A man's choice of partner is often a performance to gain social and sexual capital among other men. This is seen when men date only thin, conventionally attractive women publicly, despite porn data showing private attraction to larger women.

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 online dating ideal of a man who is over six feet tall, earns six figures, and has a six-pack abs sets an unrealistic standard that less than 1% of men meet. This trope miscalibrates expectations and hinders relationship formation by encouraging the pursuit of a statistical anomaly.

Contrary to the popular belief that only men seek younger partners, Dr. Eastwick's research from matchmaking services reveals that both men and women are slightly more interested in a second date when their partner is younger. What people say they want differs from their revealed preferences.

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.

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 ability to filter partners on dating apps by hyper-specific criteria leads to a 'paradox of choice.' A common filter on Bumble, a minimum height of six feet, instantly eliminates 85% of the potential male population, contributing to the rise in singlehood.

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.

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.