Guys have you ever downgraded?

[Sanctuary]

You forgot to factor in Self Esteem. I've watched both guys and girls NOT go for that no.1 person because they had low self esteem and didn't think they could keep no.1 or something to that effect. Your simulation fails.

It doesn't fail. Nothing changes. The same matchups occur. I highly doubt guy #1 is suffering from low self esteem and because of that he stays away from girl #1.

What you said could be an explanation for this though:

You might have things like 4th best guy pairs off with 3rd best girl

And this may have happened if 3rd best guy thought 3rd best girl was out of his range and didn't go for her at all. Or it could be something else.

[Graham Berkeley]

Its flawed because you can meet a no.1 who has no idea they are a no.1. They may not hook up with anything higher than a 4 in that case.

[Sanctuary]

Its flawed because you can meet a no.1 who has no idea they are a no.1. They may not hook up with anything higher than a 4 in that case.

Then they're not no.1. Maybe they're no.1 in a particular setting but in reality they're probably more like no.3 and they're going after a no.1 girl in the room but she's actually no.2 in reality.

But the number 1 guys in this world scarcely lack confidence simply because that's a quality that makes guys attractive and you'd have to be Bill Gates or something to be a no.1 guy without self esteem. Actually no, that's not even a good example, I can't think of one lol.

But I totally get where you're coming from. Variance in self esteem makes it possible for people of lower grades to date people of higher grades.

[Sanctuary]

Its flawed because you can meet a no.1 who has no idea they are a no.1. They may not hook up with anything higher than a 4 in that case.

Actually, scratch what I said above, I misread you. A no.1 that doesn't know it's a no.1 is a screwed up situation. I bet he/she might cheat or leave the no.4 as they develop the self esteem and realize they're a no.1.

[Graham Berkeley]

Real life is a lot more complicated than your simple proposition. In a "PERFECT" they will behave like that. In real life, however people don't because a lot more than just looks and confidence comes into play.

[Sanctuary]

Real life is a lot more complicated than your simple proposition. In a "PERFECT" they will behave like that. In real life, however people don't because a lot more than just looks and confidence comes into play.

When I meant attractive in my theoretical example, I meant overall attractiveness (which for the men, we defined earlier) not physical attractiveness. I wasn't clear though, sorry.

Look around you - for the most part, the great girls get the great guys and vice versa.

But yes, people probably don't match up as perfectly as I say but I think that hypothetical is still a fairly accurate microcosm of the dating world.

[Graham Berkeley]

When I meant attractive in my theoretical example, I meant overall attractiveness not physical attractiveness. I wasn't clear though, sorry.

Look around you, for the most part, the great girls get the great guys and vice versa.

HAHAH. You must be a youngen. Attractiveness is subjective. Who is a no.1 to someone isn't necessarily a no.1 to everyone else. I know several great girls who are with pond scum. Your view is pretty naive but I know you mean well.

[Sanctuary]

HAHAH. You must be a youngen. Attractiveness is subjective. Who is a no.1 to someone isn't necessarily a no.1 to everyone else.

This is true but you miss my point or you might be the naive one in that your understanding of attraction if faulty. There are people who simply have more 'options' to choose from because they are a league above their peers. You cannot deny this. As much as attraction is subjective, a whole lot of it is pretty objective.

The fat bitchy girl who likes to insult you cannot compete with the nice sweet girl with the amazing looks who likes to compliment you and is supportive.

The insecure, short, skinny guy that works at mcdonalds has no chance against a confident, tall, broad shouldered guy who's chasing after his dreams and ambitions (and succeeds at it).

What I'm claiming is that if the nice sweet girl was single, she would be no.1 on the list of so many many more men than fat bitchy girl. Same with attractive guy.

[Graham Berkeley]

A fat bitchy girl will attract a certain type of guy that is conducive to her life style. As will a hotty. Note though that who they attract is often a mirror of a large aspect of their personality. Dating outside your "category" is a rarity. I remember really witnessing this in college. I'm sure you will experience something similar when you go.

[Sanctuary]

A fat bitchy girl will attract a certain type of guy that is conducive to her life style.

Yea she's gonna attract the insecure, short, skinny guy who 2 years down the line will probably resent the girl's controllingness.

As will a hotty.

There's a difference between a dumb hotty and a smart hotty and then you factor in things like a sweet personality. You have to look at the overall picture and grade accordingly.

Note though that who they attract is often a mirror of a large aspect of their personality. Dating outside your "category" is a rarity. I remember really witnessing this in college. I'm sure you will experience something similar when you go.

I'm not sure what you mean by "category". You mean the different social niches like the rockers, the skaters, the preppy kids, the nerds etc?

I'm already in college, I'm a 3rd year accounting student.

[Graham Berkeley]

I'm already in college, I'm a 3rd year accounting student.

I can tell, Kiddo. I think your heart is in the right place but I think your view will... update itself when you get out into the real world.

[Sanctuary]

I can tell, Kiddo.

Hey, don't call me kiddo. That's cheating in the form of rhetoric that subtly adds authority to your opinion hence giving it more credence.

Sorry if I don't respect my elders but I don't think my opinion should carry less weight simply because I'm younger.

[IndiReloaded]

When I meant attractive in my theoretical example, I meant overall attractiveness (which for the men, we defined earlier) not physical attractiveness. I wasn't clear though, sorry.

Look around you - for the most part, the great girls get the great guys and vice versa.

But yes, people probably don't match up as perfectly as I say but I think that hypothetical is still a fairly accurate microcosm of the dating world.

I agree with you Sanctuary. Good thinking. Its a reasonable model based on what I've observed. Of course (duh) there are exceptions--this is true for any theory. But the real test is whether it allows you to predict certain pairings/behaviour and I think your model could. So long as we could agree on how an individual is ranked #1, 2, etc. That could be the sticking point.

Graham - you are being the typical idiot criticizer. Like the scientist/heckler in the back of the room who criticizes his betters' ideas but hasn't himself published a paper in a decent journal for years.

Its trivial to pick holes in someone's idea. But I don't see you posting the better alternative or improving Sanctuary's ideas. Let's read it--I'd be more than pleased to find the holes for you.

[Graham Berkeley]

Like the scientist/heckler in the back of the room who criticizes his betters' ideas but hasn't himself published a paper in a decent journal for years.

Oh did I need to have written a paper before disagreeing with someone? The fact College is teaching people this way of approaching things... Scary world we live in...

[IndiReloaded]

Sure, disagree by all means. But its generally better received when its clear you have thought through your own interpretation, which tends to promote discussion, instead of just trying to drive it to a halt by destroying someone else's thought process.