Tinder Experiments II: Guys, until you are actually hot you are probably best off maybe not wasting some time on Tinder — a quantitative socio-economic research

Tinder Experiments II: Guys, until you are actually hot you are probably best off maybe not wasting some time on Tinder — a quantitative socio-economic research

Mar 25, 2015 · 8 min read

Abstract (TL;DR)

This research ended up being conducted to quantify the Tinder prospects that are socio-economic men in line with the pe r centage of females that may “like” them. Feminine http://hookupdates.net/international-dating/ Tinder usage information ended up being gathered and statistically analyzed to determine the inequality into the Tinder economy. It had been determined that the underside 80% of males (with regards to attractiveness) are contending for the underside 22% of females together with top 78percent of women are contending for the very best 20percent of men. The Gini coefficient when it comes to Tinder economy according to “like” percentages ended up being determined become 0.58. This means the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1per cent of all world’s nationwide economies. In addition, it had been determined that a person of typical attractiveness could be “liked” by about 0.87% (1 in 115) of females on Tinder. Additionally, a formula was derived to calculate an attractiveness that is man’s in line with the portion of “likes” he gets on Tinder:

To determine your attractivenessper cent follow this link.


In my own past post we discovered that in Tinder there clearly was a big difference between how many “likes” an attractive guy receives versus an ugly man (duh). I needed to know this trend much more terms that are quantitativealso, i love pretty graphs). To achieve this, I made the decision to deal with Tinder as an economy and learn it as an economist (socio-economist) would. I had plenty of time to do the math (so you don’t have to) since I wasn’t getting any hot Tinder dates.

The Tinder Economy

First, let’s define the Tinder economy. The wide range of a economy is quantified with regards to its money. Generally in most around the globe the money is cash (or goats). In Tinder the currency is “likes”. The greater “likes” you get the more wide range you have got when you look at the Tinder ecosystem.

Riches in Tinder is certainly not distributed similarly. Appealing dudes have more wealth into the Tinder economy (get more “likes”) than ugly guys do. It isn’t astonishing since a big part of the ecosystem will be based upon appearance. an unequal wide range circulation is to be anticipated, but there is however a far more interesting concern: what’s the level of this unequal wide range circulation and just how performs this inequality compare with other economies? To respond to that concern we have been first have to some information (and a nerd to assess it).

Tinder does not supply any data or analytics about user use and so I needed to gather this data myself. The absolute most data that are important required ended up being the % of males why these females tended to “like”. We accumulated this information by interviewing females that has “liked” A tinder that is fake profile put up. I inquired them each a few questions regarding their Tinder use as they thought these were conversing with a nice-looking male who had been enthusiastic about them. Lying in this means is ethically debateable at most readily useful (and extremely entertaining), but, unfortuitously I experienced simply no other way getting the needed information.

Caveats (skip this part in the event that you only want to begin to see the outcomes)

At this stage i might be remiss not to point out several caveats about these information. First, the test dimensions are little (only 27 females had been interviewed). 2nd, all information is self reported. The females whom responded to my concerns might have lied in regards to the portion of guys they “like” to be able to wow me personally (fake super hot Tinder me) or make themselves appear more selective. This self bias that is reporting absolutely introduce mistake in to the analysis, but there is evidence to recommend the info we obtained possess some validity. For example, A new that is recent york article reported that within an test females on average swiped a 14% “like” price. This compares differ positively with all the information we gathered that presents a 12% typical rate that is“like.

Furthermore, i will be only accounting when it comes to portion of “likes” rather than the real males they “like”. I must assume that as a whole females discover the men that are same. I believe this is basically the biggest flaw in this analysis, but presently there isn’t any other method to analyze the info. There’s also two reasons why you should think that helpful trends may be determined from the information despite having this flaw. First, in my own past post we saw that appealing males did quite as well across all feminine age ranges, in addition to the chronilogical age of a man, therefore to some degree all ladies have actually comparable preferences with regards to physical attractiveness. Second, nearly all women can concur if some guy is truly appealing or actually ugly. Ladies are prone to disagree from the attractiveness of males in the middle of the economy. Even as we will discover, the “wealth” into the middle and bottom percentage of the Tinder economy is gloomier compared to the “wealth” of the” that is“wealthiest (in terms of “likes”). Consequently, even though the mistake introduced by this flaw is significant it willn’t significantly impact the general trend.

Okay, sufficient talk. (Stop — information time)