>>40606202That doesn't explain it though, the men also have the same infinite choice but their bell curve is a bell curve. The women have a bell curve too, but here's the thing: the app is making people rate each other based on visuals alone, and men score by visuals above all else. Whereas women score by a whole set of non-visual criteria, like how they speak, or how much money they have. That's why when they get into the femcels vs incels internet wars, they'll be like "actually I would totally date a manlet and it's just an attitude problem". They're lying, as women do, we know they wouldn't really prefer the manlet, but what they're saying is a man's "attitude" (or what the IRS calls a "gross annual income") carries some weight, and can be enough to overcome one or two disadvantages in another area. Whence those charts that show how if a guy gets a $50k boost to his income it's worth a half centimeter in height, or something, I forgot the exact numbers.
Going back to the okcupid example, the women are judging the men the way a taste tester would perform with a sinus infection, everything is just "off" and their choices don't reflect how they would sort the same set of men in real life, because they don't have access to critical pieces of information. That's why it doesn't look like a bell curve, and it's also why women get so evasive and vague when you ask them to show a concrete example of an "attractive male". Thinking about the real criteria makes them face a truth about themselves that perhaps they'd rather not say out loud even though it's understood by everyone already. They feel it would be conceding an argument to the incels, whereas the incels probably would say it's not even a thing to be argued about because it's a fundamental truth.