Tinder reaffirms the 80/20 rule

Someone ran an analysis on Tinder statistics likes much like OKCupid statistics we’ve gone over before.

Abstract (TL;DR)

This study was conducted to quantify the Tinder socio-economic prospects for males based on the percentage of females that will “like” them. Female Tinder usage data was collected and statistically analyzed to determine the inequality in the Tinder economy. It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies. In addition, it was determined that a man of average attractiveness would be “liked” by approximately 0.87% (1 in 115) of women on Tinder. Also, a formula was derived to estimate a man’s attractiveness level based on the percentage of “likes” he receives on Tinder:


This should surprise no one who has been observing both the Church and culture for any amount of time. The ‘most attractive’ men have a disproportionate amount of female attention and can pretty much pick and choose who to bang (if secular) or to marry (if Christian).

It’s also one of the reasons that it’s important to focus on developing traits that signal attractiveness if you desire to be married as a Christian man. Leadership, masculinity, protector, and provider which encompass most of the attractive traits.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Tinder reaffirms the 80/20 rule

  1. Novaseeker says:


    A key difference is that, as you’ve pointed out here and elsewhere, in real life women are attracted to much more than looks, whereas on Tinder it’s almost 100% looks based by nature of the app. This exaggerates how few men women find attractive in any way (because as we know if it’s just taking looks into account, it’s remarkably few men who can attract women on that basis alone — that’s Tinder’s context, however). But as you pointed out in the OKC post, when you add in the other PSALM factors, you get up to around the pareto factor of 20% or so, which is closer to the real life selectivity (and quite selective enough, mind you, to create difficulties for most men) than the extreme selectivity you see in an app like Tinder.

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    The survey is too thin to take other than for qualitative analysis. Still, it does confirm hypergamy and I don’t think that most men will be able to over come this hurdle. We are going to see a lot of single senior citizens going forward. By the way, I think that the true numbers for Tinder are much worse. By their own admission, a man has to swipe right, accept, eighteen times more women than a woman to find an opposite who will accept them.
    If hypergamy is a blade, it has two edges. When it begins to cut women, there will be some shrieking.

  3. anonymous_ng says:

    I saw this one too.

    What I find interesting is how much more interest I got in person, than I did online when I was running around to the bars every weekend post divorce.

    There are quite a few things that don’t present well online.

  4. Pingback: Tinder reaffirms the 80/20 rule | Whores and Ale

  5. I love that someone ran the Gini coefficient. That’s just hilarious.

    But it also explains Rollo’s point about the Feminine Imperative being so destructive. It always leads to mud huts.


    Most communication is non-verbal. Posture, stance and demeanor are hard to convey in a photo unless you’re very “photogenic”. Being photogenic means the lines of your face “flatten” well in a photograph. This is also the reason for the Selfie being taken at an elevator & tilted angle. It improves facial lines on Women while also being at roughly the median height differential.

  6. Pingback: Another book blames men for the lack of marriage | Christianity and masculinity

  7. Pingback: Just How Universal Is the 80/20 Rule? | Donal Graeme

  8. Pingback: 80/20 rule followup, masculine attractiveness analysis, and how to fix a dysfunctional marriage | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s