I think for a second, and then I write equal amounts (70) next to both hotness and kindness, then 40 next to income and 20 next to fidelity.“Oh wow,” he says.“What? Usually women allocate more to fidelity and less to physical attractiveness.
Maybe you think fidelity is something people can cultivate over time?
”(Sure, but I mean, who would want an ugly, broke jerk sticking faithfully by their side?
)Royzman said that among his students (not in a clinical condition), men tend to spend much more on physical attractiveness, and women spend more on social attractiveness traits like kindness and intelligence.
Grindr serves up a mosaic of gay bachelors’ head and body shots.
There are also a raft of appearance-based spin-off sites, such as Facemate, a service that aims to match people who look physically similar and thus, the company’s founder claims, are more likely to have chemistry.
The more I allocate to each attribute, the more highly I supposedly value that quality in a mate.
You might like someone online, but they put 100 on income, and unfortunately you’re about a 10.Rather than attempting to hitch people for life based on a complex array of intrinsic qualities, why not just offer daters a gaggle of visually appealing admirers?Recent research has examined what makes people desire each other digitally, as well as whether our first impressions of online photos ultimately matter.This more superficial breed of dating sites is capitalizing on a clear trend.Only 36 percent of adults say marriage is one of the most important things in life, according to a 2010 Pew study, and only 28 percent say there is one true love for every person (men are more likely to say so than women).