« More reasons you are fat | Main | PJ O'Rourke on Moral Sentiments »
How to write a personal ad
Megan Non-McArdle, who gives every appearance of being high-quality (she even knows the Coase theorem), places a personal ad. The question: how should she describe herself?
I don't have experience with this matter, but I do have theories...which of course I have put beneath the fold...
Here is her reasoning for what she has done, see here too.
My take: The goal is to induce many high-quality men into responding. That means finding the relevant "bottleneck" for those men and getting them over it.
For instance if you don't mind lying (or writing lots), promise that you will respond to all messages, one way or the other. More people will write in. Otherwise men fear they are wasting their time by responding.
What else? Photos, or at least links to photos,
are key. (Even better: a link to one's vlogging.) The man will judge the woman -- as "wife material" -- by the
photo. Of course the woman has to pass "the
looks hurdle" in any case, so this won't rule out many true eligibles. If a man doesn't see a photo, the odds are he thinks the woman doesn't pass his test. This is not just adverse selection; the default is that any given woman doesn't pass the test.
Note: not every man is looking for a supermodel. But every man wants a wife who doesn't look a certain way or set of ways. (When I was single I didn't want women who wore Prada.) Posting the photo signals to some men that "you look right" to them, and again increases the chance they will write.
After that, the rest of the ad should be accurate, signal high intelligence in fairly straightforward fashion, but otherwise be bland. You can say one or two idiosyncratic things, perhaps to attract a few ardent admirers, but they should not be too edgy or scare anyone off.
Don't let men rule themselves out because of fears which may or may not be valid. If a smart searching man likes how you look, and sees you are smart, he will write to you.
Note that the
male audience is error-prone and self-deceiving, so the self-description
should involve some ambiguity rather than a perfect description of
self. The woman cannot trust the men to do the proper ex ante sorting. Had I known I wanted a
Russian Jewish-Armenian lawyer and former linguist with not exactly my political views?
BUT: What if the advertising woman self-deceives about a good partner more than the eligible men do? In that case the woman might want to be very specific about what she is like. The number of respondees goes down and the woman hopes that the right man will see through her character and choose her.
Does that sound like Megan Non-McArdle? Are highly specific ads an attempt to abdicate responsibility for choice? A pre-emptive move to avoid rejection? Or are they a demand for the near-impossible, to seek the most romantic story imaginable, and to request only a man who is infinitely perceptive and full of love from the get go?
Stay tuned...
Addendum: If a woman writes a blog, and in part uses the blog as an extended (and thus detailed) personal ad, does this mean she is especially difficult to please? Especially romantic?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 14, 2006 at 05:02 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
"If a woman writes a blog, and in part uses the blog as an extended (and thus detailed) personal ad, does this mean she is especially difficult to please? Especially romantic?"
Both. ;)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 14, 2006 3:44:31 AM
Why is the goal to induce the many high-quality men into responding? Isn't it more to induce the one highest-quality man into responding? (Where high-quality is a highly subjective attribute, depending strongly on the person placing the ad.) And if the highest-quality man is picky, which seems probable, they are more likely to be actively seeking positive characteristics than ruling possibilities out on the basis of negative characteristics (although that too). So the "be bland" advice would be precisely wrong -- the highest-quality man would skip over yet another uninteresting ad.
Posted by: Sean Carroll at Jul 14, 2006 8:23:53 AM
Based on everything I've heard, almost EVERY woman who places a personals ad is guaranteed to get an enormous number of replies, so there's really no need for women to fret about the proper ways to write their ads. Anything will work.
Posted by: Peter at Jul 14, 2006 10:02:28 AM
"Why is the goal to induce the many high-quality men into responding? Isn't it more to induce the one highest-quality man into responding?"
I would say that you are more likely to optimize your choice when presented with a panoply of options, than when you narrow the selection window excessively.
Obviously you don't want to be overwhelmed. But you also don't want to overemphasize any one selection factor to the exclusion of others that may be as important.
This was quite an art form when I was running competitions for the U.S. Navy: you wanted to open up the competition to a reasonable degree, while excluding the obvious false choices.
This was not altogether self-serving; you wanted to avoid having prospective offerors get a false impression of their chances and thereby waste valuable bid-and-proposal resources chasing a job they could never get.
Posted by: David Hecht at Jul 14, 2006 10:04:32 AM
The problem with a bland ad is that everyone else is writing bland ads, and you won't stand out. I didn't write women who wrote bland ads because I didn't have any sense that they were anything other than bland, and, indeed, when I did date women who wrote bland ads, I was quickly bored.
Women also have different strategies for posting personal ads than men do, because men are much more likely to write women than vice versa. An attractive woman probably wants her ad to discourage unlikely candidates so as not to be swamped by them.
As for the final question, I agree with Jacqueline's assessment.
Posted by: Ted at Jul 14, 2006 10:20:54 AM
After that, the rest of the ad should be accurate, signal high intelligence in fairly straightforward fashion, but otherwise be bland. You can say one or two idiosyncratic things, perhaps to attract a few ardent admirers, but they should not be too edgy or scare anyone off.
"Bland"?! Tyler, time to sprinkle some "Carpe Diem" on top of your Wheaties! What ever happened to the author of: "It's later than you think"?
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Jul 14, 2006 10:32:13 AM
Megan is looking for a eventual husband, which means a man of extremely high quality. People are not perfect estimators of even subjective quality, and a relationship with a man of high, but not husband-high quality can waste a lot of time. So - assuming the men Megan could happily marry are few as a percentage of all men, but many as an absolute number - it makes sense for her to be as selective as possible, erring on the side of needless elimination of husband-quality men to avoid wasting time on sub-husband-quality men.
Posted by: Capella at Jul 14, 2006 10:41:10 AM
Casual, not bland.
I've found that countersignaling works well in personal ads:
"It puts the lotion in the basket!" -- 31, Manhattan
Posted by: Jason Ruspini at Jul 14, 2006 10:57:10 AM
Jeez, that took a couple of seconds. "Silence of the Lambs", eh? That'll bring in an interesting class of responses, reminiscent of P. J. O'Rourke's comment in "The Bachelor's Home Companion" about girls who are into motorcycles: "They'll do anything. No, really, anything you can think up."
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Jul 14, 2006 11:41:09 AM
As a former somewhat successful user of the dating websites, I found that scaring off men was exactly the goal. Otherwise, you're so deluged with perfectly nice sounding guys that you start to feel guilty about rejecting for nothing more than blandness. A blog may be a different matter, as there's a history of posts there to give a more complete picture of you. But with a blurb, I found being as specific and intimidating as possible was the key. It narrowed it down to: (1) Men so dense and horny that it was pure entertainment to read their responses ("I'm looking for a woman who looks at children and disabled people with a smile in her eyes" and (2) Possible matches that had something concrete to say about my obscure interests. That being said, anything in one's blurb that one would not want to talk about in more detail on a first date, such as "blissful, raunchy sex," is best omitted.
Posted by: Holly at Jul 14, 2006 2:06:49 PM
(When I was single I didn't want women who wore Prada.)
But why? Do you think such women are spoiled or are high maintenance?
Posted by: AS at Jul 14, 2006 5:10:02 PM
I think that the secret of personal ads is to project some personality.
Stating that one is "sincere" and "honest" or that one likes "wine by the fire" or "walks on the beach" (much less "fine dining") indicates nothing more than that one is breathing.
Give me a woman who asks a question ("Do you prefer Moussaka made with red or white wine?") or suggests something specific ("Let's go to Brasilia!").
Posted by: David Sucher at Jul 14, 2006 6:34:10 PM
As a highly successful (i.e., former) user of online personal ads, I can confirm the need for narrowing the field of potential suitors, even though I am quite older (44) than the median age for women posting (32, if you believe what people say) and especially as my goal changed from Suitable Companion for Romps to Suitable Companion for Life, or a large chunk of it.
I've written extensively and only half-jokingly about the secret hurdles I made my man-suitors jump, as well as the subtle (and not so subtle) clues men give as to their suitor suitability, but basically, the online portion of the equation comes down to (a) finding someone who is not an illiterate boor (unless you yourself are an illiterate boor-ess, or desire illiterate boors) and (b) finding someone who (intentionlly) makes you laugh.
The rest is chemistry, both the sexual kind and the kind that sends the hairs on the back of your neck straight up to indicate potential axe murderers. This can *only* be sorted out in person, so if you're looking for a mate (as opposed to a dalliance), you're better off doing less ruling out up front and casting a wider net.
The exceptions to this are, of course, if you are a very young woman, a very young and attractive woman or a woman who has gotten extremely good at vetting men via their profiles and initial contact. These ladies can and should opt to narrow the field up front.
Regarding that last item (about lady-blogs), I am not especially romantic nor (according to my boyfriend, whom I met online, particularly difficult to please), I am just an oddball who needed to find the other, perfectly complementary oddball for me. The blog made this muuuuuuch easier.
Posted by: communicatrix at Jul 16, 2006 4:44:46 PM
I found this Website by entering this question on webcrawler.com:
"Why Are Jewish-American Women So Dense When It Comes to Men?"
I decided to search for the answer to that cosmic question after receiving a rejecting email message from a woman with whom I had made a connection after a brief correspondence (two days) on Match.com. She stated that I did not identify myself as Jewish because I am a member of a congregation belonging to the United Church of Christ, the most progressive American Protestant church. They don't consider Jesus Christ to be their savior, and they don't believe in the literal word of the Bible.
I replied that she did not have enough information to come to that conclusion. I was raised Jewish with two Jewish parents and identify myself as Jewish, despite also being an atheist and a U.C.C. member. This woman is very well-read (she has even read the Zohar, a group of books about Jewish mysticism) and has very little chance, in my opinion, of finding someone who is not only Jewish but is eager to hear her impressions of that obscure work. I asked her to reconsider her decision and give us a chance. If I remember, I will let you know what happens. Stay tuned for further developments.
Thanks for listening,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Sherman at Jul 25, 2006 5:28:02 PM
Posted by: Hillary at Jul 31, 2006 8:36:31 PM
Hello, super site look this:
lds dating
lds dating
End ^) See you
Posted by: Gohoynki at Aug 1, 2006 9:51:42 AM
Posted by: sadas at Aug 7, 2006 8:50:52 AM
Jeff:
It's quite possible that Jewish woman rejected you because it took you precisely two paragraphs to come across as a kook on this blog. She was clearly generous in giving you two days.
Posted by: Fanboy at Aug 14, 2006 11:04:06 AM
Jeff:
I'd say that her chances of finding men who share her interest in the Zohar and in real Kabalah (it's one of Kabalah's most important texts) are fairly good if she moves in the right circles, so there's little chance that she'll go back to you because she can't find anyone who shares her interest in it. Good thing for her.
Posted by: Paul at Aug 15, 2006 12:13:57 AM
jong groepssex thuis ^^^ grietjes liefde vredig ^^^ 30 minuti gratis cielo ^^^ comfortable fighetta ^^^ plus chaud envie fils ^^^ chaude frais trente six ^^^ le plus frais maman galeries ^^^ frais papa vingt six ^^^ crave infermiera prostituta ^^^ crave segretaria prostituta ^^^ intens servitris asna till mun ^^^ begar servitris rovpuling ^^^ eccellere cowgirl inculate ^^^ fresco fighette spogliarello ^^^ amateure infirmiere lubrique ^^^ analfick timide fille ^^^ immuuni porno peraaukon ^^^ livesexlist lesbisk naken ^^^ vennlig mye ^^^ brunette kino ^^^ mye rundbrenner ^^^ i boligen elsker ^^^ xanthos skata stin ethousa ^^^ to pio zesto souideza ^^^ chaud maman sequences ^^^ mere boutique ^^^ pio drosero apofasistikos pateroulis ^^^ to pio drosero apofasistikos pateroulis ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 11, 2006 3:26:32 AM
Hello all really cool blog
buy ativan buy adipex buy didrex buy levitra buy cialis buy phentermine buy soma buy tramadol buy diazepam buy carisoprodol buy meridia buy paxil buy valium buy xanax buy ultram buy fioricet tooth whitening online pharmacy alprazolam flower online car insurance payday loan web directory business directory carisoprodol cheap hydrocodone buy vicodin alprazolam fioricet hydrocodone vicodin tramadol xanax valium ultram soma carisoprodol ambien ativan lorazepam propecia adipex didrex cialis levitra paxil meridia viagra wellbutrin clonazepam xenical prozac butalbital phentermine
Posted by: linda at Oct 9, 2006 5:07:43 AM
People should be allowed to go naked in certain recreational areas only - Or specify those areas and you have another persuasive speech topic
http://yourmilfsex.info/milf-tgp/ milf tgp
Posted by: free interracial milfs at Jun 2, 2007 3:20:27 AM


