>>18228818The guy who collected the data himself told you that there was nothing odd about the guys rated ugly - they were just average guys - and therefore representative of the average. But even if you were right in that regard, it would be an irrelevant factor, because if it applies to the average man then that's just what the average man is like. Also, I find it a lot more likely that the average man today puts a lot more effort into grooming, working out, etc. than people in the past did. I'm old enough to remember it and I can guarantee you, when I was a teenager, men cared less about their looks than they do today.
>I'd almost say your chart shows women are more willing to compromise because they're pickierNo, they're not. The average man is much more likely to message the average woman than the average woman is likely to message the average man.
This is also not surprising; it heavily factors into evolutionary history. Women tend to be more 'average' than men, which Darwin postulated as his "Variability Hypothesis". The variability hypothesis has been confirmed empirically in various instances, e.g. regarding intelligence. You will find a lot more male geniuses and male retards, whereas women tend to be midwits. In terms of anti-social behaviour you also find men to be represented in much higher numbers, given the disparity in prison populations.
These differing distributions tie into different breeding patterns. If you have a sexually dimorphic species that are differentially selective, e.g. women only breeding with the top 20% of men and men breeding with all but the bottom 20% of women, then a normal distribution will assume its probabilistic optimum with regard to maximising a population capable of breeding.
There is a paper on that subject exploring the mathematical side of things:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf 
