80% of men are considered below average according to tinder statistics

Tinder and Okaycupid are not good measurements of what girl you can end up with. Women, even unattractive ones, get A LOT of attention online. So, they naturally raise their standards. Your confidence, body language, and personality can't really come into play over a profile, so they have to base their taste for you on your looks.

With inflated standards due to all the attention their getting, combined with the only reliable metric being looks, it's natural that women are really only interested in guys at least a league above them in attractiveness.

It's even worse when you meet in person, only to find your image of the person you thought you were going to date not matching up with reality.

Girls are also more likely to swipe on tinder out of nothing but boredom, not really expecting anything other than the base dopamine hit of swiping, with perhaps the vague hope of a megachad and them matching.

You're fine, user. As hard as it is, you'll have more luck just randomly approaching a bunch of women on the street, or at a coffee shop. You may have to get rejected a few dozen times before you find a date, but you'll end up with a girl you like and have chemistry with.

>80% of men are below average

That doesn't statistically seem likely, considering how averages work.

>muh just the way things are and always have been

how can someone continue to cope with this instead of simply going their own way

>80% of men are considered below average according to tinder statistics

Most people are similar and easy to beat.

> you have to get rejected a million times and get humiliated for the privilege of paying for a date which doesn't guarantee sex or a relationship

Formal dates are for complete losers and only a small percent of people do them.

> being in a relationship doesn't guarantee sex or that you won't be cheated on

Sex is kind of guaranteed, otherwise you wouldn't be in that relationship. You probably wont get cheated on if you're able to establish anything half decent.

> women aren't as interesting as something like a documentary or a video game

Why not both.

> time is wasted

All time is wasted, there is no real purpose to anything.

Seek therapy for your severe autism immediately. This is your only path to success.

considered below average != below average

It's biology. It truly is how things are, and always will be, unless we literally dig into the human brain and change our most fundamental psychological traits in the future or some shit.

You have no choice but to work with it. 'Going your own way' is coping too.

80% of men get rated as unattractive lookswise by the average woman.

How? If the vast majority of men are 4/10 and only a handful are above 5, it works out. It just needs to be a lopsided bell curve.

What in the fuck are you talking about? What is "the average" woman? If you're talking about a survey conducted on tinder I'm going to throw a chair at your stupid ass.

>Formal dates
Then what do you do?
Going to her house is too straightforward, having her comes to yours isn't good cause
>crazy chick now knows your adress
and if you meet for coffee (or some shit) she'll expect you to pay, if you tell her to pay for her OWN coffee you're a "mysoginsit asshole".

>How? If the vast majority of men are 4/10 and only a handful are above 5, it works out.
How does that work out? What objective measurement is there for 4/10 or 5/10? You autists are so difficult to track.

Going to their house is exactly what you do most of the time, user. You're on there to fuck. So you fuck.

I agree, most men gave stopped living their full potential, no one wants a loser parter that knows more about movies, tv, and video games than they do about culture, geography, fashion and self improvement.

My advice is to have a higher standard for yourself than those bitches do.

Attached: 6F5A4A4A-144B-43D4-A0F4-EEFA8677DC41.png (640x1136, 1.24M)

I get the feeling you have extremely limited experience on dates or interacting with women. I feel like if you did have experience you'd understand how laughable your questions are. I'd implore you to contemplate the concept that your utter confusion with women is not universal. Just because YOU have no clue how to go on dates and fuck women doesn't mean that a significant number of the population struggles as well.

do they make your dick feel nice?
sometimes.
anything else?
no.
then they are sometimes worth it for the gratification of sex. i agree that it's unnecessarily complicated to get from one to the other, but what have you. youre not going to change the world sitting on tinder.

>'Going your own way' is coping too.
yes, except I live my life totally free of obligation and financially independent, and live an easy life entirely on my own terms?

Do you ever look at other people and what they do? I don't know how you'd miss the fact that everyone is going out, doing things, socialising and that a setup date is only done for a joke or an episode of "the undatables".

>contemplate the concept that your utter confusion with women is not universal.
I know that, that is why I'm asking dumb questions on an internet forum.

This thread wasn't even about getting married or anything, this was about fucking girls. Fucking girls doesn't have to come with much of an obligation. Dating is another thing, but again, we're talking about fucking.

This.

People like to joke LONDON-post, but if you are publicly a girl on the internet, that is your life.

This graph is how it works out, and obviously it's not an 'objective' measurement in that it's how attractive they are as rated by women, whom all have various tastes. But as far as anyone's concerned that should be close enough to objective, since it's what matters in practice.

Attached: images.png (344x147, 6K)

You can be gay and play gay games with your gay boyfriend if you want I guess.

I don't know what sort of advice you're expecting to guess here. Tinder is a meme too.

Attached: 958.jpg (698x389, 30K)

That chart’s actually a good thing for guys, by the way.

If most men’s looks round to two and only really exceptional looking guys are 4 or higher, it implies “unless you’re exceptionally attractive you’re basically no different than any other guy in the crowd”, which is the absolute majority of your competition in the dating market. That means you’re competing on being interesting, which you largely can control.

A centralized normal distribution for girls means guys have a scale for judging female appearance which ultimately is far more discerning and (therefore) judgmental.

>This graph is how it works out, and obviously it's not an 'objective' measurement
Ok. So first off this graph is so fucking small I can't read it. Secondly, the only source it has on it is a 9GAG.COM watermark so I can't even research exactly where this came from or what kind of methodology they used to get this data. For example, which "men" are being rated? Also, what exactly is being rated? Their profiles? So in essence this isn't a survey about women rating men or men rating women, its a survey about men and women rating each other's dating profiles.

>But as far as anyone's concerned that should be close enough to objective
Lets take a little exploration of the word "objective". What we have here is bunch of different people with varying tastes and attractions rating the profiles of a bunch of other different people whilst knowing absolutely nothing about each other except the pictures they chose for the profile and the information in their about me section. Nothing about this even relatively comes close to meeting the requirements of the word "objective". People rating how much they like a dating profile is the opposite of objective, user. Also, lets not forget the fact that dating web sites and reality are two completely different mediums for developing relationships.

Long story short there is no objective measurement for what a "5/10" is and this vague, unsourced graph from 9gag.com you posted does absolutely nothing to answer my question.

But on a standard 0 to 10 scale wouldn't that require a highly improbable spread, where there would essentially be no average men?

And on a closed scale wouldn't that just lower the average?

I am too high to be dealing with math right now.

I've never seen a more delusional cope in my entire life. Women don't see those men on the wrong side of "average" at all especially in online dating. There's no reason to compete because they are all fucking the Chads that don't have to deal with that rat race.

LONDON-post?

It was some study conducted by Buzzfeed, where the guys were told to rate the girls, and the girls were told to rate the guys. It was that simple, and though it's not scientific, it gives you a good enough picture of your odds in online dating.

Your logic implies that girls have to settle for less attractive guys. They don't. Most of the time, they would rather give up than not be with Mr. Right. Less attractive men just get left out. It's not like this is exclusive to women, since every man would choose a Victoria's Secret model over the girl next door if they could swing it. It's just that men look for women at their level, or below (in terms of how they rate their priorites) and consider higher-leagued women intimidating, whereas women always try and go for the highest-valued man possible. If they have to settle, they will be vaguely dissatisfied throughout their relationship, because the fact that they don't have the best they can get nags them.

It means there is no 'average'.

To women, men are either 'yes', 'no', or 'god no., with the vast majority being no.

Why do you disingenous fags never post the graph that is RIGHT NEXT to this one in the SAME ARTICLE that overlays the messaging between men and women that shows that women end up messaging the below average men while men only bother talking to the top percentile? Rendering your point you're trying to make by presenting incomplete and misleading evidence completely moot?

Attached: uggos have literally no excuse.png (501x958, 118K)

>Women don’t see the wrong side of “average”

Given that statistically about half the population has a longterm partner (ie is not single), how do you reconcile your view of men not being “seen” with this fact?

>It was some study conducted by Buzzfeed, where the guys were told to rate the girls, and the girls were told to rate the guy
Like I said, that isn't what happened. They were told to rate their profiles. Rating someone based on information you've gathered yourself and rating someone based on the limited impression you get from them through their profile is entirely different. I cannot alter your first impression of me through meeting me with your own two eyes. I can, however, alter my profile; take better pictures with better angles and better clothes or manufacture an 'about me' to alter people's perception of me. It may give you

>It was that simple, and though it's not scientific
I agree, which is why I stated why the word "objective" was absolutely inapplicable to this situation.

It's actually data from OKcupid.

Aw sheet.

>re: have to settle for less, they don’t

A tight, peaky distribution means your differences aren’t seen as that different. If you assume most people will be successful dating (and they are, about half the population is not single) this would be a datapoint indicating that beingg a six versus an eight or a two versus a four is basically irrelevant, and unless you’re 8.5 or above, all of that’s washing out and PROBABLY secondary to other criteria.

That's really up to you to decide man
Would you seriously date a chick just because some fucker on Jow Forums said 'it worth'?
Is this bait? Am I falling for bait?

>and they are, about half the population is not single
Stopped reading right here. You know damn well not all of those are happy and even today marriages are failing more than ever. Women are literally the deity of your religion and you would defend them even if they came straight from hell to kill babies.

>Implying all singles are unhappy
Cuts both ways, user.

>girls are your religion
You must have a very flexible ass to pull something that big out of it

Never implied all singles are unhappy.

> Like I said

Was talking semantics dude, as in the selected guys rated the selected girls' profiles, and vice versa. And anyway, I was thinking of a different study according to This study only shows messages, not interest. Girls could be messaging guys because they're too afraid to message Chad. Or because Chad needs fewer messages to close the deal.

Otherwise, it seems sound based on the info we're given, but why does it feel like most girls don't even give you the time of day? I think I'm average-looking, but it's unusual for a girl I like (my standards aren't high, it's enough if they're skinny) to show interest in me through OkayC or Tinder.

This guy isn't who you replied to, it was me. What do you mean by peaky distribution?

>80%
>below average
I don't think you know how averages work user

The reasons marriages fail typically have very little to do with physical appearance

>implying 90% of chicks online OP is referring to can speak outside of a textbook on culture/geography/self improvement

Well OP you already told yourself is not worth it. All I can say is don't close your door to opportunities, not just women, but for stuff in general life. If you feel that something is a burden to reach and you are not doing because you want it then don't.

don't both of those graphs interpreted together cancel out both arguments?

Woman rate men below average at a much higher rate, and show interest in men that are below average.

Men typically rate women as above average or better, and usually express interest accordingly.

Please take elementary college statistics

Attached: NORMAL+DISTRIBUTION-CHANGING+LOCATION+AND+SCALE.jpg (960x720, 89K)

theres no better feeling than creampieing the girl you wanted to, yes it worths EVERYTHING

>why does it feel like most girls don't even give you the time of day?

Confirmation bias. And because statistically speaking, most won't. Except in the rarest of occasions, there's going to be a smaller subset of women that find you attractive. The reverse is true as well. Not everyone finds the same things attractive, even if there's nothing particularly wrong with the way you look.

This. The amount of confirmation bias in this thread is intense.

>Durr I'm a brainlet I have no confirmation bias, women universally ignore me

No, you're just bad at stats. Let's find out why with "girls I interacted with" sequences.

The rules:

Let any character represent a girl with which you interacted with. Let 0 be a girl you didn't pay that much attention to or interact with long enough for either party to get a read on any number 1 or greater represent a girl you noticed and fancy. Let 2 be a girl who'd share a mutual interest in you, and let X be a girl who'd be interested in you, but you don't feel the same

>tldr:
IF YOUR DAY'S SEQUENCE IS:
>0000X00101000111100X11012100000

Confirmation bias as seen in this thread is seeing the above sequence as
>1111111121

And saying
>Wow 9/10 women won't even give me the time of day, they must be off fucking chad

Despite the fact that you yourself ignored or subconsciously rejected 2/3rds of the women that you noticed,

Attached: hedgeheg.jpg (500x375, 42K)

>time is wasted
“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”

― W.C. Fields