/sci/ - Science & Math

Better than peaking when you're young

>>10094886
It’s so that the weaker men die young and the ones with the better phenotype who survived long enough to get old can spread their alpha genes.

>>10094886
Why are you assuming that graph is accurate instead of viewing it as the PUA bullshit that it is. The peak at 38 is pretty obvious in that respect: the target audience for that graph are men in their 30s.

>>10094895
It's not bullshit though. It's all around us.

>>10094893
If its only a phenotype then evolution is a dumb algorithm.

>>10094886
>15 year old less attractive than 68 year old.
yeah this graph is retarded. Literally clickbait tier garbage made to trick boomerfags

>>10094907
>t. gullible loser

The fuck is SMV?

>RationalMaleWordPress

>>10094994
it is not just physical attractiveness, it is sexual market value, which includes things such as wealth and status, hence why women go after older guys

also women are crazy

>>10095013
T. Irrational male.

>>10095022
Those things are just the cherry on top of the cake. The real reason they do this is because they know they will die 5 years later than the guy and since he's 20 years older than them, they can expect at least 25 years of spending his money and probably even get married again.

The ultimate revenge of the incels.

>>10095003
Sexual Market Value, basically a general metric of how attractive you are to the other sex. Believe it or not it is an academic term.

>>10094895
Most Red-Pill material is pulled from scientific journals. It is entirely real. Truth is a lot of "pills" are just hard to swallow so you would be amazed how crude some academic literature can read, especially when you realize this is written by women who are probably feminists and liberal.

>>10094999
t. Cunt

>What's the evolutionary purpose of peaking when you're old for males?
>healthy
>probably has home and good career
>would make a good dad
That's why.

>>10095081
Only that its a socioeconomically and culturally influenced psychological phenomenon.

>>10095074
>Sexual Market Value, basically a general metric of how attractive you are to the other sex. Believe it or not it is an academic term.

Yeah, bullshit. In what way do you think something like that could be objectively determined? Pseudoscience to the max.

>>10095086
>given men a list of women with their qualities; age, income, qualifications, pictures, etc
>ask men to rate women

>give women a list of men, similar qualities listed
>ask them to rate men

>compare results, look for correlation between qualities and ranking

>>10095085
Yes. So what?

>>10095086
You could ask people to describe the traits of their ideal mate. Or you can use online dating data. Or you can use census data. There are various ways, actually. It's not pseudoscience. It's statistics and the patterns that emerge are often very clear. Also people really overestimate how much subjective attraction is, especially because lots of high-status indicators (attractive traits) are determined by society and therefore objective.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Sexual+Market+Value%22&btnG=

>>10095086
Tbh this isn't pseudoscience. It's hardcore science. Since this explains how the primitive humans have sex. It's clear that young men look like boys and easily got rekt by the older ones so women didn't care about them.
This is what animals would act like desu. Socially it's more acceptable to get married to someone your own age and stuff but you know that's not what society is heading back towards since the sexual decadence revolution

>>10095085
Neither of those are separate from evolution, or evolutionary strategies. You Are either very new to evolutionary theory, or brainwashed to give such a response

>>10095086
>Yeah, bullshit. In what way do you think something like that could be objectively determined?
To think that there is nothing objective about such an idea is delusional. Do you think an aversion to faces disfigured by disease is just a common cross cultural meme? Was it just happen stance? What did schlomo mean by this?

>>10095096
You ignore meeting in real life, personal chemistry, religion, style etc. Even then, at most it would only be relevant to a subset of people.
What women do you give pictures? Postmenopausal, overweight asian women? Bulgarian kindergarteners? Dalik crones?

>>10095101
What about all of the characteristics that are hard to quantify? How do you record (also, how the fuck do you measure) how funny a prospective love interest is/should be?

>>10095102
>>10095110
See my other responses

>>10095121
>You ignore meeting in real life, personal chemistry, religion, style etc. Even then, at most it would only be relevant to a subset of people.
That's why I said "etc" on my list of qualities, to indicate there's more.

>What women do you give pictures?
All of them?

>How do you record (also, how the fuck do you measure) how funny a prospective love interest is/should be?
You provide conversational samples for the men to make their own subjective choice

>>10095121
>What about all of the characteristics that are hard to quantify? How do you record (also, how the fuck do you measure) how funny a prospective love interest is/should be?

The sad truth is that those things don't matter that much. When people say those things matter, they are already assuming that they are choosing between potential mates that already have the other "essentials" which are the real important traits.

>>10094886
So to correctly pair peak to peak I must be 38 and get girl that is 23? It's just more than half of her age of fucking difference.

>>10095121
A man will rate Asian women and white women 8/10 if they're good looking though. Not everyone is as racist as you.

>>10095136
It's not really that weird. Lots of postgrad women are looking to settle and have their first kids and you'd be an attractive mate if you have your own house and job. Plus if you find them young they are less likely to have been used and abused by other men.

>>10095101

>Yes. So what?
So your attributing it only to evolution doesnt makes sense.

>>10095110
>Neither of those are separate from evolution
They are though. Cultures change throughout the globe and with time, whereas evolution is a complex process going on for much longer (on bigger timescales) when it comes to fundamental changes.

>brainwashed to give such a response
>brainwashed
>brain
>fuck off

>>10095136
Yeah well that's how it works mate. 38 year old men are attractive to women.
And 23 year old women are attractive to men. This is what they'll all admit though.

>>10095158
Nobody mentioned evolution. It is just a statistical measure of what people actually find attractive.

>>10095160

see
>>10095081

>>10095167
The graphs source is not about evolution

>>10095131
>That's why I said "etc" on my list of qualities, to indicate there's more.
All right, how do you crunch the data? In the excel field under "humor", how do you decide which value you write?

>All of them?
~3.5 billion people? That's certainly ambitious.

>You provide conversational samples for the men to make their own subjective choice
Same thing about quantification.

>>10095135
NOTHING that can't be broken into a single number matters?

>>10095139
So we don't care about racist people's opinions? Those asian women sure will be disqualified then, seeing how asians are one of the most racist bunch, especially towards blacks. By the way, I've no idea where you got me being racist.

>>10095159
Okey, I'm waiting. I think aging to 38 won't fucking help me anyway.

>>10095167
It is a market phenomenon. From an evolutionary standpoint you can say, maybe it lets men prove themselves. If men peaked younger, they would not have much time to prove themselves so it would be more random.

>>10095173
>NOTHING that can't be broken into a single number matters?
Well factually, it matters less. That is just what the data and observation show. Which is why people can decide in a matter of seconds who is attractive and who is not.

>>10095173
>All right, how do you crunch the data? In the excel field under "humor", how do you decide which value you write?
You don't, you provide examples.
Or, better yet, you run sub-studies for rating those particular qualities in a similar manner

>all 3.5 billion?
Don't be pedantic, you know full well the implication is "representative sample"

>>10094988
evolution isn't smart or goal oriented
it's heuristic

>>10095180
It won't help any of us mate. We're permavirgins

>>10095183
>That is just what the data and observation show
And that's where my problem is. What data and observation? We've gone full circle, how do you break down attractiveness into a yes or no? Into data points?
I'll tell you how, with the magic of pseudoscience.

>>10095184
How do you calculate mean, deviation etc from examples?

>Don't be pedantic, you know full well the implication is "representative sample"
Cultural, ethnic and geographical factors influence these things quite a bit. You CAN NOT say you've determined attractiveness from the viewpoint of humanity, unless you've questioned everyone. Or you admit that the sample only applies to whatever type of people you queried.

>>10095209
>How do you calculate mean, deviation etc from examples?
"On a scale of 1 to 10, based on the examples and description provided, how funny is this person?"

Wow so hard

>>10094886
What is the evolutionary purpose of assuming that everything has an evolutionary purpose?

>>10095209
I don't understand what you are not understanding. Do you understand what statistics are? The studies are only saying that a trait is more or less attractive and by how much. That is literally it.

>>10095220
Obviously to try to game the system and acquire pussy.

>>10095074
>Most Red-Pill material is pulled from scientific journals. It is entirely real.
Not so. The PUA scene occasionally leans on actual scientific results to lend more credence to their own horseshit. They ignore those results that contradict their "knowledge". It's nothing more than confirmation bias.
OP's graph is made up nonsense; it's not based on any data.

>>10095080
You argue like a woman.

>>10095081
Older males have less healthy offspring, and possibly retards intelligence. Highest paternal age is in sub-Saharan Africa.

>>10095102
>Tbh this isn't pseudoscience.
Yeah, it's a special kind of pseudoscience: PUA bro-science.

>>10095238
The effect is only significant for men in their 50s and 60s. If you see the graph is it exponential.
Also the risk is more than offset by the reduced risk of poverty when you mate with an established career man.

>>10095238
and having children in old age* possibly retards intelligence

>>10095244
>special pleading
Fuck off to /fit/, /pol/, /soc/, /r9k/, /your board of choice/ with this crap.
It's not science.

Funny. I remember a few days ago there were some incels on here doing exactly the same. Dismissing science because it hurt their feelings. Now we have a bunch of women. It is even more ironic that the authors of most of these studies are probably also women and probably also liberal leftists. And yet without context these women are saying this is PUA nonsense. Whereas is I used the correct feminist terminology and dressed it up they would lick it up.

>>10095251
>all those strawmen and ad hominems
If you don't have a vagina why do you argue like one?

Once more, so that even dumb people like you can get this: the graph in the OP is not based on ANY data. It's not even based on garbage data. It's based on no data at all. The author of the blog post OP got it from simply pulled the graph out of his ass.

The end.

>>10094886
You must be meaning financial peaking because men peak physically in their 20s.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

>Elizabeth E. Bruch1,2,* and M. E. J. Newman2,3
>Department of Sociology and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, MI, USA.
>Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA.
>Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, MI, USA.

>A massive new study of online dating finds that everyone dates aspirationally—and that a woman’s desirability peaks 32 years before a man’s does.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/online-dating-out-of-your-league/567083/

>>10095253
Who says I don't?

>>10095219
So they never meet, right? What kind of examples? Jokes, told by the person? Funny anecdotes told by a narrator? Based on interview questions? What if [subject] happened to be unfunny on that day?

If you were shown 10000 pictures of women with "examples" of their humor, in how many cases do you think you could rate them so that your given number doesn't change after actually meeting them on, say 2-3 dates? What angle and lighting should the pictures be taken with? Makeup? Smiling? What if they can't force themselves to smile without looking creepy?

I know this sounds ridiculous, but it's little shit like this that completely invalidates this.

>>10095223
I understand perfectly what statistics are, but I don't think you can get representative numbers in thoroughly human and subjective qualities.

>>10095276
This graph gives a very different picture compared to OP's.

>>10095276
Once we have our desirability scores, we can use them to identify
characteristics of desirable users by comparing scores against various
user attributes. As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability
varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more
strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older
women are less desirable, while older men are more so (18, 19). For
women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The
average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is
60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines. In keeping
with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on
ethnicity (15, 20), with Asian women and white men being the most
desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities. The final
panels in the figure show how desirability varies with educational level.
Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for
whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an under-
graduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is asso-
ciated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements
control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with
postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

This is only one of countless studies finding the same exact thing. Which does not even need to be said because it is easily observable anyway.

>>10095283
It says roughly the same thing.

>>10095282
>I understand perfectly what statistics are, but I don't think you can get representative numbers in thoroughly human and subjective qualities.

You're a massive moron. What the fuck would statistics be used for if not for exactly that? There is literally a trillion dollar industry built around that very thing. What the fuck do you thing Google is doing?

>not wanting be a grown ass experienced man and smash that prime pussy
Women want mature men, men want firm ass and tits.
Women in their 30s have the same sexual value as the d-mark had in the 30s.

>>10095304
>Women in their 30s have the same sexual value as the d-mark had in the 30s
nice one

>>10095302
?
Trying to determine attractiveness is trying to quantify poorly-defined values, which change with mood, culture, time of day, and how much the subject knows about the research he's involved in. Also, an exercise in sociology, one of the disciplines with the weakest predictive powers.

Google is building profiles of people, trying to guess what kind of ads they are most likely to click on.

Just because you use multiplication and division in both cases, they're not suddenly relevant.

>>10094886
Show me one girl who is into a man who is in their late 30s, balding and has a beer gut and I don't mean 'love' them for their capital but for them as a person; I'll wait.

>>10095340
That is literally most marriages. Do you even live in the real world?

>>10095283
you can't read graphs

>>10095340
The fact of the matter is, women go after them.

>>10095302
>>10095223
>>10095219
Also, consider this: If you could determine how attractive someone truly is, shouldn't dating sites work without people ever going on dates? If you could tell, TRULY tell, how attractive someone is based on a picture and whatever example of their humor, selflessness, stubbornness, mental fortitude etc. you have, why would you ever need to date? You could just go on a site, browse some profiles, and 10/10 times, the person you choose would be great for you.
That's not the way it is, even though it would be IMMENSE business. If you could do it, you'd become a billionaire overnight. The reason it ain't so is that it can't be done, because attractiveness is more than numbers in a spreadsheet.
In real life, dates turn out to be shit all the time for one or both parties, because you can't determine a hard number for attractiveness.

>>10094886

The primary attractiveness of females comes for their physical appearance, while the primary attractiveness of males comes from their wealth, prestige, and social status.

It takes a really long time for men to build up these elements.

>>10095340
>and I don't mean 'love' them for their capital but for them as a person

That's impossible. Women are hypergamous by nature. They always seek men of a higher social caste.

>>10095246

Only if vag is old.

>>10095350

Attractiveness is purely surface level, you don't have to have chemistry to be attracted to someone. I think you're muddling terms, they are poorly defined terms granted but I don't think these arguments refute the point.

To that extent, you can determine if you are attracted to someone based from several degrees of separation, a la celebrity crushes.

>>10094886
it seems that the primary value of a woman in reproduction is being able to give birth to a child, while the primary value of a man is to provide material support for a woman and child

>>10094895
the target audience for pickup is certainly not 30+. Look at youtube videos of conferences. It's mostly 23 year olds who have the energy to go to clubs 3+ nights a week.

I'm a 33yo boomer and as far as I can tell the dynamics are accurate. At this point I can get laid by just being lean and not say stupid shit. 10 years ago it was a hassle and less effective despite efforts.

Female Pornstarts are most popular in their early 20's an if you're above 30, you get milf casting jobs. It's true.

>>10095757
But then you've just removed the whole statistics, humor, quantification etc thing and reduced the argument to physical appearance.

That's certainly a stronger position, but I doubt it would translate to "sexual market value". I can find a bimbo attractive without wanting to fuck her. What would you ask the participants exactly?
I think most (or at least a significant percentage of) people would be uncomfortable deciding whether they want to fuck someone based on a picture, if saying yes actually meant they do have to have sex in real life. That's why people usually go on at least one date before fucking, even on Tinder.

>>10095292
>>10095344
>it says roughly the same thing
No, it doesn't. Pay attention.

This is true for more than just sexual attractiveness. Mid to late 30s is an overall "peak" for men in that it is a crossover point where true physical decline has not quite started, and mental fitness should be at it's highest, ie you should have acquired a decent amount of wisdom by that point and figured out how the world works and become confident in yourself and what you're doing.

Just look at the average age of the Apollo astronauts for an example.

>>10094988
>P H E N O T Y P E
>H
>E
>N
>O
>T
>Y
>P
>E

>itt shotters who think social "sciences" are anything but pseud-tier bullshit
Find me a single paper from sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology or any other meme field without shaky stats and bullshit bro-science-y "rationalizations".

>>10097711
Social sciences are bullshit but it's still statistics of the best we've got.

>>10097797
>it's still [shitty, abhorrently flawed] statistics
ftfy

>>10094886
Women peak younger because their value is assessed by heuristics relating to the potential for high quality children. As time goes by after puberty the potential number of children they can grow approaches zero, leading to a constant decline in value. Men are valued as resource and security providers, so they peak later as material success and status acquisition take root and become apparent, and then taper off as death approaches with its consequent end of provider-ability.

Graph doesn't seem accurate unless it's specifically focusing on finances. Which it can't since women are peaking before a career can be established. If we're focusing on physical attraction too then Men should peak at 20 and maintain that peak until 35 since that's literally the prime age range for sports/military/outside labor tier physique.

I would also say that women at their peak smv rating should be higher than men. The

>>10095013

>>10094886
That's not how evolutionary purpose work.

>>10097029
That is where the statistics would come in, does the opposite sex on average find this attractive? What's the distance on average from that average? While I'm kind of lost on how to put humor into the equation from that degree of separation, I would say that attractiveness is directly correlated to sexual market value. I believe you can determine a sexual market value off of only attraction and still have it be comfortably representative.

>>10098271
It's not just humor, though, it's every non-insignificant factor that influences who you'd fuck.
Also, you did not address the second part of my post and simply stated your opinion, so I don't know what to do with that.

>>10097711
This

>>10095131
Look his point is that using something like an exorbitantly large sample size doesn't work as well when working a with a finicky concept like sexuality or general attractiveness

>>10094886
What's the evolutionary purpose of s-o-yboys?

>>10094988
evolution isn't an algorithm its just our word for how the larger physical systems that make up the Earth and our solar system, universe interact with much smaller one's (species, organisms, genes).
>>10095136
No, the graph is wrong and retarded. Men peak in physical attractiveness around 26 years old and in marriageability around 28-32. You absolutely want to try to have children before you hit 30, there are significant consequences for development otherwise.
>>10097711
>evolutionary biology
please fuck off faggot

>>10094886
Never mind all the balding fat guys who end up working lame jobs (like most of you will be in 15 years).

>>10098679
>t. butthurt evolutionary storyteller
How about you find me 1 paper from your pseud field where i can't find any flaw in stats? You can't because all your papers are broscience-tier "duuuuude, what if like, big breasts signal fertility". Baseless junk is what it is. All of it.

>>10098730
Optimized.

>>10098733
thank you based compressor

>>10098730
>evolutionary story teller
you're confusing evolutionary psychology with evolutionary biology you pseud faggot. And the former is informed by the latter. Do you really think a man with a symmetrical face, mesomorphic build, 6 ft tall, and a large penis is going to ever be outcompeted for the best looking women by a 5'6 hispanic 90 iq with asymmetrical features other than by throwing money at those women? What about for instance men who are charismatic and well heeled you don't think that evolution informs people's decision to give them more attention, resources, mates, allegiances? Its all some indecipherable noumenal culture that decides these things? We can't know nuffin bout dat? Retarded.

>>10095152
>if you find them young they are less likely to have been used and abused by other men

Best get em before they finish highschool; the more partners they have, the less they'll feel satisfied by you. If she see's a quality you lack in, that a previous mate had, it's only a matter of time before she comes across a male she thinks is overall better than you in every way (or at least the superficial crap that will charm her enough to cheat on you).

>>10098740
>you're confusing evolutionary psychology with evolutionary biology
No, both are baseless junk. Unless you take "creative writing" as science.
>other than by throwing money at those women
Yes. For example by raping women. Or breeding a mexican chick and shitting out 7 spawns with her, like they do.
>men who are charismatic and well heeled you don't think that evolution informs people's decision to give them more attention, resources, mates, allegiances
No. If you claim it does, back it up with *solid* stats.
>We can't know nuffin bout dat?
We can, but not in a way that would make sense for a brainlet evolutionary storyteller. Sorry, but hunting for weak correlations and conjuring a "cool" story around them isn't science.

>>10094892
Best answer so far

>men peak at 38 while women peak at 23
if a 23-year-old chooses a balding, fat 38-year-old instead of someone of similar age to herself, then she is obviously just a gold-digging whore. this peak thing is ridiculous

>>10100295
It's reality though. Those 38 year olds get more girls than the 23 year olds.

>>10100332
23-year-olds are basically college girls though. I didn't know a single girl in college who dated a guy over 30. there were girls dating grad students and whatnot, but the age difference was never higher than like 4-5 years

>>10098665
What I'm meaning to say is that all those tiny factors are subsets of attraction.

>>10100335
23 years old is a girl, fresh outta college. No matter what kind of dick carousel she was riding during college, she would seek a successful partner, which is highly unlikely to be a 23 years old young man.

Furthermore, school environment with same age students like in bachelor's degree studies or high school cease to exist for her. No matter which circle a woman decided to join, she will see successful males, mostly being in their late 20's and 30's, and she will desire them instead of males in her age group.

Between ages of 22-30, the difference between successful men and struggling/unsuccessful ones diverge astronomically. If you are not a success story, you will be out of university, unemployment or employed in a job you are overqualified for. To break that shitty situation you are in, you need to work years to get some higher position and settle yourself and get a stable life. Which exactly happens at the ages shown as the peak ages in that graph.

You can hear woman in their late 20s or 30s always talking about how they are seeking a ''normal'' man, and as long as he is not something extreme they would like to be with that guy. You automatically become that guy in your 30s, if you didn't kill yourself, became a basement failure or such.

For women the peak is 23, because they are fresh out of college, they wouldn't have any children and would be able to adapt easily to your life. If she didn't go to college, her peak would be 17-18.

>>10101738
And physical attraction isn't?
Also, is every factor besides physical attraction meaningless? That's a pretty strong statement.

>tfw still a 6'3" gorgeous male with a full head of hair as I approach 30
feels alpha man

>>10095288
>Older
>women are less desirable, while older men are more so (18, 19).

Is there any 3D graph also considering the age of the person being surveyed?

Which is the most desired spousal age when only surveying women at an age < 25?

>>10101932
Of course physical attraction is, but I'm not talking about physical attraction. I'm talking about attractiveness. A multi-faceted term as I'm using it.

>>10094886
>only a small fraction of women are pedo

Lying whores. Most women want to rape the shota.

>>10102676
We're debating in circles and you just keep stating your arguments without either justifying them or refuting my points. I'm tired of this.

Women want men slightly above their age the average age of the women in the study is probably a bit under 35
Men always want women about 18-25
Regardless of age