Our bizarre social scape

Does anybody know how this thing actually works...? Seriously, I need help.

It's probably self defeating for me to even begin thinking about this, it certainly inspires me to be more self conscious. I'm definitely most of the time that guy at the edge of the room trying to get a sense on what is going in by staring too long and pondering too heavy. I know... impossible task, but I like those. Most of the time it's best to just walk up and talk to someone, but here we are on a computer together so... off we go.

Warning - I'm going to step into my evolutionary psychologist shoes. Many people, especially women, don't like it when I talk like this. I'm aware, but I'm gonna do it anyways. Be mad if you want. Even better, be mad at me with words, I'd love to hear your side. By the way, I'm far from being an expert at this, I'm actually quite bad in the popular dating scenes, especially the online ones.

If you're a guy in a bar, there's incessant chatter upstairs, downstairs, and in between everyone. If you're a girl, you're probably just trying to look approachable and cute. Ya, that's too reductive, many girls are playing hard to get or being attractively distant. Let's not open that can, I'm no expert. Unknowingly, or intentionally ignored, guys are sorting a list of people to approach. It sounds bad, especially if you end up being number 5 or something (at least you made the top 5). Everyone wants to be the first choice, but that's just not how the world works. Really, you should be optimizing to become the last choice if anything. By that I mean: you take your favorite suitor off the market entirely.

I think it's crazy that women are mostly passive in at least the introduction part of this system. I mean... how many better people are you missing out on just because you got monopolized up by loud persistent guy #1. That's not really what you're looking for, is it? If it is let me know, I can be loud and persistent. 😉 It's obviously not that simple, women sort quite well, that's the playing hard to get bit. Women are rejection machines for a reason, quit being so butt-hurt guys.

Strangely this is almost completely a numbers game for us men. It's eerily close to sales, where the guy who can handle rejection most slyly and impressively wins the client. Again, too reductive, you have to be somewhere reachable in the attractiveness scale and hold a conversation. But even that - it's not what you say, it's how. We all have heard of negging. It's a game of boldness. That guy is betting on his ability to seem interested while also treading as close to the rejection line as he can. It’s also a psychological open-loop for the mind. “Does he like me or not?” The desire to close that loop is stronger than all those red flags. Ya, he's been to prison, but… he might like me! How much can he push her buttons while upholding his gentlemen-like appearance is elusive, that's what makes it fun. Women don't like wimps, and for good reason, men are designed to be protective. As an aside, most guys don’t even know why they do this stuff, they are just following the success/failure feedback loop.

In this environment if we flipped the script women would probably end up fighting each other. Men are better suited for that. We're a bit more durable - and stupid.

If we take a look into dating apps the underlying female competition becomes more obvious. Women have more of a say in who gets to approach. Sadly, only a small percentile of high performing attractive men are getting any attention at all. It’s undoing the entire system. A tiny slice of resumes are cleaning up and the rest are getting ignored. No wonder they think all men are dogs, they are all dating the same guy.

Biologically that's how it’s set up. One male inseminates like 50 females, sometimes more depending on the animal. And why not? The best genes should be spread more diversely.

This isn't just a biology game anymore though.

Honestly consider how we choose someone to date. It certainly seems like pure luck, or something far more difficult to describe. We do get the rare occurrence of mystical attraction, but that's few and far between, and we're often left sorting through a heap of seemingly potential suitors for something close enough to optimal to avoid "settling for less." Many of these functions are being exposed by science and analysis. Scent has a huge role, as does the appearance of their hair and skin, which has much more to do with taking care of one's health than how well they dress it up. The clarity of someone's eyes or whiteness of their teeth are another couple biological signals, but these can be more easily faked. More mysterious than that are these energetic signals we seem to be drawn to. I know most people refuse to believe in auras, but some people glow, we know that. That person that just lights up the room for reasons we can't describe is accessing (usually unintentionally) some of these underlying attractors. It's not charisma that they've trained, it some elevated state of being that we can't get enough of.

Still convinced that it is purely a combination of visual traits or a personality puzzle? Take a couple shots of whiskey and tell me your opinion hasn't changed. Even more telling, take a break completely from interacting with humans (the digital versions too) and you'll find you are far less stringent on which body parts should be what proportion. Our physiological signals often betray us if not tempered with the larger complexities of living as a modern humans. Personalities change and can be easily manipulated to gain the result we think we need. We aren't just animals anymore, no matter how fun that seems.

The human interaction scape has evolved our means for decision making. Men used to be solely measured on strength, or at least requisite strength coupled with guile to win. Woman used to be solely measured on ability to bear the most offspring. This stuff is still around, my hips don't lie. Pursuing same sex or flexisex (new word, shoot me) individuals is becoming far more common, dare I say popular. I guess... if you want the most attention and diversity of suitors, develop strong hips. But it's more than physicality. Women have developed attractiveness by showing their capacity to achieve. Men have gathered admiration with their ability to emote. If you think that it would be better to revert to the old model of genetic sorting, think again, you probably wouldn't make the top percentiles (that’s how percentiles work).

Bad news - you're weak and I'm stupid. Good news - we can fix both of those things.

At least for men, the real challenge is sorting through the distractions of makeup, clever outfits, and body decorations for the actual good stuff. No... not the naked bits, the stuff that actually makes you feel good. I'm convinced perfume is ruining everyone's least appreciated sense, but that's a story for another day. For women the challenge may be discerning if a man's words match his intentions and resolve. Men often claim beyond their capacity for a chance to be seen, then subsequently heard. The real test is making sure actions match the words.

By the way: you don't have to agree with me. That's kind-of my point.

These are all methods to even the odds, which means everyone, no matter how they are born, now has the ability to bat out of their league. The closer someone gets to the top of the ability scale for men or attractive scale for women, the less variance that you'll consider. Boo hoo, you get the top choices, nobody's gonna feel bad for you. There are other social dynamics that don't make this optimal, I won't cover that here. The very bottom probably struggles the most with opportunity, but I'm fairly certain that those truly at the bottom are completely unaware of this problem. For most of us, all of this is good news.

I know women don't particularly like evolutionary psychology and men are bred to fight for their place in this world but the truth of the matter is that we are optimizing our species. We might want a kum-ba-yah inclusion for everyone game, but that's not what we're playing. Luckily for anyone who doesn't like the game, there are places in this world for monks who want to sit and watch, or yogis who want to transcend the cycle entirely.

So, what is the game?

The game of dating might appear like this: for men - sex; for women - mate. That’s the most basic biology we can reduce to. The complexities of this have proportionally grown with our cognitive complexity, as evidenced by increased attraction to conversationalists, academics, and romantics. Hell… even clowns are getting their chance nowadays. I’m convinced that the real game is connection and our primitive bodies know how best to access that with sexual interaction, so that’s the easiest and most common outlet. With a comprehensive connection - physical, emotional, psycho-spiritual, other? - all of the other facets are strengthened (whole is better than the sum parts theory).

Ok… that sounds reasonable, but how do I play best?

Kobe Bryant explained what made him so successful in an interview after his massive success in the NBA. He was asked: "They say there's two types of players: the one who is obsessed with winning, the other is afraid of losing, Which are you?" His response: "Neither." The rest of his words were brief but not concise or well positioned enough to capture what he was trying to share. Fortunately for those already understand, the meaning gets transferred anyways.

The person who plays to win will always feel too pressured to achieve. When you are so consumed with the result, being present is nearly impossible. Some people are able to transition between the states fast enough to be effective, but it's not a fool proof method. When you are so afraid of losing, you focus on it. It's like: the method to avoid hitting a tree while skiing is to not look at the trees. Look at anything too long and that’s exactly where you’ll go. If you take neither option and rather make the goal play, you transcend winning and losing entirely.

Sounds lovely, but how do I know it works? If it does, how do I apply it?

The short answer - you don't know and you just do it. There's no proof stronger than your own experience. Make at least a few attempts with the intent for it to succeed. That is what you want, isn't it? How much more fun is a game that everyone is aware of and is playing for the joy of it?

If you're still wondering... but how?

Think like this in every moment: how can I insert the most joy into this interaction?

Even if you "fail," you'll have had a lot of fun doing it, or at the very least have spread some joy.