Google’s New Motto

“We’re evil, and we have your coordinates.”

***

It’s as bad as it looks, and worse. Orwell’s only mistake in 1984 was underestimating the depth and breadth with which his dystopian vision would become reality.

“Evil is make-believe”

Clown World keeps delivering.

American Couple Believing ‘Evil Is A Make-Believe Concept’ Bike Through Territory Near Afghan Border. ISIS Stabs Them To Death.

A young American couple who took a year-long bike trip around the world, believing that evil was a make-believe concept, took a fatal route in Tajikistan near the Afghan border, where alleged ISIS terrorists stabbed them to death.

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, 29, quit their jobs last year in order to make their trip. Austin was a vegan who worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Geoghegan, a vegetarian who worked in the Georgetown University admissions office.

Can shitlib self-parody implode into an astronomical singularity?

While in Morocco, Austin wrote:

You watch the news and you read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place. People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil. People are axe murderers and monsters and worse.

I don’t buy it. Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own—it’s easier to dismiss an opinion as abhorrent than strive to understand it. Badness exists, sure, but even that’s quite rare. By and large, humans are kind. Self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind. Generous and wonderful and kind. No greater revelation has come from our journey than this.

Inner Hajnal shitlib Whites have a problem reconciling the existence of evil in the world because the fact is that, at least by Western White society standards, evil disproportionately exists in nonWhite and nonWestern societies. So instead of accepting the premise of banal, routine nonWhite evil, shitlibs prefer to deny the existence of evil altogether. Or play games of sophistry and redefine evil as “badness” (as if differences of degree and kind don’t matter).

White shitlibs also have a problem with the logical concept of mutual inclusion. Goodness, kindness, and generosity of spirit can exist alongside evil. The existence of the former does not refute the existence of the latter.

And reader PA had a thing or two to say about how nonWhite hosts can be quite gracious to guests they know will be leaving their land soon, and that this graciousness misleads gullibly naive shitlib Whites to believe the rest of the world is as nice as they are (except to BadWhites).

It’s all so grating, the mix of condescension, sanctimony, paternalism, and callowness of the typical modren shitlib. “People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted” What narrative? The one your people control? And, sorry to tell ya (which you know now in your travels through the illimitable void), some groups of people really are less trustworthy than other groups of people. “we’ve invented” Who’s “we”, kemosoyboy? “to deal with the complexities of fellow humans” Describe those complexities. You mean like, stabbing foreign travelers to death at the side of the road? “it’s easier to dismiss an opinion as abhorrent” Yes, everyone the shitlib disagrees with is an ignoramus. “than strive to understand it.” The shitlib is so understanding, you should listen to him.

Austin also had some contemptuous words for President Trump:

Apparently Jay Austin thought there was evil in the world, in the form of President Trump.

Then, on July 29, 2018, as they were riding their bikes with two other cyclists in Tajikistan, five men exited their car and stabbed all the bicyclists to death.

A grainy cellphone clip recorded by a driver shows what happened next: The men’s Daewoo sedan passes the cyclists and then makes a sharp U-turn. It doubles back, and aims directly for the bikers, ramming into them and lurching over their fallen forms. In all, four people were killed: Mr. Austin, Ms. Geoghegan and cyclists from Switzerland and the Netherlands. Two days later, the Islamic State released a video showing five men it identified as the attackers, sitting before the ISIS flag. They face the camera and make a vow: to kill “disbelievers.”

I don’t believe these two cotton-headed dopey universalists deserved it…but they didn’t not deserve it. I hate their killers — evil personified — but I also hate the ideology of powerlessness and wishful thinking that enabled their victimization and the victimization of anyone who may be beguiled by their, yes, evil race-blind kumbaya beliefs.

The story screams out for a physiognomy reveal:

Crikey, the manjaw on that bish. If you shaved his beard and covered the top half of their faces, would you be able to tell who was the man and who was the woman? Who knew vegetarianism could grow such a mandible?

PS This timeline is unbeatable.

Mayor to female commissioner: You make a living off anal bleaching. It’s a PoundMeToo moment, she says

A Gabber quips, “I’ve noticed there is no denial of butthole bleaching.”

PPS More timelineliness:

SHOCK: The Catholic Church has a Big Homo Problem Again

Venus Logic Traps

During moments of pop media regurgitation, I have had White girlfriends say to me, a White man they were happily fucking and to whom they professed their love, that, in so many words, “White men are the problem with society”.

Try to wrap your head around that lawgic trap.

***

Atavator comments,

Heartiste, remember Larry Auster’s “3 person morality play” in liberalism? Good White, Bad White, Other. Just about every movie people watch follows this script. Shitlibs say this kind of crap so easily because they simply assume that YOU assume they’re putting you in the “good white/redeemer” category. And when they say “white men” are the problem, they mean someone… out there.

It’s a disgusting filthy lie of a worldview, but few women have the ability to think their way out of that programming, and would probably express surprise that you would even take offense.

A big part of what we all need to be doing is making people PAY in some way (even if it begins with disgust and anger) for parroting this loathsome garbage.

Perceptive. (RIP Auster) This is the mentality at work here. When women find out I’m very much the badwhite of their nightmares (defying their expectation of the form and style a badwhite should take)….well, they get a little hotter in the panty blotter!…even if long-term they must know it’s not gonna happen between us.

It’s evidence of a profound sickness in our culture when you really digest what’s happening here:

SWPL White girls are trying to connect with White men by slandering White men. In the twisted landscape of their damebrain, these chicks think that bashing BadWhites to a White man is romantic, an example of “shared values” that White girls need to feel with a man before they’re ready to receive his swarth-free seed.

That White chicks don’t even contemplate the possibility a White man will ever object is an extremely damning indictment of the SWPL White men who share their social strata: the girls are probably right; vanishingly few craven soyboys will ever call them out for their insipid anti-White posturing.

Until they meet a stone cold shivver like yours truly. A subversive who swims among them. A rebel right under their noses.

Batrachian writes,

Women relate to things on an inchoate, emotional basis. They don’t understand themselves, or what the fundamental drivers of their behaviours often are.

The same women that feel deeply offended by the very proposition of societal eugenics and hierarchy are also the first to be socially-Darwinian in their attitudes toward men.

CH Maxim #77: The fealty to equalism women signal is belied by the ferocity with which they sift and sort men in the sexual market.

Evolution likely saw to it that women would not be aware of their subconscious motivations, lest the fair sex lose the ability to dupe beta males (self-duping authenticates other-duping).

Complementarily, evolution saw to it that men would appease the Sexual Darwinism of women by avoiding any show of weakness or expression of emotional vulnerability…or die incel. Over the eons, men have been selected to indeed be less emotionally vulnerable because instinct usually trumps affectation.

Autarky writes,

[Women’s] biological programming is to avoid social exclusion. Only when white men are seen to be more powerful than the media will ‘their opinion’ change.

My quick rebukes may not have changed their opinions but it did shut their pieholes. For a spell. (My reply to anti-White virtue sniveling women is along the lines of “you have me confused with someone who will listen to your crap”. Or mouthlove.)

Batrachian again,

I’ve often wondered about the lack of self-awareness involved in this [White women signaling anti-White bona fides].

It’s understandable that they’re primarily acting out of fear (the west has become utterly isolating and tyrannical in a way that few are able to articulate) but I doubt anyone openly acknowledges this.

Is fear driving the epidemic of White women to posture against White men? Yes, if you believe that White women believe social ostracism is guaranteed if they don’t parrot the Anti-White Party Line. Something else is driving it, too.

Disgust.

SWPL, overeducated, over-employed, under-childed White women, for reasons I’ve explained at length in the pages of this blog, have become disgusted with their White men, the soyboys and bugmen and effete toadies and “Concorde-nosed moguls” who are their sexual market confederates. No man is standing up to them; worse, these low T lackeys are cheering on their race-traitor White women to ever greater depths of Hajnalian subversion of their shared homeland and culture. On a primal level, one has to wonder if shitlib White women are lashing out at their own weak men through the barbed tips of anti-White agitprop.

And why these same chicks flee to tumblrrhea to tell of how they relievedly surrendered to a proudly White MAGAman and were beginning to question everything they thought they knew about themselves.

The One Good Reason To Stick It In Crazy (And More Confirmation That Chicks Dig Jerks)

Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed.

And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thousand people.

They found “men whose partners had less emotional stability reported better sexual function” while “lower agreeableness of a sexual partner was predictive of better sexual function in women.”

From a Gabber,

Most men already knew this. The best sex you’ll ever have is with a woman who’ll stab you with a pair of scissors for liking another woman’s social media post.

Headcase women try a lot harder in bed because they love that feeling that their man might leave them at any moment. So Dread Game is useful in two ways: it keeps women attracted and faithful, and it heats up the bedroom. Of course, the downside is that you have to learn to deal with the blowback of continually provoking her to unlock ever-greater levels of achievement in girlcrazy.

The usual way these Manipulative Man-Crazy Girl relationships go is:

Hot sex => Surprise drama => Hotter sex => Manufactured drama => Soul-desiccating sex => Here comes the crazy train! => Stroke-inducing sex => Breakup.

Every one ends in a huge blowout-slash-blowjob because every man has his breaking point beyond which he can’t tolerate another bout of crazy from his girl. That breaking point is reached when the relief of getting away from the crazy is stronger than the regret of giving up the hot sex. For the options-rich alpha male, the breaking point is between three weeks and three months. For the options-starved beta male, the breaking point is between three years and early death.

The second part of that study — women have better sex with disagreeable men — recapitulates a rich Heartistian archive of personal anecdote and scientific confirmation of the CH maxim that chicks dig jerks. The man who locks a woman in (tethers her to his dick like ribbon to a may day pole) is the man who balances his charming and impeccably ambiguous emotional distance with his sensual expertise navigating a woman’s body.

Twatter Is Leveraging Liberal Fragility

An astute comment from Wrecked ‘Em about how Twatter can maintain plausible deniability while aggressively silencing right-wing dissident voices on its monopolistic platform:

I would bet both of my gloriously large balls that Twitter is leveraging a basic psychometric difference between liberals and conservatives to achieve widespread shadowbanning of conservatives while maintaining plausible deniability. Brilliant, yet pure evil. Here’s how it works: It’s long been known that liberals are far, far more likely to block and unfriend people (even close family) over politics than are conservatives.  What does Twitter do?  Writes an algorithm that squelches people who are blocked by lots of other people.  Twitter: “It’s not us, it’s the al-go-rithm.”  Also Twitter: “Shitlibs, do yo thing!”

One way to fight back would be to block the snot out of prominent liberals, especially ones without a blue check.  This would force Twitter to manually un-ban them and it’s the manual intervention that’s going to get them in trouble eventually since any record of it will clearly show favoritism towards the left.  One suspects that this is why Twitter hands out blue checks to Leftists like candy while being notoriously stingy to conservatives – a blue check is just supposed to mean that you’re “verified”, that you are who you say you are – but it probably also means that the shadowban algorithm (((passes over you))).

Basically, Big Twatter diversity teams have written algorithms which exploit the intolerance of thin-skinned shitlibs, to effectively mass ban and silence anyone on its platform who expresses opinions that are at odds with the Leftoid Equalism Globohomo orthodoxy. Twatter and other tech giants with monopolies on the means of communication rely on the compulsion of shitlibs to swarm complaint boxes and tattle to the high priests about the heretics in their midst, fouling the mood of their safe spaces. (The Butthurt Brigade is really not taking well to the avalanche of realtalk.)

Clever, but we’re onto them. And I believe this infantile compulsion of shitlibs can be used against them, by turning them on each other until their precious anti-White signaling playgrounds like Twatter become unusable from all the screeching, tattling, banning, and doxing.

broke: the internet will mean the free flow of ideas!
woke: the internet has unleashed hate, it must be censored
bespoke: the internet will mean the free flow of pre-approved ideas!

The end game is nationalization of Big Tech and anti-trust breakups of Big Media. (Typical libertardian reply: “build your own media conglomerate”.)

Meanwhile, there are already rumblings of resistance to Big Tech’s stranglehold on the information gateways (a reader calls this reality “Corporate Stalinism”). Blueprints exist for how to destroy Twatter, Faceborg, Apple, Goolag, and Spotify (low T-FAGS). A CA judge has ruled that Twatter can be sued for falsely advertising free speech.

This is only going to get a lot worse for Soylicon Valley before it gets better, if ever. And no amount of disingenuous appeals to “stopping hate speech” will push the Trump-sized genie back in the bottle. The real resistance is begun.

PS Even payment processors are getting in the censorship act and banning political dissidents from use of their services. How much more of this Left-Wing Orwellian Corporatocracy bullshit will we tolerate? The “free market” is failing half of America. Bezos et al are banking on cheaply made chinese manufactured gadgets you can order from the comfort of your fapatorium to help you forget about the jackdorseyboot on your neck.

The New Jackboot

It’s been a bad year for libertarian purists. (Via)

From a reader, “the Jack Dorsey Boot!”

***

George Cobb, with a bit of brilliant pith:

The @jackboot.

GAME CONFIRMED By Biomechanical Truths Uncovered In Online Dating Market Research

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (18, 19).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (15, 20), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (26, 27). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?