The concept of a universal "mating market" is flawed because attractiveness is highly subjective. As people get to know each other, their agreement on who is desirable drops to a mere 53%, barely better than chance. One person's '10' is unlikely to be someone else's.
Related Insights
The 'Office Plus Two' refers to how someone of average attractiveness (a '6') can become an '8' through repeated exposure in a workplace. This phenomenon also works in reverse, creating 'Office Minus Twos'. Over time, proximity doesn't just increase liking; it amplifies and diversifies feelings, leading to a wider spread of opinions.
Contrary to evolutionary psychology's emphasis on matching 'mate value' (e.g., a 7 with a 7), research shows that mismatched couples (e.g., an 8 with a 5 in attractiveness) are no more likely to break up, be unhappy, or cheat. The initial perceived value difference does not predict long-term relationship success.
The concept of a vast 'mating marketplace' driven by immediate value signals is a recent phenomenon. Evolutionarily, humans formed bonds based on long-term compatibility within small, familiar tribes, suggesting that today's dating apps create an unnatural and potentially detrimental dynamic.
Our personal tastes are highly malleable and heavily shaped by our social environment. The guest, Emily Falk, initially found actor Benedict Cumberbatch average-looking. However, after exposure to a book, her partner, and friends who all found him attractive, her own perception shifted dramatically. This demonstrates that our brain's "social relevance system" can override our initial, independent judgments.
There is a significant gap between people's stated preferences (what they say they want) and their revealed preferences (who they are attracted to in real interactions). For example, men and women both claim different priorities, but in speed-dating scenarios, both genders show strong attraction to ambitious and physically attractive partners with no significant gender difference.
Intense initial chemistry is often misinterpreted as a special bond. In reality, it's more likely an attribute of one person who is alluring and 'sparky' with everyone, making it a poor predictor of long-term compatibility and success.
The traits that make someone desirable for short-term encounters, like conventional physical attractiveness, are largely irrelevant to their quality as a long-term partner. People who have many short-term partners are not inherently worse at long-term commitment. The two skillsets are independent, challenging the 'alpha vs. beta' dichotomy.
The idea of a universal attractiveness scale (e.g., '10s' vs. '2s') only applies to initial encounters with strangers. As people get to know each other over time, their opinions on who is attractive diverge significantly. This allows individuals to find partners they personally rate as a '10', even if others don't agree.
Speed dating studies show couples who "click" are biologically in sync, even if a person violates the other's stated preferences (e.g., height, religion). This highlights the limits of algorithm-based matching, which cannot capture this multi-sensory phenomenon.
A study found that men’s real-world sexual success was highly correlated with how intimidating other men found them, not by how attractive women rated them. This suggests female mate choice is less about direct selection and more about passively choosing the victors of intra-male competition, validating a 'male competition theory' of attraction.