A good post by GNL that explains confirmation bias and why it can sometimes seem like all men/women are “like that” (aka demanding, mean, selfish, egotistical, disloyal, etc), but NAWALT and NAMALT are actually true. Check it out.
I have been watching Sandman’s Videos On Youtube. Today’s video was very good. The video it’s self was the same quality as most of Sandman’s other videos. He gives reasonable and positive views. The topic of his video was mind blowing. A paper was written about “Lemons” and dishonesty in markets. The Market of “Lemons”:Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism is a must read for anyone that wants to better understand the dating market today.
Sandman does a good job of talking about the paper. I have some slightly different thoughts.
I have noted for some time the radical and dramatic difference in perceived value of relationships between women and men. I have been putting this perceived difference on the actual differences. Relationships are a better deal for women than men. I have not really found this explanation very satisfactory, but I could think of no other explanation. …
View original post 805 more words
Tarnished Sophia 
Yes. The purpose of social science is to get beyond confirmation bias. But CB is strong. I often write about what scientific studies have found and people answer back, saying that couldn’t be true because of some experience they have had — which is just an example of confirmation bias.
Very true, BroadBlogs. It’s a part of human nature to make decisions and generalizations based on personal experiences, which typically works well for daily life. However, both men and women need to remember that this can lead to biases in what they are willing to let themselves see…sometimes to the point of believing “all” men or women have certain negative qualities without exception. Obviously this isn’t true because we are all individuals.
It’s not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is selecting the information that backs up what you already think is true. What Happens with Lemon Markets is that these markets are not a random sample. These markets are secondary markets that are saturated by Lemons because you don’t sell a good reliable car, you keep it. Only Lemons end up on used car lots (Not true anymore thanks to consumer protections but was true as of the papers publication) Only lemons are in the dating market. It’s not confirmation bias. The Market for Lemons is observing the non-random nature of some markets like Used cars, Heath Insurance and Money Lending. I observed that these observations are very applicable to the dating market. It is not a random sample of Men or Women.
@GNL
“Only lemons are in the dating market.”
But if only men and women who are “lemons” are in the dating pool, then how did the non-lemons get snatched out? I get that if one finds a good, reliable car (aka man/woman) then you work to keep them. That’s only logical. But in order to *find* said car/person they had to be on the market at some point.
If the *only* people who are currently looking for spouses are lemons, then that means the non-lemons are either staying single or are finding other non-lemons without the need for dating (I have no idea what this would be…arranged marriages?). Obviously this is statistically impossible, so I read your post as being evidence of the confirmation bias that somehow non-lemons are magically being found outside of the dating pool. It’s easy to believe that the entire market is filled with lemons if that’s the mindset one is in…but statically there must be some lonely peaches and strawberries in the mix, too.
I know what female lemons in the spouse market look like (their signature comments and situations).
What do male ones look like? (I’m sure that they exist, I’m just asking for the signs)
I’m assuming that PUAs wouldn’t be called lemons? IMO they are false advertisers, rather than defective. (I’d allow effectively defective, I guess)
‘Only lemons on the market’?
I don’t think so.
But when sufficient lemons enter the market that the oranges(?) become hard to find.
And the legal ramifications of mistakenly buying a lemon become too high, then leaving the market becomes a rational choice (MGTOW).
You don’t have to believe AWALT, just that enough are, bad lemons are too dangerous and hard to identify…and, of course, oranges are worth the effort anyway.
That’s my opinion as a guy, but I see no reason to believe that the mirror position is not valid (WGTOW? Does that exist? Or are they called something else?).
@Spawny
I guess male lemons would probably have the same personality traits as female lemons: Narcissistic, entitled, sexist, being cruel in their messages to other daters, etc.
I wouldn’t call most puas lemons, or at least not inherent lemons. I’m sure some of them *are* but it doesn’t go hand in hand with being a pickup artist.
@Spawny
Precisely. There are more lemons than oranges, but to say *all* the available fruits are lemons doesn’t make sense. If you go in with certain expectations, as I’m sure veteran/perpetually unsuccessful online daters do, your confirmation bias will only serve to make you believe there’s no one worth finding.
I agree that getting into a relationship with a female lemon is an incredibly bad idea, and respect MGTOW choices.
NAMALT…just enough men.
NAWALT…just enough women.
Dating sounds like a field where one needs both caution and optimism in spades. I’m more thankful everyday I never have had to wade through such a mess, and am sorry for those who do.
Have a post coming up asking women why they stay single, but I don’t think there’s a “movement” like there is for men.
Did you read the paper I linked?
It’s not *ONLY* lemons, but so dominantly lemons that finding a non-lemon is rare.
Dating is like cars. There is a new car market and a used car market. The “new person” dating market is late teens till about 21. After this there are no “new” people entering the market only “used” people that have already been determined to be a lemon by at least one person. Once you reach your mid thirties trying to date in the “new Person” market is just creepy. Your looking for date half your age and can’t even drink.(“new” and “used” are not meant as value judgment but continuing the car market metaphor.)
Looking at the 30 somethings in the market every single one of them has been tried out and determined to be defective by dozens to hundreds of people.
If a non-lemon does enter the market they are quickly squeezed out of it by PUA/Predatory women closing in on them as a mark and PUA/Preadatory women keeping them away from other marks.
There are possible market corrections that can be used to make matches between non-lemons. In the Indian Money Lender case, and the modern used car market there is a “certification” process. This “weeds out” the lemons. Having some trusted third party certify that they are a non-lemon works to a large degree.
In truth most of the dating I’ve seen past the age of about 24 isn’t people finding non-lemons, but settling for the least rotten lemons.
Let me know if this Answers your questions. I may be doing a very poor job of talking about this.
@GNL
I don’t think you were doing a terrible job of talking about it before per se, but when you include these clarifications (most notably that of age) it makes a hell of a lot more sense. Also the idea of a “new” market and “used” market didn’t come through clearly at first…hence my previous confusion.
You know, I never really thought about this before since I enjoy being single, but as I’m turning 30 next month would I automatically be seen as “creepy” if I decide to try out the market? Would you or Spawny?
I get your analogy much better now, but it’s weird to think of you, myself, or some of my other fellow bloggers/commenters as being “creepy” or “lemons” just because of our ages.
Is this what led to the creation of dating sites for specific groups (single parents, widows/widowers, seniors, etc)?
You wouldn’t be “creepy” for entering the dating market. It would be “creepy” for you to try and enter the “new” market and try to purse a 19 year old. It would be criminal for you to pursue a 16 year old.
Also, it’s not age that makes you a “lemon”, or even being in the dating market. Being a lemon makes you a lemon. The overwhelming majority of people in the dating market at 30 are not coming off of a mutually agreeable amicable separation from a long term partner. They are people that have been tried out and dumped by dozens if not hundreds of people.
I do expect that many of the dating sites are an attempt to vet the non-lemons. But since there is no verification of the posters self description they are functionally worthless at this.
@GNL
Ugh, I wouldn’t want to date a man or woman half my age anyway. My FwB is 45 to my 30, but I’m old fashioned in my music/movie choices and we share nerdy hobbies so it’s not so bad. A 16 year old person? Nope…I’m not a cradle robber, and they most likely wouldn’t have much life experience.
I admit to not looking at dating sites unless it’s linked to by a blogger I follow, and usually those are examples of really piss poor profiles.
So how do the older “new” daters let people know they are well kept Thunderbirds and not a Pinto that has been in numerous accidents?
You can’t. This is the fundamental issue. There doesn’t exist a good way to distinguish between a well kept Thunderbird and an abused Pinto.
That abused Pinto will do everything in it’s power to convince you that it really is a well kept Thunderbird. From the buyers perspective the two look very nearly identical. The differences only start to show after a week when the muffler just sorta falls off the Pinto.
Ah, I get it now. That’s truly unfortunate and sad. So the (comparatively) few good people dating over the age of 30 are competing with lemons who are of the same age but bring nothing but drama and debt to the table…That sucks for everyone.
Yea, basically. I think you really grasp the concept now. It really does suck. I personally don’t limit it to over 30′s, but the problem does become more pronounced for over 30′s.
I would like to point out that there is one group that this works out for. The Lemons that successfully land a sale. Because it is still possible to sell in this market the Lemons running something for nothing scams make out like bandits.
Yup, just needed more clarifications and information. 🙂
Too bad there’s no way to make people act and speak honestly about how they are, instead of making non-lemons wade through entire orchards to find each other…if they ever do.
“You know, I never really thought about this before since I enjoy being single, but as I’m turning 30 next month would I automatically be seen as “creepy” if I decide to try out the market? Would you or Spawny?”
Dating sites tend to have ‘previous longest relationships’ fields for this reason.
You would enter X years for ‘Fred the FWB’ (that’s your ‘out’).
My ‘out’ is that plus that I am divorced (effectively I found someone dumb enough to marry me before = preselection…of a sort *shrug* not my rules. Humans are crazy, women just have the edge in these matters IMHO)
My out does not involve ‘Fred the FWB’…just making that clear. Tarn, he is NOT two timing you with me… (I’m laughing anyway)
“Have a post coming up asking women why they stay single, but I don’t think there’s a “movement” like there is for men.”
I look forward to that.
Not sure that ‘movement’ is the right word for MGTOW though. I’m pretty sure that this is not news to you…but maybe it is for ‘others’?
“My FwB is 45 to my 30, but I’m old fashioned in my music/movie choices ”
Cheers Tarn, so being immensely older than you (and Fred) I would just need to find someone into ‘old fashioned’ music and movies?
*mutter* Bloody youngsters today have no respect for their
betterselders */mutter* Bloody kids.If I ever find my walking frame (forget where I left it – it’s me memory) I’m going to chase you down the block shaking a wobbly fist muttering loudly but incoherently at you
I ought to clarify that “Spawny Get” and “Swithers” are one and the same. It depends on which device I use to comment, which name I come up as. The two have the same email address so I have aucune idee as to why one has an avatar and the other not. Bloody youngster technology, should have stayed with clockwork (like me teeth)
@Swithers
Right, the idea of MGTOW is not any sort of organized consensus. (Hence movement in quotations.) Perhaps what I should’ve said was that women as a whole don’t have any issues with the judicial system that would cause them to stop marrying en masse.
Thanks for catching that. 😉
@Spawny Swithers
Immensely older, huh? I bet you’re 50…a regular Methuselah. 😛
@Swithers
Ah, I see. So I could put that I’ve put up with/been put up with for 7+ years previous and that would make people think I’m less insane?
Lol, the fools!
Uh, I mean…sounds fair. 😀
“Lol, the fools! Uh, I mean…sounds fair. ”
Try not to understand the phenomenon (brain hurt), just accept that sometimes society’s foolish, crazy and capricious ways actually (accidentally) might work in your favour. Sane people are always going to be nett losers…take what wins you can
p.s. still in my twenties (0x2f), it’s a hexadecimal joke (allegedly, the joke bit, I mean). My Avatar (when visible shows me a few years ago (in my prime) see May 12, 2014 at 2:05 AM above
@Broad Blogs
“Yes. The purpose of social science is to get beyond confirmation bias. But CB is strong. I often write about what scientific studies have found and people answer back, saying that couldn’t be true because of some experience they have had — which is just an example of confirmation bias.”
That is not an example of confirmation bias. Providing counter evidence to a proposed theory is not any sort of confirmation. It would be confirmation bias if they were instead answering back with personal experiences that seemingly confirmed your studies’ findings:
“All sheep are white”
“You’re right, my sheep are white” – Confirmation Bias
“All sheep are white”
“You’re wrong, I have a black sheep” – Not Confirmation Bias
I don’t feel like having a long drawn-out discussion on my blog of something I find both ridiculous and distracting, so I will make a comment here, since my response seems most relevant to this post.
After taking a look at what you think is a legitimate, truthful website I can see why you have the views you do. The website you sent me to is unbelievably flawed in its information.
And links within that website don’t always take you to real websites with authentic information. Or they take you to websites I’ve never heard of, which makes me question their legitimacy.
Especially since all of them talk about things I have never heard of before as someone who has been involved in feminism virtually all my life and to teaches women studies, which is the feminist arm of academia.
Take this craziness, for instance:
The claim that feminists are against shared parenting (equal custody). Feminists aren’t against shared parenting. Feminists want custody to be determined based on of best interest of the child. The reason women tend to get custody is that they are more likely to sacrifice work and earnings to be with their children. That creates a stronger bond between mother and child than between father and child. Feminists encourage equal parenting. If everyone did equal parenting then the best interest of the child would be equal custody. If fathers sacrificed their career and earnings to take care of children, then fathers should have priority in custody.
So as I said, the reason men tend not to get custody of children is because of patriarchy, not feminists. Patriarchy says that women should stay in the home and men should go out and work, instead of encouraging shared parenting.
I actually have a feminist activist friend who was the court-appointed attorney for children in a recent case, and she and I were both relieved when the father got custody in that case.
In a second instance the site says that feminists are against protecting men against false rape allegations.
Actually, feminist think that people accused of rape should be treated exactly the same as people accused of any other crime.
The crazy website you linked to also says that feminists are against women going to jail even if they have murdered multiple people. I have no idea what they linked to — I’ve never heard of this publication before. But I have never heard of an actual feminist who felt this way. That’s just craziness.
Next the website suggests that feminists don’t believe in accusing women of domestic violence. I read the article that is linked to and it’s an odd PDF that looks very different from the Florida State University website that I also pulled up, so I find it suspicious. The article linked to says that a feminist tenant is that society is controlled by an all encompassing patriarchal structure. This overstates the feminist perspective in that men on average have MORE control over society. So the statement is actually wrong. From there they say that because of this framework, a feminist perspective makes it impossible to recognize women as batterers. That’s not true either. I teach women’s studies, which is the feminist arm of academia, and we acknowledge the abuse of men, too. Where do you get this insanity?
Overall, I have never heard any actual feminist make any of the arguments that this site says they do. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Any website can make stuff up, or find outliers who were crazy. The link you sent doesn’t represent feminist thought at all.
Yes, I saw that you didn’t approve my latest comment, so I assumed you weren’t going to discuss it there. However, if you find this topic “both ridiculous and distracting” I’m unsure if anything I link to or even point out from my own experiences will accomplish anything. I do enjoy some of your posts, but others I can never agree on, and I will never be a feminist…I took two Women’s Studies courses in college, and some of what was taught turned me off from this ideology forever. Let’s just say that if I was truly a male, I’d have been highly offended by what my teachers said.
Despite the fact that you have never heard of “actual” feminists who felt this way (even some significant 2nd wavers?), there are women who label themselves as feminists who speak thusly. Instead of saying that no feminists think these things, perhaps “real” feminists should call out the “faux” feminists/outliers on what they believe.