
Women Prefer Poaching - rams
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/08/women-prefer-poaching.html
======
biotech
A woman can only bear a single man's child in a 9 month period. A woman with a
large number of male suiters is _theorectially_ less appealing, since the
chance of successful mating (where successful -> results in offspring in the
near future) is very low (assuming each man has an equal chance, it's
essentially 1/(#ofSuiters) ). In reality, the energy cost of impregnating a
woman is so low that it doesn't really matter that much, since he doesn't
actually have to bear the child.

A man can impregnate many woman in this same period of time. All of these
woman have a good chance of creating offspring, so the main concern of an
individual woman is finding a man who will be able to provide for her child.
This is a complex requirement - it isn't necessarily sufficient to just look
at a man to gauge his ability to secure resources. Also, the energy cost of
becoming pregnant is extremely high for a woman. Therefore, the woman reacts
based on a large number of variables. She also assumes that other woman are
searching for a man based on similar requirements, so the fact that a man is
surrounded by other woman increases his value as a potential mate.

I realize that this simplifies things quite a bit, but I think the fundamental
argument is sound.

~~~
jonny_noog
Completely anecdotal, but kind of along similar lines: I have heard from
female friends and and other less personal sources that often times women feel
more comfortable around men they don't know who have an observable female
partner because it indicates (if even only on a near unconscious level) that
this man is most likely "safer" than a man they don't know who does not have a
partner. That is, the man's female companion has "tested the water", he's
likely not a serial killer, by having a partner he's demonstrating right there
and then that he can commit to more than a one night stand etc.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Little do your female friends know that the only reason that woman is with me
is because I have the antidote.

~~~
jonny_noog
Hence the qualifier: _likely_ not a serial killer. :D

------
wallflower
"Similarly, a person who has been unemployed for a long time may have a hard
time finding a new job - even if they are highly skilled and qualified.
Potential employers attribute wrongly the person's lack of employment to the
person rather than the situation. This causes the potential employers to
search more intensively for flaws or other negative characteristics that are
"congruent" with or explain the person's failure and to discount the
applicant's virtues."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof>

~~~
mhartl
Social proof doesn't explain the result adequately; to wit:

 _Conversely, men rate women as less desirable when they are surrounded by
other men, compared to being alone or surrounded by other women._

~~~
wallflower
Social proof can't explain it but I've known very few individuals who have the
guts to approach a party of mixed sexes (e.g. who are couples - when it's all
women - you can assume they're just socializing, not dating (usually)).
Actually, it doesn't matter whether it's all women or mixed - still
intimidating.

The times I've done it / the first twenty seconds after you have broached
their airspace is among the most scary and exhilirating experiences. The more
women, the better. Do not hover!

For bonus points, sidle over and drag a chair loudly from one side of a room
to where they are and _sit down_ (presuming they are seated, you have most
likely pulled off the icebreaker that needs no icebreaker)

------
manish
Looks like VC's and women have something in common.

~~~
jacoblyles
The fact that _someone_ likes you is a badge of value. Social proof.

This is also why guys that go to bars with friends have a significantly lower
chance of being labeled "creepy" than a guy that goes by himself.

~~~
wallflower
> being labeled "creepy

I've noticed that when I go somewhere with a friend, even if just one, I feel
like I can hang out forever. While, if I were to go to a bar by myself, even
though that's easy to do, it's not fun - I feel über self conscious (everyone
is looking at me / even though that is probably your false perception).

When you go to a bar by yourself, you have to invest a lot of your energy to
_initially_ meet people (think of the times when you've been travelling and in
a place where you know no one).

And, on the social side, when I am out with a female friend, I feel even more
confident and feel like I have license to flirt shamelessly with near
everyone.

I feel going out with friends can give you the support base to go out and
venture. However, too many friends can devolve into the classic circle-the-
wagons formation. Of course, there is the social hack of working the room that
nearly always works and requires fearless action: start with one, engage
him/her, offer him/her an opportunity to approach with him/her to a group or
leave, engage the group confidently, wave at someone in another group, etc.
Done confidently and charmingly, it is quite a feeling / to bootstrap yourself
from a loner to someone other people are looking at and wondering 'who is this
guy?'

------
bravura
"Research on human preferences does show that women rate men as more desirable
when they are surrounded by other women, compared to being alone or surrounded
by other men. Conversely, men rate women as less desirable when they are
surrounded by other men, compared to being alone or surrounded by other
women."

In other words, men are undesirable in heterosexual culture. So we conclude
that, if you're a guy, your only hope is to find a hot bisexual girlfriend and
then surround yourself by women that she likes.

------
kqr2
This study of the "Wedding Ring Effect" (abstract only) suggests otherwise:

<http://www.springerlink.com/content/hn2ufdx4rruyllnc/>

 _The results show that women do not find men signaling engagement, or being
perceived as having a partner, more attractive or higher in socioeconomic
status. Furthermore, signs of engagement did not influence the women’s
reported willingness to engage in short-term or long-term relationships with
the men._

~~~
tokenadult
Interesting. Another study with a different finding. Now there is some scope
for methodological discussion about how the data were gathered and
interpreted.

------
rokhayakebe
EDIT: A simple proof to this would be to set your facebook profile to "In a
relationship" and go out and add ten random beautiful women as friends. Do the
same with "Single" and you will end with significantly lower amount of
"accepted".

~~~
natrius
That's not really proof of this. Randomly friending someone of the opposite
gender is usually interpreted as a creepy attempt to pursue someone. If
they're in a relationship, that motive has to be incorrect. Maybe it's someone
you know from somewhere, or someone who likes your work. In that mindset,
accepting the request is far more likely.

~~~
rokhayakebe
The way I understood this article is that women are more interested in guys
who are not single whether they know him or not. This experiment will prove
just that.

~~~
natrius
The experiment doesn't measure interest; it measures the likelihood of
accepting a friend request. Accepting a friend request is not strong evidence
of romantic interest due to the interactions I described.

------
radu_floricica
It's a pretty well know effect predicted by evolutionary psychology (and
confirmed in several species). Basically, no matter what strategy female use
to identify good mates it can be improved by peeking at what other female do.

"Poaching" is also very cheap and relatively safe (as far as identifying
goes), so it would be more popular with females/males who don't have other
good criteria.

------
bootload
_"... Conversely, men rate women as less desirable when they are surrounded by
other men ..."_

I think "Flight of the Concords" got this one right (nsfw) ~
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wl_uQOABxg>

~~~
jacquesm
Flight of the concHords is great stuff, check out 'jenny' and 'business time'
too if you have a minute or ten... and 'the humans are dead'

~~~
dave_au
"If you're into it" is also pretty sweet. For several meanings of the word.
Kind of.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY8jaGs7xJ0>

------
tokenadult
Upvoted for interesting implications.

I'm not sure if the study design or sample size

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

reported here inspires confidence in the conclusion, but this would definitely
be an issue worth investigating some more. I'm not sure how many men would
guess this, or for that matter how many women would guess what this article
says about men. I can think of one example of a woman I knew (back when I was
single) who seemed to be signalling to me that she wanted me to "poach" her by
telling me she had a boyfriend. But to me that was just off-putting. (I was
already put off from a romantic relationship with her--I knew her strictly
through studies we were both pursuing at the time.)

~~~
llimllib
> I'm not sure how many men would guess this, or for that matter how many
> women would guess what this article says about men

Really? I've always believed it to be common wisdom that some women strongly
prefer men in relationships.

------
lucumo
_> Across ten world regions, 57% of men and 35% of women indicated they had
engaged in an attempt at mate poaching, … people who mate poach are more
likely to be low in agreeableness and conscientiousness than those who do
not._

Interestingly, it seems that while women prefer it, they do it a whole lot
less than men. And that men that are in a relationship may be more attractive,
but the women they will get will on average be less nice...

~~~
gaius
If you steal someone, then all you get is someone who is easily stolen. It's
never worth it.

~~~
lucumo
And if you let yourself be stolen, all you get is a thief... Honesty is really
a good policy here.

------
balding_n_tired
There's a bit about this in _The Book of Laughter and Forgetting_, roughly to
the effect that women don't want handsome men, they want men with beautiful
consorts.

~~~
Psyonic
Crazy. I just read that book about a month ago, but certainly didn't expect to
see it mentioned here. Fantastic book

------
onreact-com
Why don't submit the source instead, it's just a citation?
<http://www.synergy-pr.com/press/MelissaBurkley,PhD/51/800/0>

