Education + Income correlation, with "likes" in online dating interest. A study from 2022.

eduardkoopman

eduardkoopman

Sub-Mod
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Posts
22,463
Reputation
28,093

summary
"In every nation, a person’s resource-acquisition ability was positively associated with the amount of attention they received from other site members."
"here was a marked sex difference in this effect; resource-acquisition ability improved the attention received by men almost 2.5 times that of women. This sex difference was in every country, admittedly with some variance between nations.


Below, the data per country. (also funyy, how this data, basically shows how much online dating is poular, or not popular in a country)

explanation belwo data/pic:

1. Indicators of Interest. This variable was formed by combining the number of messages, “likes,” and “winks” a member had received from others (Cronbach’s α = 0.72). To predict IOI, we used the member’s country of residence, sex, and their resource-acquisition ability.

2. Resource-acquisition ability was measured by combining (r = .32; M = 7.75, SD = 2.48) the member’s income (1 = Very low; 7 = Very high [based on local currency]) with their level of education (1 = No High School Degree; 7 = Doctorate [e.g., MD, PhD, JD])


Dfgh
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 1851, Danish_Retard, Deleted member 18159 and 2 others
I guess LMS is still a thing.

It's just that betabuxxing is pathetic.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08 and Deleted member 17829
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
 
  • +1
Reactions: PubertyMaxxer, Cidre enjoyer, ilovelamp08 and 6 others
How do you list your income on Tinder?
 
I guess LMS is still a thing.

It's just that betabuxxing is pathetic.
I did some comparisson. (see above message).

Aka.
top earner + edcuation = 250%-300% more likes than mr. average income+education.
top 1% in looks = 1950% more likes than mr. avarage looks.

So. it seems to me:
1. earner + education matter WAY less than looks. (in most countries)

And yeah, betabuxxing is a sad existence
 
  • +1
Reactions: PubertyMaxxer, ilovelamp08, ezio6 and 1 other person
How do you list your income on Tinder?
I dunno. And I dunno even, if they used Tinder data for the study. It will be mentioned in the study, where they got the data from.

But the income data, and education data. they did have.
 
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
So looks is 7x as important as money.
 
  • +1
Reactions: PubertyMaxxer and FrameMogger
So looks is 7x as important as money.
seems likle it, in the online world.
Sounds about right, tbh.
Looks matters way more than money and education, I think to observe also..
 
  • +1
Reactions: PubertyMaxxer and Lygodactylus
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
Hey, my name's Chad.Barely finished high school and have no college degree. I have zero ambition. Wanna fuck?

1652570699655
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08, Deleted member 17763, Deleted member 18840 and 1 other person
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
Average guys rate is 2.5%
 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08 and FrameMogger
LMS was always legit. Money and Status are not “betabuxx” women always want to date up and it does create legitimate attraction.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08, Melo95, Tallooksmaxxer and 5 others
LMS was always legit. Money and Status are not “betabuxx” women always want to date up and it does create legitimate attraction.
True though, the problem is that if she chooses you solely for the money then you won't feel the same validation as you'd get from her genuine attraction to you ( based on your looks only)
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08 and Johnnybegood
LMS was always legit. Money and Status are not “betabuxx” women always want to date up and it does create legitimate attraction.
Yeah thats what i observe in real life. Sucessful females tens to date successful males, although in that demographic of successful males they will prob go to the best looking ones,but they will still choose high status guys
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08, Danish_Retard, Deleted member 18159 and 1 other person
Yeah thats what i observe in real life. Sucessful females tens to date successful males, although in that demographic of successful males they will prob go to the best looking ones,but they will still choose high status guys
I think it's more about the rich guys attitudes towards life and achieving their goals which is attractive, as opposed to the money itself
 
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08, Deleted member 18159 and Johnnybegood
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
still a maxx tho.

we need a cumulitive effect of everything ideally
 
  • +1
Reactions: Oberyn, Lygodactylus and eduardkoopman
Yup according to tinder insights
0.6% (2016)


 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Biggdink
0.6% (2016)


Have you seen tinder insights ?
 
Just betabux theory
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Lygodactylus
BRUTALS blackpill, BY THE WAY!

Only getting 250% or 300% more macthes than average "earners", for being at really high earner and education levels.
WHILE. being top 1% in looks. You FOR SURE, will get like 1950% more likes than the average looking man.

Makes me notice, How looks matters much more than money + education.

Because. with looks comparrison.
Average man, gets like a match rate of 0.5% in Tinder.
While a top 1% looks guy, gets like a 20% match rate on Tinder.
AKA, an increase of 1950%.
Which makes the 300% increase of high earner/education guy. looks pathetic, imo
Yep that's the important thing.

Looks>>>>>>>> money >>>status
 
  • +1
Reactions: eduardkoopman
  • +1
Reactions: ilovelamp08 and Deleted member 18244
These men are investments big difference from attraction to the person not what he looks like.
 
Money still good tho for life quality
Maybe better than having no money sure, even then idk.

People here think I have relative good income, I still feel poor as fuck, and still my looks are why I don't get my oneitis, while other guys do
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 18244
Maybe better than having no money sure, even then idk.

People here think I have relative good income, I still feel poor as fuck, and still my looks are why I don't get my oneitis, while other guys do
Do poorer guys than you do better?
 
  • +1
  • So Sad
Reactions: PubertyMaxxer and Deleted member 18244
Yeah defo bhai, that's why I think the money myth is complete garbage
It works but only for betabuxxing, and that’s no way to live. If I had money I would larp as poor to girls
 
It works but only for betabuxxing, and that’s no way to live. If I had money I would larp as poor to girls
I pretty much do larp as poor man.
So funny when I see my peers desperately tryna flex like their Elon musk and shit
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 18244
"Specifically, being a woman or having higher resource-acquisition ability led to increased numbers of messages, “winks,” and “likes” from other members (i.e., IOI). "

:feelskek::feelskek::feelshaha:

Just be woman theory

Interesting data tho
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tallooksmaxxer
Do poorer guys than you do better?
this below answer man.
Knowing "poor" Chad and Chadlite. Their dating lifes still moggs the normie looking man ALOT. Still, night and day difference
Yep that's the important thing.
Looks>>>>>>>> money >>>status
Do poorer guys than you do better?
I think. When they are equal loking as him, they will do a bit worse. But when they are a good bit better looking than him, they will mogg.
 
Have you seen tinder insights ?
I just checked it out.

I see. there is the commulative average data of all users cobined there.
I dunno how accurate it is, for ALL the Tinder users.
Because it's only from people, that use the TinderInsights app.

Now my thinking.
the user base, might be a bit skewed.
1. it's probably longer time users of Tinder that use extra apps like Tinderinsights. Longer time users men of Tinder, I suspect to be guys that do well/decently on Tinder. I bet thoe guys getting nothing from Tinder, go away after 1-2 months. Also guys getting nothing, don't need that app to track that the outcome is zero.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Biggdink
Yeah defo bhai, that's why I think the money myth is complete garbage
the statts of my OP post shows though!
That going from average to top tier with money+eductaion. Will give you 3x, the results.

So a normie looking guy with 5 mathes per moenth, may go to 15 matches per month.
So it ddoes help some.
it's not complete garbage. But still mostly garbage. because if that nromie looking guy with 5 matches per month, went to become a HTN in looks. His matches would probably be 50 per month instead of 5
 
I just checked it out.

I see. there is the commulative average data of all users cobined there.
I dunno how accurate it is, for ALL the Tinder users.
Because it's only from people, that use the TinderInsights app.

Now my thinking.
the user base, might be a bit skewed.
1. it's probably longer time users of Tinder that use extra apps like Tinderinsights. Longer time users men of Tinder, I suspect to be guys that do well/decently on Tinder. I bet thoe guys getting nothing from Tinder, go away after 1-2 months. Also guys getting nothing, don't need that app to track that the outcome is zero.
It got popular on Reddit so most guys using insights are redditors and redditors are pretty ugly anyways

Also average match rate was 3% before too many redditors started using it
 
It got popular on Reddit so most guys using insights are redditors and redditors are pretty ugly anyways

Also average match rate was 3% before too many redditors started using it
honestly.
I don't beleive 3% match rate, to be the median for men on Tinder.
And I read scientific set up studies, aka controllaing for factors, get way less match rate for median guys that 3% or 2.5%.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard
honestly.
I don't beleive 3% match rate, to be the median for men on Tinder.
And I read scientific set up studies, aka controllaing for factors, get way less match rate for median guys that 3% or 2.5%.
2-3% is very low , how’s that not believable ?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Oberyn
It got popular on Reddit so most guys using insights are redditors and redditors are pretty ugly anyways

Also average match rate was 3% before too many redditors started using it
yeah that seems to contribute a lot
it's not complete garbage. But still mostly garbage. because if that nromie looking guy with 5 matches per month, went to become a HTN in looks. His matches would probably be 50 per month instead of 5
i mean there's no real way to know, cuz theres like a billion different variables. but sure
 
  • +1
Reactions: Biggdink
> study was conducted in London
> British guys are ugly
> not sure what type of guys they used for their study
Do you have any other locations, that back that 2.5% or 3% match rate for median/average man in Tinder?

Because only 1 location for a certain statt, is imo weak.
Studies also, preferably, one has like 3+ studies/places.
 
we knew this before

nothing new
 

> study was conducted in London
> British guys are ugly
> not sure what type of guys they used for their study
this nromie, no way 3% match rate/.

 
  • JFL
Reactions: Biggdink
I Honestly think people should larp hard in their tinder bio. Like sit on the front seat of a chopper one time and take pictures like your are flying and you are the pilot.
 
"Specifically, being a woman or having higher resource-acquisition ability led to increased numbers of messages, “winks,” and “likes” from other members (i.e., IOI). "

:feelskek::feelskek::feelshaha:

Just be woman theory
If you cant get girlfriend just go to tinder bro it worked for me ~ Becky
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Danish_Retard
2-3% is very low , how’s that not believable ?
this experiment.
also 0.5% rate.

"I also created an Unattractive Guy profile. He is 34, a little chubby, but not hideous by any means. "

 
  • JFL
Reactions: ilovelamp08 and Biggdink
this experiment.
also 0.5% rate.

"I also created an Unattractive Guy profile. He is 34, a little chubby, but not hideous by any means. "


Unattractive and 34 tho

I think non chubby guys in 20s have higher match rate
 

Similar threads

Baban
Replies
21
Views
2K
johnny4612
J
dreamcake1mo
Replies
42
Views
5K
iam good boy
iam good boy
dreamcake1mo
Replies
81
Views
16K
lestoa
lestoa
dreamcake1mo
Replies
51
Views
10K
Chadpreet_
Chadpreet_
Yatagarasu
Replies
1
Views
174
Yatagarasu
Yatagarasu

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top