-conversation is ever your best move--would it not be taken as a response to anxiety, the need for a private moment to regain your composure? I've actually been in that exact situation fairly recently. I told her to "wait here", and then went to relieve myself. When I came back, her mild curiosity and expectancy was met with an inconspicuous but relieved "whew" as I was a few paces away and then "okay, so you were telling me about your visit to Niagra Falls..." The response was good.
I've been a prickly skeptic of the game phenomenon not because I think it is fundamentally flawed, but because it is oversold. Confidence, assertiveness, wittiness, smooth operating, creating sexual tension both verbally and non-verbally, and everything else involved in game, ceteris paribus, raise a man's desirability. Roissy gives an estimate of 1-3 points worth. That sounds reasonable if a bit ambitious on the high-end, the gain depending on one's level of confidence to begin with.
To the extent that I disagree with him, it's in not seeing how he squares this with his ranking of game as being of greater importance than physical attractiveness. In addition to the restroom question, there are eight other scenario situations. Thus it appears that game is nearly an order of magnitude as important as physical attractiveness is for men. If you're doppleganger of Robert Pattinson, unless you are an extraordinarily agoraphobic mess, you're not going to have trouble running circles around witty, self-confident guys with crooked, crisco-infused faces and gorilla-hairy arms.
Tangentially, to gauge one's level of attractiveness, he suggests using the site HotOrNot.com. I created a profile there a few days ago and began rating people. I was immediately struck by how inflated the scores are. After giving someone a rating, you are shown that person's average score from all ratings she's received up to that point. After rendering judgment on 100 or so ladies, I was without exception always harsher than the stated average, but the mean score I dispensed was probably 6.0-6.5, which is presumably a bit overly generous (it's a scale of 1-10, after all).
It seems as though the site's scale as it actually exists is 5-10, not 1-10. I googled "hot or not score inflation" and the like to try to figure out if there are bots at work or the site intentionally filters out low scores but didn't turn anything insightful up, only a few people making similar observations. The picture I posted has now accumulated 52 ratings for an average of 9.9 and the caption "You are hotter than 99% of the men on this site!" It's a decent though candid shot taken by a friend, not dressed up by a professional photographer or anything, and I wasn't hit by the ugly stick as many times as I could've been in the womb, but I'm not model-caliber. Does anyone know why HotOrNot scores are so inflated? The women who spend time rating male photos surely tend to be on the lower end of the looks scale, but that alone is unlikely to be a full explanation.
Since this is already dripping in self-indulgence, AE's responses and score on the Roissy test:
1. Age: 26-34 yo (+1)
2. Height: 6' to 6'4" (+1)
3. BMI: 24.1 to 27.0 (0)
4. Bench: 81% to 170% of body weight (+1)
5. Hairline: Full, under 35 yo (0)
6. Income: Over $70k, under 40 yo (+1)
7. Car: Have one, over 21 yo (0)
8. Looks: HotOrNot aside, I'm going to say 5-7, not 8-10 (0)
9. Sports: Played leading role (+1)
10. Occupation: Neutral status (0)
11. Friends: 20+ (+1)
12. Friends via internet: over 2 (a proud -1, thanks to those who comment regularly here!)
13. Last house party: Less than a year ago (0)
14. Funny: Nearly everyone who knows me (+1)
15: IQ: 130 to 145 (0)
16. At party: I approach first (+1)
17. Fight: Never been in one (0)
18: Arrested: No (0)
In the interest of space, just the scores for the scenario questions:
19. +1
20. 0
21. +1
22. 0
23. -1
24. +1
25. +1
26. 0
27. +1
+11, which means I don't even get a label. I've not spent much time in bars, so I'm not sure how accurate the description is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment