Jul11
Do You Overestimate Yourself? Everyone Else Does…
The New York Times had a story yesterday on their Freakonomics blog, in which people rated themselves in both looks and intelligence. Not surprisingly, most seemed to slightly overrate themselves. I wish they took a few more average people to get a broader perspective.
This reminds me of an experiment in which I asked a handful of people to rate themselves in four categories: Looks, Intelligence, Personality, and Career. No one judged themselves as less than a 7 in any single category. Most were 8s and 9s across the board.
No one judged themselves as less than a 7 in any single category. Most were 8s and 9s across the board.
That might mean that these were extraordinary people. More likely it means that we all have a slight disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. The good news is that having a combination of self-esteem and self-delusion seems to be exactly what allows us to function. How would we feel if we didn’t believe we’re above average in every single way? I’m not sure I’d want to know.
Anyway, since we’re all anonymous, what do you say we try the experiment here? Answer these 3 questions in the comments below:
Where do you rank yourself in Looks, Intelligence, Personality, Career?
How would you rank the "typical" person you date? Do you rank them higher or lower than you?
How do you think others would rank you behind your back?
If I have to participate (and I probably do), I’d give myself straight 7s. Maybe an 8.5 on intelligence, if I were to be embarrassingly honest. Maybe a 6.5 on career if I were to be more embarrassingly honest. But then, I do strive to achieve much more in life.
My typical girlfriends would be ranked a bit higher. Similar in looks, but generally impressive careers and great personalities.
And I don’t even want to know what others would say about me behind my back. I take back the question! But it is something to think about.
Anyway, I’d be curious to hear your answers below, as well as your thoughts on why it’s so hard for us to be objective about ourselves.
Evan
(BTW, if you’re really upset about the idea of "ranking", or the fact that things like "kindness" aren’t on the list, your comments are duly noted. This is a very unscientific experiment.)
No related posts.
 |
Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
91 Comments »Filed Under Uncategorized
Selena Jul 12th 2008 at 03:04 am 1
I’d have to argue that the ‘disconnect’ may often lie with the biases of the person doing the rating. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? So one’s person’s 9 might be another’s 6 and vice versa.
How about intelligence, personality? Isn’t that linked to how well one converses, relates to the one doing the assessment? If you can speak on a topic in which the other person considers themselves “well-versed” aren’t you going to be percieved as more intelligent, more personable than if you knew beans about their areas of expertise? You may seem ESPECIALLY intelligent if you agree with them on all their own opinions. lol.
And how objective can we be when it comes to romantic relationships? Love may not be blind, but infatuation usually is. I’d venture most of us give higher ratings all across the board to someone we are falling for. Contrast that to the ratings we would give the same person when the relationship has reached the end of it’s self life and we want out, out, out. Same person, but the ratings system has been colored by the experience of knowing them.
Maybe we are not objective with ourselves, but I don’t know that we can truly consider ourselves objective when it comes to others either. That kind of rating is again a reflection of our own perceptions.
Robin Jul 12th 2008 at 03:27 am 2
How interesting, Evan! – I am going to be brutally honest here.
Where do you rank yourself in:
Looks – 7.5.
Intelligence – 8.5 -9 (I totally under-estimate my intelligence all the time and I am tired of doing that.)
Personality – 7.5 – 8. I tend to be a bit blunt and it can be off-putting to some people.
Career – 7. I am highly educated and am employed, but I am working towards making my career better than it is.
How would you rank the “typical” person you date? Do you rank them higher or lower than you?
The typical person I date – between a 4 and a 6, if even that high. I had a huge problem for a long time believing that I deserved someone that could be good to me and for me. That stops now.
How do you think others would rank you behind your back?
It’s funny – I e-mailed this question to one of my best friends as well as showed them my ratings this morning (a guy who has no problem being brutally honest with me) and he told me that my ratings were too low. So who knows?
Evan Marc Katz Jul 12th 2008 at 07:50 am 3
Your honesty is not particularly brutal, Robin.
Factor in your good, supportive friends, and, well, the only disconnect is why you consistently date “below” you.
Honey Jul 12th 2008 at 08:08 am 4
Oooh, brutal honesty is fun!
Looks: 7.5 (though I think this is largely a factor of personal style as well, and how well your clothes fit and how high quality they are, etc.–as a girl if you know how to apply makeup properly you also have an edge).
Intelligence: 10. I’m in Mensa. I would imagine that top 2% is a 10 by most people’s standards.
Personality: 8. Though I agree with Selena that the more you know about what others are interested in, the more personable you are likely to be perceived as. I do make an active effort to know a little about everything and I do have a PhD in rhetoric, so I use a variety of conversational techniques like sandwiching (putting each disagreement or criticism between statements of agreement or compliment) that tend to make people feel good when talking to me.
Career: 5. A toughie because I’ve never had a “real” 40-hours-and-benefits job (I just finished with grad school). I just got a job, and it seems to me an ordinary office job with decent (though not fabulous) pay.
How do I think people would rank me behind my back? The BF would rank me higher on looks, I’m sure. People who know me well (and who I am less likely to agree with for the sake of conversation) might rank me lower on personality. People from my field might rank me lower in terms of career because I haven’t gone the tenure-track route (yet). People from outside my field tend to be very impressed and rank me much higher. If Lance reads this, he can tell you how he’d rank me! And if he does, I’ll reciprocate
Cilla Jul 12th 2008 at 11:02 am 5
OK, here goes…I’d say I’m a good solid 7 in looks, but that one is particularly subjective–it totally depends on who you ask. Women will give a different answer than men. Men who are considerably younger and considerably older than me seem to find me more attractive than men my age (too much like their ex-wives?). I’m curvy (in the hourglass, not overweight way), and it seems African American men, Latin men, and many European men are more appreciative of my body type. I date good looking men, so by the Joey Theory (you can only date one slot above or below your own), I figure I can’t be too far off in my self assessment. And I’m guessing the guy I’m seeing now, who is 17 years my junior, thinks of me as more than a 7.
I really worked for that 7, though. I just got tired of looking like the moms of all the other students at my son’s high school. I lost weight, grew out my hair, made over my wardrobe to include more flattering and trendy clothes, got new makeup, started getting my nails done every week, whitened my teeth, and bought sexy new lingerie to make me feel good underneath. I don’t have a perfect body, but I have body confidence, and that seems to count for a lot. I wear heels whenever I can, because like the the lingerie, they set the tone for how I present myself to the world. I’m saying this because I think most people can change this ranking by one or two numbers if they work at it. In many ways, it’s probably the easiest of the four categories to change.
I’m well educated and work in a medical/science field, and I know I have a high IQ, so I’d give myself an 8 for intelligence.
Personality? I can make people laugh easily, and I’m comfortable speaking in front of an audience or meeting new people, but I don’t always like being with people. I have a pretty sarcastic sense of humor, which people either love or hate. I’d say 7 again, 5 or 6 on a crabby day (or if I’m driving–I’m from Boston).
On the outside it looks like I have a great job. I make six figures and have been promoted in my company, but I’m bored and not doing enough to make a change (I’d really like to write for a living–maybe a book about dating in your 40’s?). I often phone in my performance, because I can get away with it. Knowing that, I’d have to give myself a 4 for not living up to potential (yes, Mom, my 5th grade teacher was right after all).
Cilla Jul 12th 2008 at 11:20 am 6
Oops, forgot the other two questions:
I’m picky about the men I date, so they tend to rank highly in all those categories, as well (again, the Joey Theory). I’m more willing to date a 6 with a great personality than a 10 with nothing to say, though. Career isn’t hugely important to me, as long as he can support himself. It’s more important that his interests overlap or complement mine. Also, I tend to gravitate towards edgy guys, so I date a lot of men in law enforcement, for what that’s worth.
I tried to give an honest view of myself, so I think behind my back people would agree with the numbers I gave.
Joku Jul 12th 2008 at 11:46 am 7
Looks.. well, that is simple. with face stats it is “not bad” or “attractive”.. Hot or not had it as 8,2.
What I want from a man.. I don’t want a handsome man, one with lively eyes is enough.. so someone 6-8 is fine.
Personality.. well, I am a bit different from average person where I am, often too different to the small place where I have to work – in a bigger place I don’t stand out that much. How would I rate myself? An 8 there I guess too. But being a bit personal, I want someone who has enough self-esteem to handle that too, and enough of his own passions to be a bit different from mainstream.
Being an DVM, I guess I get a bit over the normal intelligence level.. but I don’t value intellect that high, I prefer nice personality over it.
Linda Jul 12th 2008 at 11:55 am 8
Hi Evan -Great questions! I’m one of those women you’ve written about that has fallen on the harsher side of fate: I’m a 53 yr old widow.
On LOOKS: I’m told I’m very attractive, but I would feel comfortable giving myself a 6, maybe a 7 on a good hair day.
On PERSONALITY: 8
On INTELLIGENCE:8
On CAREER: 5 I’ve had good accomplishments but my priorities have been my now adult children, and then developing my character. I know, it’s a very old fashioned profile, but it’s accurate and I’m proud and grateful.
I look forward to your feedback
Marilee Jul 12th 2008 at 12:48 pm 9
Hi Evan,
I’m so glad you asked-I Love Rankings! Nothing like a number to put you in your place and standing. I remember getting ranked in the first grade so ranking is forever, those first IQ tests! With that and my perennial optimism I rank myself in looks a 9.5 . In intelligence a 9.6, Ok maybe even a 9.7 here . In personality a 8 and in career a 1, as I’m unemployed right now! That averages to a 7or 7.1 ! If , when, I do become employed again assuming I am not magically a CEO of a large company that would put me above a 7, I’ll probably stay a 7. See, there is honesty in a ranking! And, truthfulness ! Since the career part pulls me down the potential is to get busy and pull the ranking up to an 8 or 8.5. My personality is tied in with my intelligence and I know this is offputting to alot of people who feel threatened by it so for that question of “behind my back” I think an 8.0 would be accurate. Finally, the people I date-once I would have said 8 to 9.5, and I shamelessly wouldn’t go out with anyone for any time I thought to be less, there’s this antique notion of “looking up to someone” I believe in! Marilee
JuJu Jul 12th 2008 at 01:20 pm 10
What is the purpose of this experiment?
And, considering we don’t know what anyone except for you, Evan, looks like (or anything about their respective intelligence, personalities and careers), how will we ever know whether anyone who submits their ratings of themselves is “deluded”?
Evan Marc Katz Jul 12th 2008 at 01:41 pm 11
The purpose, JuJu, is to see if readers ALSO think they are way above average. And, thus far, they seem to. Doesn’t matter what they really are. But if everyone thinks he/she is an 8, it raises some interesting questions…
Marilee Jul 12th 2008 at 02:10 pm 12
Evan, I have to add I don’t think most readers consider themselves an 8 or better- perhaps just the ones confident enough to write you a comment back as you suggested! The question raised is why would people add a point or two and in general I think it is our human nature to see ourselves as we hope others see us plus some. In someone’s dark moments they may say oh I’m just a 6 but on a better day insist on an 8. But isn’t it all rather circumstantial? I mean by that, some men truly prefer blondes, I know, I’ve been told that and I have flaming red hair so to someone with those preference, shoot, I’m a 2! It’s our pride and our ego that makes us say whatever we pick, no matter how much truth is in the number! I can tell you my IQ is such, but I have days that are one dumb action , stupid thought, ill conceived idea after another! Yep, your readers are going to say 8 or 9 or 10 and yep, some days I think I am completely bonkers!
JuJu Jul 12th 2008 at 02:17 pm 13
And what then?
Many women I encountered [I thought] overestimated their looks, some of them frighteningly so. I am aware of this phenomenon. Now what?
JuJu Jul 12th 2008 at 02:22 pm 14
Oh, and many men overestimate their intelligence.
Jane Jul 12th 2008 at 03:03 pm 15
I am a bit surprised at this claim since it seems that people have such a hard time feeling good about themselves. I know several self effacing people (I am not one. I overrate myself, I am sure, but I feel good about myself so it is my reality.) I often offer support, encouragement, a different point of view to others in an effort to help them see the assets that are clearly seen by their friends.
And, I under-date. I am a fall guy for a nice guy and so for a few months, intelligence, career, etc. are in the background. Then they surface and the compromise gets to be too great. This is a pattern I am trying to break. I need to be more picky at the onset or, as you put it, I don’t attract the wrong men, I accept the wrong men.
I suspect the men I date would rate themselves highly which in my experience feels like self absorption.
Dawn Jul 12th 2008 at 04:26 pm 16
Hmm, let’s see. Well, I would say:
Looks: 6. My friends (who were discussing this exercise earlier) were all, “oh, no, you’re so much cuter than a 6!” But let’s be realistic, here. I’m 42, could stand to lose about 10 lbs, and wasn’t a perfect 10 even at 25. I don’t think that rating myself slightly above average is a sign of low self-esteem. In fact, I may be delusional (see below).
Intelligence: 9. I have a PhD, as a kid was a Mensa member, etc. But I frequently encounter people who are so brilliant and/or talented, they make me feel like a a slow child. So, since I’m not the smartest person in the world, 9 it is.
Personality: 7.5 I can definitely hold my own in conversation, feel comfortable speaking in front of groups, have a good sense of humor and occasionally luck into a funny remark. I’m always trying to make people around me feel comfortable and at ease, so I think this is a pretty fair rating.
Career: This is a tricky one, since I’m just starting a new career. So far I’ve been very successful at it, but we’ll see what happens. In any case, it’s never going to make me rich, or even give me a six-figure income, so I’ll go with 6. (For those who really value monetary success, I’d probably have to say 4.)
If the “Joey Theory” is real, then I’ve probably overestimated my looks, since I haven’t dated anyone particularly good-looking except on rare occasions. My ex-husband is probably around a 5 now, but was closer to a 4 when we first started dating (back when I may have been more like a 7). I also seem to have trouble finding intelligent guys with personalities I find attractive, so either I’m doing something very wrong, or I’ve overestimated there as well.
Most of the men I know tend to overestimate their own appeal, but I know a few women who are clearly delusional as well.
Honey Jul 12th 2008 at 04:50 pm 17
The BF ranked me as a 9 in looks and in personality, but his ranking of my intelligence and my career was exactly the same as mine. Though he’d never date me if he didn’t find me attractive and fun, so I think the 9 is more reflective of how we are similar to each other than any sort of objective measurement.
Shari Jul 12th 2008 at 06:51 pm 18
Where do you rank yourself in Looks, Intelligence, Personality, Career?
Looks? Probably a 6, or maybe a 5.5. I seem to turn heads, a lot, but I don’t have a body anyone would fall over themselves getting to.
Intgelligence? Have to go higher on that, I mean I am a card carrying MENSA member. But intelligence can sometimes be a turn off , so have to whittle that one down to a 6.5, maybe a 7.
Personality? Well I’m Sister Mary Sunshine, life of the party, can find a laugh in anything. But, to be real, go to the 6 category again.
Career? I made a choice to not expand my career in order to spend more time with my kids. So that’s wallowing in the 4’s.
How would you rank the “typical” person you date? Do you rank them higher or lower than you?
I no longer date, as I’ve found someone I want to devote my time to unconditionally right now, but the typical person I used to date I’d rank higher. Have to go up in the food chain you know.
How do you think others would rank you behind your back?
Behind my back I’m sure people think I have a few too many pounds on me, that I’m an intellectual snob, I talk too much, and that I could be doing so much more with myself and career, too bad I’m so devoted to my kids.
Thanks for posting this and making up put the mirror up to ourselves. Have you found our responses to be what you figured?
JuJu Jul 12th 2008 at 06:57 pm 19
Okay, I finally read the article.
When rating, are we to include all age and weight categories? Because that Christina, who in my opinion is not attractive at all, stated a valid point (I read some of the comments as well – she reacts well to criticism!).
And how is appearance rated if face and body (and height, especially when it comes to men) receive different marks? An average of all aspects?
JuJu Jul 12th 2008 at 07:45 pm 20
Seriously, I am confused. In order to conduct an experiment, even such a highly unscientific one, we have to agree on the terms.
By “average” are we to understand “moderately attractive” or an average person one would see in the street? Because, as one commenter on that blog rightfully noted, an average person is NOT attractive.
I recall a line from some stupid old movie where Steve Guttenberg was trying to convince some woman that he is an 8 looks-wise. She replied, “Nah, you are a 5″, to which he humbly agreed. Well, compared to someone like Samantha’s boyfriend Smith, I suppose SG really is a 5, but if for an average man we are to take someone like Paul Giamatti or that man Nia Vardalos is married to in real life, SG is nowhere near a 5 (well, the way he looked back then).
Rob Jul 12th 2008 at 09:18 pm 21
Hi Evan,
What a fascinating blog you wrote! It really caused me to examine myself.
Looks = 6.5 (5 = average)
Personality = 8
Career = 5
If all your readers (including me) rank themselves so high in the eyes of the opposite sex, why haven’t we found what we’re seeking?
BTW….that was a rhetorical question!
Best,
Rob
JimmyE Jul 12th 2008 at 11:34 pm 22
Looks- a solid 5
Intelligence -9
career- 3.5 i expect this to change soon as i am in the middle of a career change. however if i was single and dating, i certainly wouldn’t expect a woman to be wowed by by current job.
personality- i’m not even going to bother, this one’s just too hard.
interesting to see how the early results bare out the hypothesis. also interesting to see how many people have brutally honest friends that tell them they’re even more wonderful then they think they are.
Kris Jul 13th 2008 at 07:36 am 23
Hi Evan,
I do believe it’s in the eye of the beholder. If I were to use numbers (yeek!) I would not rate myself a, “10,” nor am I attracted to that. But, no amount of having a good job covers a big gut, as an example. In other words, though the total score may be relatively high, there still may be a deal breaker there. I think many of us are looking for a, “match,” i.e., almost a book end. To me it does seem men more often delude themselves, based on the age and looks of women they believe should be attracted to them. Maybe money or career does work magic on some other women; actually, I can see for some men, it must!
Kris
Rankings? 8, 8, 8, 4
About the same for the men I actually end up dating.
Several trusted friends I’ve known for a long time have said (with no provocation) you are sooooo smart, and one, “I’m not particularly intelligent myself, but I recognize true intelligence when I encounter it.” so I may be rated with more smarts than I give myself credit for. Otherwise, I think the above ratings would be about the same.
sunray Jul 13th 2008 at 07:37 am 24
Looks – 8
Intelligence – 7
Personality- 10
Career – 5 ( I make a good amount of money but I don’t love what I do and am not very motivated at work…so hence the low rating)
How would you rank the “typical” person you date? – 8
Do you rank them higher or lower than you? – same
How do you think others would rank you behind your back?
Looks – 8
Intelligence – 7
Personality- 10
Career – 8 or 9 (some friends are materialist and think money is the only thing that matters so hence the high rating)
BeenThruTheWars Jul 13th 2008 at 07:41 am 25
Looks: 4-5 (50 pounds overweight but I clean up very nicely when hair/makeup are done; well groomed with a pretty face. Thus I consider myself “average” or a notch below. When I was a size 6 and more fit, I was a 7 (i.e., really cute but not a knockout. I’m more Mary Ann than Ginger.) I always dated men who were at least a 7-9 in attractiveness. I guess inside, I still envisioned myself in those skinny little Calvin Klein jeans from 10 years back. I would say my husband is 8.5. When he was in his 20s, he was what I call soap opera hero handsome. He said to me when we were dating, “It’s true, men are pigs, we all want to date a supermodel, but when you grow up you realize that’s not what’s really important in a serious relationship.” So ladies, if you are more of a Roseanne than a Mary Ann — look for grownups to date, regardless of their age.
Intelligence: 10 (99th percentile in testing; also in Mensa and qualify for Intertel). With one notable exception, I have always dated men who are at least my equal. Dating more than one standard deviation away in terms of IQ leads to serious disconnects everyplace but in the sack. (See “notable exception” reference above.)
Career: 10. I reached the pinnacle of my profession in my late 20s and have stayed there ever since.
Personality: 5 when I’m feeling cantankerous and probably 7 otherwise. This one has improved with maturity as I’ve learned about things like tact and letting go of having to control every situation. I would say I tended to date men who were way below me on this attribute. They would be sweet but boring/nerdy, or abusive bad boys who drove me insane. It’s partly an intelligence plus social skills thing. Hard to find both in the same package. My husband and I are a good fit personality-wise. He has taught me how to be whimsical and enjoy childlike things again and let loose more (who knew farts could be this fun again at 47?), and I keep him grounded and broaden his perspective. We have a lot of influence over each other and a lot of mutual respect. And we have a ton of fun!
My biggest problem in dating was always the looks aspect. I figured the superior intelligence and career success, coupled with being funny and challenging and a grownup to boot would make up for not being “hot.” My theory was probably partly true, partly wishful thinking. Whenever I was hurt in relationships, it’s because the guy would come clean about not being that attracted to me because of my weight. Interestingly though, I have done 95% of the breaking up. I always dated well above myself in terms of looks, and only dated two overweight men (more than 35 pounds overweight. +10-15 pounds is cute in my eyes.) Despite being heavy, I never had a problem getting dates, however I am rarely hit on “in the wild” except by black men (I am white). I’ll walk into a room and they’re all over me. I have to admit, I love the attention, as I find black men very attractive (though I’ve only dated interracially a couple of times).
Kris Jul 13th 2008 at 07:42 am 26
Hey Evan,
When I think of “average” in this country I do think of all those people in the airport or the mall who are overweight, with the bad fashion (that’s about all one can know, just based on visuals.) Seriously, if you are slender, active and dress well, you are already a 7 on looks, and if you add nice eyes, high cheekbones or what have you, higher. This is not an attractive nation.
If your looks are true to your photo, and you are relatively in shape, I’d give you a 9 for looks. My guess is you’d rate more than a 7 in other areas as well!
Kris
Lance Jul 13th 2008 at 08:37 am 27
Hey, blogged a response to this excellent post:
http://honeyandlance.com/are-you-a-10
Also want to say that the majority of this audience, ie bloggers and blog freaks, are going to be above average in most of the categories, particularly intel. If you’re looking for the average or below average folks, try the local Wal-Mart on a weekday.
Cheers,
Karl R Jul 13th 2008 at 12:29 pm 28
How I rate myself:
Looks: 7
Intelligence: 10
Personality: 6 (I’m heavily T instead of F on the Meyers-Briggs personality test. Empathy and compassion are largely intellectual exercises for me, and I can withstand other people’s misfortunes with a great deal of fortitude. On the other hand, I tend to be laid-back, tolerant of faults in others, generally happy, and I use humor to make everybody’s day better. Bridging that gap, I have the ability to conceal what I’m feeling to the point where I can appear to “get along” with the people I despise the most.)
career: 6 I have a job that I find challenging and intellectually stimulating. I love my job. But my job provides an average and unsteady income.
How I’d rate my girlfriends (current and ex-):
Looks: 4-8.5 (In my opinion, they’re 6-9.5. I date heavily to my “type”, which is a little non-standard.)
Intelligence: 8-10 (I prefer to date my equals, but they’re rare.)
Personality: 6-8 (I tend to date women who are generally nice people, but share some of my personality flaws.)
career: 1.5-8.5 (If the woman can support herself without my assistance, she’s sufficiently successful.)
How others rate me:
Looks: 3-9 (I’m slender and somewhat androgynous. Either I’m a woman’s “type”, or I’m not. Women who found me attractive have described me as “graceful” and “a pretty man.” I’ve also learned how to appear confident and relaxed … even in the rare circumstances when I don’t feel that way.)
Intelligence: 9-10
Personality: 7-9 (I hide the darker sides of my personality except around my “peers”, who have similar flaws.)
career: 3-5 (Many people would say that I’m seriously underachieving for my intelligence.)
———————–
Evan asked:
“How would we feel if we didn’t believe we’re above average in every single way? I’m not sure I’d want to know.”
Provided you’re not below average in every way, it’s not too hard to maintain self-esteem even when you’re below average in one or two categories. As JuJu hinted at in #20, we don’t agree on the terms.
I’ve always had a good opinion of my intelligence. But I didn’t have such a good opinion of myself in other areas (particularly looks or career) until more recent years. By convincing myself that intelligence was more important than the other categories, I could “weight the average” in my favor.
With career success, who would you say is more successful: a paralegal who loves his job, or an MD who hates her job? Who is more financially successful, a teacher who lives well within her means, or a corporate vice president who is financially over-extended to the extent that he is living paycheck-to-paycheck?
Is it more useful to appear a little above average to most people, or is it more useful to appear quite attractive to the minority of women that you want to date?
Either within the categories or between the categories, I can manipulate the terms in ways that boost my self-esteem.
Erik Jul 13th 2008 at 04:11 pm 29
I’m surprised by the answers honestly. Even when told “most people are deluded and rate themselves above a 7″ people still rate themselves high.
Looks: 3. I combine plainness with goofy teeth and bad hair. So take low average (4) and knock me down a point.
Intelligence 7. I’m bright. I’m smarter than most people who are considered bright, and very clear of the tremendous gulf between the sharpness of my mind and that of some of my associates. And the gap between those people and the true great minds of the world. Take high average, bump it a point, you’ve got me.
Personality 6. I’ve been told I’m charming, but I can also be very awkward, and I’m easily dwarfed by truly charming people.
Career 4. I do very well, at a job I hate. I’ve repeatedly passed up career opportunities because I want to be in a different field, and the current job is one of convenience. It pays well, but it’s a holding pattern.
As for those I date, as you might guess I don’t date often. Generally I date above me in some categories and vastly beneath me in some other. Charming pretty people who upon further inspection have no real intellectual depth, or bright, pretty women who I’m embarrassed to introduce to friends.
Brian Jul 13th 2008 at 09:22 pm 30
Given the high ratings above, Is there hope for an average or below average person in the dating scene–either online or not. Do you agree “as one commenter on that blog rightfully noted, an average person is NOT attractive.”
No love or companionship for the average? Should all the average-looking folks on the boards drop their memberships since there’s no hope?
Brian
Evan Marc Katz Jul 13th 2008 at 10:22 pm 31
No, Brian. What I get out of this experiment is not that everyone is above average, but that everyone THINKS they’re above average. All that means is that we have to adjust our expectations to what online dating sites can yield.
You CAN meet quality single people; unless you only insist on dating women who are considerably younger or more attractive than you. If those are your “standards”, prepare to suffer a bit.
However, if you’re a solid, average guy – like most of us are – and you’re looking for a solid, average woman – you have the potential to do VERY well. Then, it just becomes a matter of marketing – photos, essays, emails, dating skills, etc.
Click on the Services tab at the top to get a better sense of what I can do for you, to help you stand out from the pack. It makes a HUGE difference for men, especially since most men DON’T reach out for help and try to skate by with crappy photos/profiles. Those who put effort into this medium are richly rewarded.
Everyone judges on looks, Brian, but MILLIONS of average, normal, everyday people DO connect online. Don’t give up.
JuJu Jul 13th 2008 at 10:59 pm 32
Well, Erik, what is one supposed to rate oneself when we seem to agree that if one is even somewhat attractive, they are automatically at least a 7?
Okay, since I’ve been so vocal on this topic and Evan is ignoring my entirely legitimate questions anyway, here is what I can say about myself.
According to the feedback I’ve gotten pretty much my entire life (since my teens re: my body), my body and my hair, on a scale of 1 to 10, are, like, 12. (And, well, I am sighted. :=)
I would say my face is a 6, perhaps a 7 on a good day. I know that I am easy on the eyes, but not beautiful. I shared the subject of this blog with a male acquaintance, and he said I am way under-rating myself. After all, as I’ve been told (by many, not [only] him), I am striking and exotic-looking, and have tremendous sex appeal (the latter, in my personal view, being incomparably more important than classic beauty). But since he didn’t offer any specific number anyway (prudent! ;=)), I am going to stick to the ones above.
So, what’s my overall rating on looks based on this info?
Anyway, moving right along…
Intelligence – 9.5.
Personality – I think I am a very good and kind (and actually overly compassionate) person, but I’ve been told I am overly critical and pushy. I think in the past few years I’ve mellowed out substantially, but I know there is still room for improvement. So, no more than 6-7 there.
Career – I don’t know, something like a 3. Completely unfulfilling and doesn’t pay much either (although by no means am I struggling). I have so many interests that 1) it took me a long time to figure out what it is that I want to do professionally, and 2) I haven’t been able to exert a sustained effort in any one direction. My college degree was in philosophy.
As for men I dated – again, a definition question: by “dated” do we mean “went on at least one date with” or “dated for some time”? Because some of the men I’ve met online sent such misrepresentative photos of themselves (and, thus, I saw them only once), that I am not sure I should include them in these ratings.
Okay, the faces of the men I actually had some semblance of a relationship with I would rate as 5-9. Bodies – I am not sure any one of them rated higher than a 7 on that (except for my very first bf (at age 13), who actually some years later went on to become Mr. “city we lived in” – he was handsome, too! okay, then, 9.5 for faces). One recent bf was very well-proportioned and muscular for his stature, but he was only 5′8″, so it doesn’t count.
A great body is not something you see often on highly intellectual men. ;=) (And at 13 I didn’t have these standards. ;=)
With one notable exception, everyone rated substantially higher career-wise, normally a 7-8. A few I would rate about the same as myself, perhaps a digit higher. The high career rating is not something I necessarily intentionally seek out – these are the men who are typically interested in me.
With two notable exceptions, all were good, ethical people.
Intellect is the biggest problem for me in dating. Or, rather, finding a combination of powerful intellect and physical attractiveness (and genuine kindness) all in one package. I’ve either eventually outgrown some of the men I was with, or, more likely, realized after getting sufficiently acquainted with them that their sophistication amounted to nothing more than an extensive vocabulary, but at least one of them was intellectually superior to me (at least at the time), which is what I ideally would like to have in a mate.
Steve Jul 14th 2008 at 05:36 am 33
I’ve been asking myself if it matters if people are accurately rating themselves.
It matters to Evan. He deals with it all day. Getting his clients to accept reality so that they can get happier results then they are getting right now.
Then the issue of the Shallow Hals out there. At least with that example I think “Hal’s” main problem is accepting life and getting his life in order. After that the Hals out there need to understand true self acceptance ( not self esteem ). Once somebody can do that, they can accept others. That means if they meet a nice person who isn’t an Einstein in a bombshell body they can still accept that person into their lives because they aren’t rating themselves by whose company they enjoy.
Steve Jul 14th 2008 at 05:41 am 34
I think one of the most difficult and powerful things a person in our culture can do is to accept the belief that they are an ordinary person.
Ordinary people find love every day. Ordinary people get laid every day. Ordinary people lose weight every day. Ordinary people find that great job every day. Ordinary people achieve things every day that other people would like to achieve.
If you are an ordinary person you can tell yourself that since you are ordinary person you don’t lack anything that other ordinary people have.
You can tell yourself that if other ordinary people did it, that you can do it to.
Steve Jul 14th 2008 at 05:53 am 35
I’ll bite.
I think I can improve upon my qualities, I think they are SLIGHTLY better than “average”, but realistically I am an ordinary person.
I’m not finding cures for cancer, so I am not an Einstein, but I think I am intelligent. I’m not a 10 or a 9. The court is still out on the 8 as far as looks go. My married female friends are always telling me that I look good and that I “can do better”. I get a few bright smiles from women who are not bad looking here and there in my daily dealings as well as when I go out.
Like everyone else I’ve had my self esteem issues. I am too terrified to put a number on myself. While I haven’t been dealt the absolute BEST cards in life, I think I’ve been dealt a good hand.
Cathouse Teri Jul 14th 2008 at 08:33 am 36
I wouldn’t say I am “upset” about the idea of ranking myself. But it is certainly something I would not participate in. I don’t measure myself by numbers, neither do I measure others that way, so this sort of study (scientific or not) would be of no use to me.
And as you mention, we can only rate the way we PERCEIVE ourselves. This makes the exercise not only unscientific, but really rather futile. It is never our place to decide our own level or attractiveness. It is quite simply impossible. And someone who fancies themselves able to do this is possessing of a character trait that I do not value.
JuJu Jul 14th 2008 at 10:58 am 37
You know, Cathouse Teri, my own first impulse was to leave this discussion board entirely when I saw this article (for reasons I’d rather not verbalize).
I finally succumbed because I am a strong believer in not asking in a partner for what one can’t offer. In other words, this discussion does have its place in the realm of dating.
Also, if I were submitting a picture, I wouldn’t even dream of commenting on my attractiveness (and I never understood why other people do that in their profiles). But this is a different (and actually requested) format.
Lance Jul 14th 2008 at 11:30 am 38
I’m much more forgiving when ranking looks than I would be for personality and smarts (for men and women). I’ve noticed a couple of the folks leaving comments that are in the 9+ category for intelligence, which to me is like genius territory, or very close to your highest potential. If you’re that high, what is the determinant that earns the ranking? IQ?
I met a dude over the weekend (great guy) who has a couple of masters degrees and a PhD in computer science. Really really smart. You could argue that he’s a 9 in intel. But he’s socially awkward and the vibe I get is that he’s average emotionally. I roll social and emotional into the intel score because it’s all mind related. So I have to bring him down to a 7.5. He didn’t ask for my opinion of course, I’m just doing it for the sake of argument. But if we’re talking about intelligence(s) here, this guy has a ways to go to get the perfect 10.
I wouldn’t be afraid to rank oneself as a 5 or even a 3, even in intelligence. It doesn’t mean you’re retarded, it just means you recognize you have a lot of potential and that you’re working on that potential. That’s my take.
Cathouse Teri Jul 14th 2008 at 01:02 pm 39
JuJu, I certainly didn’t have the strong response you did. But I do have strong feelings about the negative effects of encouraging people to rate themselves. Still, I think this experiment could be beneficial. To plainly point out that self-perception gives us virtually no information at all. And if we can be so far off in viewing ourselves, how much more so with others?
Karl R Jul 14th 2008 at 04:30 pm 40
Lance (#38) asked:
“I’ve noticed a couple of the folks leaving comments that are in the 9+ category for intelligence, which to me is like genius territory, or very close to your highest potential. If you’re that high, what is the determinant that earns the ranking? IQ?”
Typically, the term intelligence is used to collectively describe many related abilities, such as the capacities to solve problems, to reason, to learn, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to think abstractly. Some people expand the term to include abilities such as creativity, knowledge, or wisdom.
When I speak of intelligence, I’m referring to the first set of abilities, with some bias toward the abilities to learn rapidly and solve problems. Since IQ tests tend to focus on much of this first set, I’d consider that to be a reasonable (if slightly imperfect) indicator of intelligence.
And if someone lists himself or herself as a 10, I’d expect them to have at least a genius IQ (136+ IQ).
I would lump social-awkwardness and emotions under Personality, not Intelligence, especially since Evan asked us to rate Personality separately.
I’d also disagree with your correlation between potential and intelligence. Intelligence is a measure of a person’s potential, regardless of whether the person is using it or not. Knowledge, education and even Career (yet another category separately rated) are generally the better measures of whether a person is using their potential. IQ tests try to specifically test intelligence without biasing toward people who know more or are better educated.
JuJu Jul 14th 2008 at 07:27 pm 41
Great response, Karl R.
I’d also add to that, Lance (although I suppose it’s implicit, but I thought I’d specify) the ability for analysis. Not just being able to perceive and memorize information, but the capacity to process it into some cohesive structure. Some people are just that – repositories of facts.
As for how one gets a sense as to how their intelligence level compares to that of other people, I would say it’s in the depth (and speed) of comprehension and the capacity for logic. That’s intelligence. What makes one an intellectual is the propensity for abstract thinking (an actual inclination as opposed to a theoretical faculty – this is the one exception, I surmise, to the potential vs. accomplishment argument presented by Karl R above). By that I mean ruminating on subjects beyond the day-to-day existence.
According to the most difficult test I personally took, my IQ is 153. As I’ve stated previously somewhere on this site, I do not attach undue importance to these scores (or formal education, for that matter, which you also mentioned). I draw conclusions about the superiority of my intellect from the number of people with whom I can communicate without having to explain myself. Sounds incredibly snobbish, I would imagine, but that’s how it is. And oh, the number of people I actually find challenging.
I am intelligent enough to realize my limitations. I know I am largely ignorant, as the more I learn, the more cognizant I become of how much I don’t know. And with interests this multifarious my adeptness in most areas is superficial at best.
I exhibit no social awkwardness you speak of. While it’s true that this relates to personality as well, I grant you that the line may be somewhat blurred here, as exceedingly academic people may be maladjusted to reality.
Which brings me to another facet of the phenomenon: intelligent != interesting.
By the way, wisdom or enlightenment are possible but not inevitable consequences of superior intelligence (this is, once again, a case where the synthesis with personality comes into play); although, I suppose, the higher the starting point, the greater the probability. Or perhaps I am mistaken on this one.
Anyway, we are veering off topic, but hey, you asked. =)
Steve Jul 15th 2008 at 03:21 am 42
Continuing Evan’s regular commentators grand tradition of veering off topic I think intelligence tests ( aside from diagnosing disorders ) are a form of penis waving that anyone regardless of size or sex can participate in. Years ago I got one with a battery of other tests to determine if I have ADD (it was the 90s). I requested that I not be told the score and the proctor couldn’t understand why. I explained to him that I knew myself. I would turn the score into something bad whether I was high, average or low.
Bringing it back on topic intelligence tests and these other ratings freak people out. Self acceptance skills training ( not self esteem ) is non existent AND “penis waving” is probably in our biology. We likely come from hierarchical social animals.
The exact number a person would fit into is probably of use to no one other then the most vain. The concept of “being out of your league” is probably sufficient. Aside from the Shallow Hals out there the people who live with the concept the most would be dating coaches who routinely need to do reality therapy in a graceful way with their clients.
Amy Jul 15th 2008 at 09:39 am 43
Wow… I think the interesting thing here Evan is the number of highly educated, intelligent people out there who are reading your blog! While only having a Masters degree myself, the number of PhD, MENSA and high IQ individuals is probably higher here than on other sites. What do you think that says about those of us in the dating world? We are intelligent, but apparently also often cluless when it comes to knowing the do’s and don’ts of dating. Very interesting.
Cathouse Teri Jul 15th 2008 at 12:26 pm 44
I’m thinking I’m not smart enough to be in this conversation.
Evan Marc Katz Jul 15th 2008 at 12:31 pm 45
Me either, Teri!
JuJu Jul 15th 2008 at 12:36 pm 46
Well, it sort of makes sense, Amy, as the “simpler” folk don’t theorize on dating, they just go out and date. And it’s much easier for them to find someone suitable – they have so many more options.
Karl R Jul 15th 2008 at 12:50 pm 47
Evan (#31) said:
“everyone THINKS they’re above average. All that means is that we have to adjust our expectations to what online dating sites can yield.”
Intelligence tends not to be a problem in this regard.
Even for those of us who may be intellectual snobs (like JuJu and I) and who may have grossly overestimated our own intellect, we’re judging our compatability by how easy it is for us to converse with someone. Can we keep up with them? Can they keep up with us? If the answer is generally “Yes” (on a variety of topics), then we’ve found what we’re looking for.
It’s only with Looks (and possibly Career) where we’re likely to be happy with someone vastly above us, and potentially unwilling to accept someone who is equal to us.
———————–
Amy (#43) said:
“the number of PhD, MENSA and high IQ individuals is probably higher here than on other sites. What do you think that says about those of us in the dating world?”
I’d say that we tend to view dating as a topic that can be researched on the internet. This tendency is pretty common among certain demographics (like geeks) who tend to be a lot brighter than average. And like anyone who takes the time to do research, we’ve quickly become less clueless than those who didn’t take the time.
JuJu Jul 15th 2008 at 01:18 pm 48
Karl R, do not lump me into the same category when it comes to preferences in looks! ;=)
I actually do not think I’d be happier with a man who is overall “prettier” than I (I’d even go as far as to say that most women probably wouldn’t – it would evoke [additional] complexes in them). On the other hand, if he doesn’t have a body as good as mine, there should be something (in his appearance) to compensate, like a more handsome face, otherwise I simply won’t be attracted.
By the way, an important side note here: the body, generally, is much more important to me personally than the face. The face just should be pleasant enough not to negate the value of the body.
I would be utterly content with a male version of me, looks-wise.
As for career… things here are a bit different, as, despite my feminist leanings, my definition of a man is someone who is bigger and stronger than I am, in every way. Which is not to say I am looking for someone wealthy, but definitely on his feet financially, especially if he wants to start a family.
Marilee Jul 15th 2008 at 04:17 pm 49
Hi, After reading these comments, and a blog, I was laughing and smiling and I decided to come clean. Originally I played the straight and narrow and gave myself a 7 or 7.1 as if I were really in practice for a dating site.Not wanting to seem too presumptous or self assured or any other number of descriptive words one might use -I am amending my analysis-I’m a 20 and that’s final! Humor is always the best policy.
Steve Jul 15th 2008 at 06:32 pm 50
[i]
[b]Karl R Jul 15th 2008 at 12:50 pm 47 [/b]
[b]Amy (#43) said:
“the number of PhD, MENSA and high IQ individuals is probably higher here than on other sites. What do you think that says about those of us in the dating world?”[/b]
I’d say that we tend to view dating as a topic that can be researched on the internet. This tendency is pretty common among certain demographics (like geeks) who tend to be a lot brighter than average. And like anyone who takes the time to do research, we’ve quickly become less clueless than those who didn’t take the time.[/i]
There might be several possibilities. I’m not sure what is at work with that situation, but one reason for “paralysis of analysis” is avoidance. Avoidance IMHO is usually driven by fear or a conflict/irrational belief just below the surface of a person’s thoughts.
Richard Jul 15th 2008 at 07:17 pm 51
I’ll be the only honest person here.
Attractiveness – scale of 1-10, I’ll give myself a 3. I have fair skin and a small honeysuckle.
Intelligence : 5, otherwise I wouldn’t be here if I were smarter.
Personality – can make people laugh, but not sure if they’re laughing AT me or WITH me. So, I’ll play it down the middle – “5.”
Take home lesson from reading this board – everyone (but me I guess) mistakenly thinks they’re hot shit. No wonder people are hard to get along with.
Y’all need a reality check. Find a brutally honest stranger on the street to set you straight.
JuJu Jul 16th 2008 at 03:24 am 52
Steve,
I don’t necessarily agree with Karl R on the reasons either, I am not a “geek” even by a stretch.
Occasionally I might find an interesting bit here, in the articles or the comments, but most of the time I am not exactly learning anything new.
Richard,
1) strangers in the street don’t know anything at all about my personality, intelligence, and career;
2) strangers in the street tell me I am gorgeous.
Cathouse Teri Jul 16th 2008 at 09:03 am 53
JuJu ~
Well, I’m so glad we “simpler” folk are here to entertain you.
JuJu Jul 16th 2008 at 02:15 pm 54
Oh, dear.
=)
That’s not what I meant.
Karl R’s and Steve’s posts implied that the more intelligent people (or whoever they referred to) are so maladapted to the realities of dating that they have to conduct a research in the theory before engaging in the practice.
I just enjoy reading all the advice columns I can get my hands on. I regularly read Carolyn Hax, Dear Prudence, and back when I was subscribed to Time Out New York, upon receiving each issue I went straight to the last page for the sex column. Oftentimes I empathize with the letter writers, and sometimes the issues interest me from a purely psychological standpoint.
But the fact that I read them all doesn’t mean that I have all those problems. =)
And that’s all I was trying to clarify.
By the way, it did surprise me how many people on one discussion board could turn out to be Mensa members – apparently, not only is this experiment inherently unscientific, but this just isn’t a reliable cross-section to conduct it on.
Anyhow, I am getting somewhat tired of this topic, especially since I seem to be the only one participating. ;=)
But how few people volunteered their ratings – THAT is interesting in and of itself. ;=)
Steve Jul 16th 2008 at 04:08 pm 55
Lets start a more substantive and less contentious off topic debate.
Commode seats. Why do women assume that it is the right thing for men to leave them down for women. Why not the reverse? If somebody falls in, isn’t it their own for not looking before they sit?
IM JUST KIDDING ( and I always leave the seat down…..)!
Honey Jul 16th 2008 at 04:20 pm 56
I think this conversation is SO interesting (not the toilet seat thing, the ranking thing). Way to get me thinking, Evan! For more of my thoughts see a response to this:
http://honeyandlance.com/people-are-inherently-lazy
Really I think that you can take the rankings not as an indicator of where someone falls in a particular category when compared to other people, but how likely/unlikely they are to take action to change or improve themselves in that category.
A low number means likely to take action to change/improve, even if it’s an inconvenience. A high number means you feel you’re fine the way you are.
Cathouse Teri Jul 16th 2008 at 05:29 pm 57
Regarding toilet seats, I have never understood the hubbub. If the seat is up and you wanna sit on it, put it down. If it’s down and you want it up, put it up. If a woman is complaining that she keeps falling into the toilet when she goes to use it, I have to ask her ~ “Are you backing up to the toilet?”
Steve Jul 17th 2008 at 02:57 am 58
@Honey, #56, you’ll come around
@Teri #57. You think like a man. I’ve never understood why it became elevated to be a big deal. You just make things be the way you want them to be.
Honey Jul 17th 2008 at 08:13 am 59
Well, to participate in your conversation too, Steve, in our house the BF and I both leave both the seats and lids down. But that’s because we own various small animals that will drink out of the toilet, and that’s just NASTY.
Steve Jul 17th 2008 at 08:46 am 60
@Honey, post #59
I haven’t had a cat yet that will drink anywhere, but out of a freshly flushed commode.
Karl R Jul 17th 2008 at 09:18 am 61
Honey (#56),
I’d have to disagree with your correlation between the value of the rating being inversely proportional to the effort a person will exert.
I wouldn’t have listed my Looks or Career as above average a couple years ago. I probably would have listed my Looks as a 5 and my Career as a 3 (instead of a 7 in Looks and 6 in Career).
I started exercising regularly a couple years ago, and currently I work out every day. I’ve put on 15 pounds of muscle in that time. Due to yoga, my posture is better. And since I’m not nearly as skinny as I used to be, my confidence is better. All of those are direct improvements to my Looks.
In the past 2 years my pay has doubled. I have a challenging job which I enjoy. My boss and coworkers appreciate what I do. After a series of ups and downs, my career path is headed upward again.
Based on that, I’d say that a score improves after putting effort into that category and seeing results.
Intelligence (as JuJu and I have defined it) is not something that can be improved. Education and knowledge can be improved, however.
———————–
JuJu (#54) stated:
“Karl R’s and Steve’s posts implied that the more intelligent people (or whoever they referred to) are so maladapted to the realities of dating that they have to conduct a research in the theory before engaging in the practice.”
Where did I suggest that the research occurred before the dating started?
Since I prefer to use personal examples:
When I started online dating, I had just ended an 8 month relationship. I tried eHarmony for a month, didn’t like it, switched to Match.com and discovered their archive of articles (including a number of Evan’s).
My initial profile would have been a lot better if I’d read Evan’s advice first, but bit of reading and a few revisions corrected that problem. And after reading hundreds of cliche-filled profiles, I’d say that the average Match.com customer ought to do a little research.
Who is maladapted, the person who seeks information to improve their dating odds, or the person who keeps using the same ineffective strategies?
Honey Jul 17th 2008 at 09:50 am 62
@Karl R (#61), actually your example proves the point I was trying to make exactly. You felt that your scores were average or below average, so you put in a ton of effort to change them.
And now that you’ve gotten a taste of how significant the results of that effort were, you continue to put more effort in–even though (and actually because) your scores have gone up so much. That’s often the way it is; achieving true self improvement encourages more change.
As far as intelligence, I believe the mind is like a muscle–you can’t “improve” beyond the boundaries that have been genetically set for you, but you can seek out external circumstances that will enable you to live up to your full potential (whether you consider that analytical abilities, being a repository of facts, or whatever). JuJu may have gotten a 153 on an IQ test, but if she lived in a sensory deprivation tank for a month, her score would probably be quite different. And if she took a ton of practice tests and immersed herself even more fully in structured creative and intellectual pursuits, she could probably do even better.
However, the very fact that such significant improvement is possible means I’m not sure that anyone can be a 10 in all categories. It seems like you’d reach a zero-sum game eventually–the more effort (and therefore time) you put into improving any one category, the less time you can necessarily spend on another.
Obviously this isn’t always the case (improving your career may necessarily mean improving your intelligence, for example). But because work goes not only into improving in any given category, but also maintaining any gains made in that category, it seems like there must be a ceiling. Of course, if people are born with really high scores in some of the basic areas, they may be able to improve and maintain 10’s across the board. And we are all responsible for our own improvement (or stagnation or loss) no matter where we fall initially.
Cathouse Teri Jul 17th 2008 at 09:55 am 63
Cats like their water aerated. They ain’t much into standing water. I had a cat who would go up to our water dispenser in the garage and push the button to get it to splash onto the floor and then drink from there. Drove my ex CRAZY. I thought it was purrty smart of the creature!
(How many segues can we squeeze into this post, do ya think?)
Regarding the “simpler” conversation ~ I was getting the impression from JuJu’s comments that there is a belief that the “more intelligent” folk make the mistake of overthinking the dating process. Tending toward research and rankings and such. Along the lines of “ignorance is bliss.”
Ignorance can truly be bliss. But I believe it is the habit of most humans to overthink when it comes to relationships. Dating should be fun. If it’s made out to be a chore, it will hardly be a pleasure. In response to a post elsewhere, I said this about what I’ve learned about the mating game:
It’s about life. It’s about living. It’s not about dating. Life breeds life. Go about wrapping your arms around the the very experience of it. The energy you exude will draw others who are present in their own lives. This strange distraction of the dating game is, I think, making it all sterile and formulatic. Which it is not. It should be surprising. Love, and every inch of it. Leave room for much of that.
JuJu Jul 17th 2008 at 09:58 am 64
Karl, I just thought the following could be construed as that:
I’d say that we tend to view dating as a topic that can be researched on the internet. This tendency is pretty common among certain demographics (like geeks) who tend to be a lot brighter than average. And like anyone who takes the time to do research, we’ve quickly become less clueless than those who didn’t take the time.
I don’t know anything about anyone’s personal history here and will abstain from making any far-reaching claims.
But it seems that every time I open my mouth, I offend someone, so I should just stop speaking. =)
Cathouse Teri Jul 17th 2008 at 10:18 am 65
JuJu ~ Misunderstandings occur. There is no need to think you should stop speaking.
Steve Jul 17th 2008 at 11:39 am 66
Cathouse Teri Jul 17th 2008 at 09:55 am 63
(How many segues can we squeeze into this post, do ya think?)
I have no idea. What kind of cat do you have ?
Cathouse Teri Jul 17th 2008 at 12:27 pm 67
Steve: I have none, at present. I’m the only pussy at the cathouse.
But THAT cat was a huge, gorgeous gray tabby named Hamlet.
Karl R Jul 17th 2008 at 01:09 pm 68
Honey (#62) stated:
“You felt that your scores were average or below average, so you put in a ton of effort to change them.”
I wasn’t sufficiently clear in my previous post. My scores had been average to below average for more than a decade without me making a focused effort to change them.
I initially started exercising for health reasons. Once I started seeing some results in my appearance, that added to the motivation to work harder.
The people who work the hardest on their appearance aren’t the people at the bottom. The friends of mine who have the lowest opinion of their own appearance don’t put much effort into their appearance. They may occasionally go on a crash diet for a few months, only to gain the weight back again. But the attractive middle-aged women, they put out an incredible amount of effort. They used to be near the top of the scale, they’re still close to where they were … and they’re working hard to stave off the inevitable decline.
People don’t work hard because they’re at the bottom. They work the hardest when they’re higher up, and they’re afraid that they might be headed all the way down.
Being on the bottom isn’t that strong of motivation, provided you know you can survive there. If you get some upward mobility, you see the potential for even more … that’s motivation. But if you see some downward mobility, you fear the potential for even more … and that’s the strongest motivation of all.
Honey Jul 17th 2008 at 01:47 pm 69
@Karl R–Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear, either, because I don’t consider the examples that you give as being related to what I’m talking about. People at the top who work hard aren’t changing anything, they’re maintaining (or sometimes sustaining momentum in a previously established upward direction), and I consider that a completely different type of energy.
For example, if you’ve made great strides in your career in the last two years, you’re unlikely to try to leave that your field entirely and switch to a totally different career, even if that other career is more lucrative or prestigious. Someone who has had an soul-sucking, low-paying job for the last two years is more likely to switch to something different.
Certainly laziness combined with fear keep people at the bottom for a long time, and achievement combined with fear keep people at the top for a long time. People from a wide variety of points across the spectrum maintain their own individual status quo, but only unhappy people seek radical change.
I agree that there’s a big difference in motivation between the person who’s slipped from a 5 to a 4 (which doesn’t generally seem to make much of a difference to the person involved) and the person who’s slipped from an 8 to a 7 (which tends to bother those people very much).
There tends to be a tipping point before many people realize they’re unhappy, and unhappiness can be present no matter where you fall on the spectrum. People near the top even tend to view remaining at the same score for too long as the beginning of a downward spiral, an interpretation that people at the bottom would probably be highly unlikely to have.
fuscia Jul 19th 2008 at 08:47 am 70
looks – 6. it’s not that i think i’m unattractive. my self esteem is actually pretty solid. it’s that i don’t exude broad spectrum appeal. i work the niche market.
intelligence – 6. all types of intelligence out there. emotional. intellectual. social. i’m great at some of them, horrible on others. but i cover up well with lots of blue collar work ethic and not rambling
personality – 6. oh i can get sooo awkward! but! i’ve played to my strengths, been very real, and that seems to instead come off as bed-ably endearingly-cute and free-shots-at-the-bar worthy.
career – 8.5. i don’t love what i do, but it’s a great stepping stone to wherever i want to end up next. and give me a few years, and i’ll be a great suga mama.
fuscia Jul 19th 2008 at 08:52 am 71
oh and i think it’s hard for us to be objective on ourselves because…we walk a fine line between good self esteem, and maximizing our pluses to make ourselves marketable…
hunter Jul 19th 2008 at 09:44 pm 72
on post #43
………I have been told that MENSA women are comfortable being around men….
Overestimating Yourself:The Consequence of Change vs Inertia in Dating and Relationships : Baggage Reclaim - Dating, singles, relationships, sex tips and advice blog for men and women. Jul 21st 2008 at 07:50 am 73
[...] Ourselves, which was actually in response to a post by dating expert Evan Marc Katz called Do You Overestimate Yourself? Both of their posts were in response to a recent post on the Freakonomics Bulletin (Freakonomics is [...]
Cathouse Teri Jul 21st 2008 at 09:26 am 74
My father defines intelligence as “coping with complexity.”
And he’s the most intelligent person I know. According to my mother, he was invited to join MENSA, but he has never been one to join things. Nor to accept a label he can use as a way to feel superior to others. Which I appreciate about him.
hunter Jul 21st 2008 at 08:43 pm 75
If memory serves me right, Mensa members must pass a written test, of which the those who score in the top 2% are allowed to be members.
Evan Marc Katz Jul 21st 2008 at 09:54 pm 76
From the MENSA website:
Candidates for membership in Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98th percentile on a standard test of intelligence.
Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test. There are a large number of intelligence tests that are “approved”.
—–
If memory serves correct, you could have submitted a good SAT score and gotten in. So don’t pay too much attention to the MENSA label. It’s cool to know you’re qualified – not cool to brag about it in casual conversation…
Honey Jul 22nd 2008 at 07:34 am 77
Actually, you can only use your SAT score to qualify if you took it prior to 1994. Most of the scholastic aptitude tests have been phased out as a means of entry because they have been scientifically proven to not measure intelligence.
I only joined because when I found out the BF was in, it reminded me that my mother had always wanted to join but was too sick (she was extremely ill my whole life and died when I was 18). Since she never realized her dream to become a member, I was pleased she passed on the genes for me to do so in her memory.
Not sure this is casual conversation, though, Evan–you asked us to rank ourselves in the category of intelligence as part of an experiment. Some of us had proof that we were in the top 2%, and used that as evidence to justify our personal rankings. Doesn’t seem inappropriate to bring it up in that context, though I have to admit that I haven’t read all the postings by Mensans carefully enough to know whether anyone was “bragging,” whatever it is you mean by that.
Evan Marc Katz Jul 22nd 2008 at 08:31 am 78
Didn’t say YOU were bragging, Honey. This thread is all about intelligence, and therefore that information is relevant. But if you were to just drop MENSA into a casual conversation? Yeah, it’s somewhat gauche.
Cathouse Teri Jul 22nd 2008 at 09:04 am 79
Yes, it is by testing that you become qualified to be a member of MENSA. In my father’s case, he had taken a number of tests, as he was in the military. This was in the fifties. And he received an invite from MENSA without having applied.
I agree that MENSA membership can be injected into this specific conversation without being called bragging. Since the information was requested. But it can also become the focus, rather than simply a way to justify ranking. It can become problematic, just as when one tries to rank oneself as attractive. By what scale? Do I say I am attractive because I win a yearly beauty contest? Indeed, if I do, I can safely say that I am attractive. And, in this context, I suppose I can say it without being accused of bragging. But when I belabor the point, it does begin to look like I’m tooting my own horn.
Evan ~ are we to know your results of this experiment?
Honey Jul 22nd 2008 at 09:34 am 80
I see what you’re saying, Evan. The BF tried to drop his Mensa membership into conversation once, I think during a job interview, and the person didn’t know what it was. So then he had to explain, and it got all awkward. There’s definitely a time and a place (and honestly, that place is almost never).
Jeanne Jul 22nd 2008 at 06:34 pm 81
Evan all this over rating is a good thing! Low self esteem is rampant amongst most of my girlfriends and as a result, they allow themselves to be trapped in miserable relationships because they don’t think themselves worthy of anything better. So they will never be on internet dating sites, dating blogs or taking surveys about themselves. I think you are seeing the “over rating” because you are dealing with a population with self-esteem who take the risk to put themselves out there for a healthy relationship. There are far far more people out there who don’t.
As for myself:
Looks – 6. I’m attractive but not Angelina Jolie
Career – 9. I’m the director of an office that works on the highest foreign policy priority of the world’s only superpower and I’m only 43. not too shabby.
Intelligence – if its the Mensa standard, 6.5. But I think intelligence is much more than that. I think its how you work the world in a positive way to make things happen. By that definition, I’m a 8.
Personality – 9. When I walk into a place where I am known, its a bit like being Norm on “Cheers” when he walked into the bar. I have a gzillion friends for a reason and former staff will tell you that I was the bestest boss in the whole wide world.
How others would rate me? I have a male friend who is brutal honest who would concur with my assessment on intellect and personality. On looks however he says my face is a 10 but that I need to lose weight. Interestingly, I have the exact same measurements as Marilyn Monroe (weight, height, inches, dress size). My have our cultural definitions of beauty have changed!:-)
How would male dating prospects rate me? They tend to get hung up on the 6 looks and don’t take the chance to find out about all the 9s – or the Marilyn Monroe body for that matter:-).
hunter Jul 22nd 2008 at 09:11 pm 82
on post #79
Congratulations……You had a bright, intelligent, smart, dad…..
hunter Jul 22nd 2008 at 09:19 pm 83
on post #81
..so tell us men, how does one approach a woman of your caliber, and make a good impression?(leading to a first date)…
Do You Overestimate Yourself? Everyone Else Does… Jul 23rd 2008 at 12:39 am 84
[...] Evan Marc Katz wrote an interesting post today on Do You Overestimate Yourself? Everyone Else Does…. Here’s a quick excerpt: [...]
The Reverend Terence Fformby-Smythe Jul 23rd 2008 at 06:12 am 85
Low self esteem is rampant amongst most of my girlfriends and as a result, they allow themselves to be trapped in miserable relationships because they don’t think themselves worthy of anything better.
do you know where I can find women with low self-esteem? I heard that they are easier to manipulate.
Ben Jul 24th 2008 at 01:39 pm 86
This article claims the opposite, that people UNDER rate themselves:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1036795/The-beauty-prescription-Why-20-cent-attractive-think-are.html
Perhaps it’s true for women with body dysmorphia, but i’m not sure it’s true for men. Who knows.
It actually doesn’t look any more scientific than the freakonomics post. I’d love to see the actual ‘research’ which they cite.
hunter Jul 25th 2008 at 06:53 am 87
to the rev on post #85
I have been told, women with low self esteem get into relationships at a young age and stay there. Most don’t realize what they have done, until they turn 40 or 50 years of age.
schlockdoc Jul 26th 2008 at 06:45 pm 88
To Ben (#86):
I bet most women know their ‘looks rating’ pretty well (whether they want to admit it or not), whereas I bet most men don’t have a clue.
That’s because you can pretty well gauge the impression you’re making by the guys coming on to you.
For men it’s a little trickier because women don’t pursue men as rabidly, and when they do they’re more subtle about it and don’t typically choose their targets strictly on the basis of appearance.
A-L Jul 26th 2008 at 08:27 pm 89
I’ve been away, so please pardon the late reply.
Looks: 5-6 I’m average to slightly above average in appearance, though when I take greater care (ie, makeup, hair, etc) then I’m more like a 7. On facestat 2 out of 3 pictures qualified as good looking, and 1 as not bad.
Intelligence: 9 In school I was in the gifted program which required an IQ of at least 130 (ie, 98th percentile). Of course, I can always become more knowledgeable, but I have a good brain with which to work.
Personality: 7-8 I’m tactful and get along with most everyone, but it takes me awhile before I warm up to people enough to let them see the more fun, witty, and lively me.
Career: 6 As a teacher I’m in a professional field that earns relatively little money. But when compared with national medians for a family of 4…then it looks like I’m raking in the big bucks.
The guys I’ve dated:
Looks: 4-7
Intelligence: 6-10
Personality: 5-9
Career: 5-10
Of these 4 categories intelligence & personality issues are the top reasons why I’ve broken up with guys, followed by looks, and last career.
m Jul 28th 2008 at 08:15 am 90
“the BF tried to drop his Mensa membership into conversation once, I think during a job interview, and the person didn’t know what it was. So then he had to explain, and it got all awkward. There’s definitely a time and a place (and honestly, that place is almost never).”
Definitely about gauging one’s audience, and THAT’S about “social intelligence.” (Which, I notice, is one of the things here NOT being “ranked”.)
I did it once (mentioned my MENSA membership – hey; the guy asked me) after I was invited to join in grad school, on a date. The guy was a PhD and attorney, so I figured it was not a big deal. Never heard from him again.
So never mentioned it on a date again either (among other “social intelligence” lessons from that particular statistical random sample).
I think there’s another thread altogether in here about which “rankings” are relatively VALUED by either gender, but we’ve got several topics in here already and as important as I think it, I have no intention to unduly derail.
Are We Stuck In Our “Cute-agory” Forever? « The Adventures of Emily Legend Jul 29th 2008 at 01:44 am 91
[...] read Honey and Lance’s story about rank and they pointed me to Evan Marc Katz’s article based on the NYT’s Freakonomics Blog. Their theory is we rank ourselves higher than [...]