A different look on online dating, superficial women.
(you either will or wont be interested)
I've done these before, and its why I love psychology.
You can manipulate one perceived minor detail, than have an ENORMOUS change in feedback/response in this case from women. (than you realize its actually a major detail)
And I'll prob be doing my final research project on something in the realm of mate selection but this is what I do in my spare time when I'm bored cause I'm a dork.
I'm not showing the profiles because I'm not done yet. But I have 2 profiles, both the same town, same site, a lot of pretty much everything was matched between the men except for ONE detail. I stabilize the profiles (won't waste time describing the process) than the detail gets changed AFTER the response rates are the same (from stabilizing)
And its amazing how HUGE of a difference this detail made.
And sometimes its fvckn crazy to see how certain things will drive women in like they have no control over themselves. (more than a couple of women were hinting at sex from the first response)
But the detail was EYE COLOR and resolution.
The control picture was different in 2 ways.
It had a much lower resolution, to the point where sharp features of the eye (light sparkle, shine, color sharpness, etc) were dulled. Not blurry, just dull.
The color was also manipulated, the control eye was dull and brown, the manipulated was sharp and blue.
Everything else was as constant as possible.
The results.
I haven't rated the attraction of the women responders, but on average I'd say 7 out of every 10 were sexable (laymans terms)
Only because the constants were of an already attractive male variable.
The crazy part is this.
Photo one, did not get ONE SINGLE message from even ONE woman.
I was shocked and appalled. Because initial experiments had been showing that the most attractive men got the most response. (women are extremely superficial, you will learn)
But now its moving into a more genetic variation system. (women want to breed to variate their genes as much as possible)
Anyway the results.
In one week - Brown blurry eyes = no messages
In one week - Blue sharp eyes = ***52*** messages.
Thats a MAJOR fvckn difference, more than significant.
I knew there would be a difference, and certain variables you expect a difference, but thats astounding to me.
Profile 2 has 3 pages of messages, profile 1 has none.
The other thing I was noticing was the "whos viewed me" part.
BOTH profiles were getting a lot of profile views (no way to calculate after a few days) but its like after the women clicked in and saw the eyes for some reason all the women decided to leave the profile with the brown dull eyes.
Mind you this isn't even something you'd be concious of looking at the pictures. Its not apparent to the point where you say "gzz those are really boring eyes", they just look like avg brown eyes if anything.
Profile 2 they were sparkly and blue. So that little detail and color change apparently makes a huge difference for some reason.
Also for the record.
I'd say 50% of the women complimented the eyes directly.
This is the funny part.
Both profiles I listed the profession as "garbage man".
There was a good deal of women actually writing "well I was reading your profile and really like what I saw".
Like? LIKE?! wtf?
When garbage man is like the first thing you see on it.
But it made me realize what women really mean when they say that, it should be 2 disconnected sentences.
1) I was reading your profile.
2) I like what I SAW.
Which means to me they hadn't actually read shit at all, they just think looking and reading mean the same thing. If men think with their penis, than women must think with their eyes.
