The Social Matching Theory

A very select few of you know I'm in the process of writing a book at the moment. The Social Matching Theory is one tenet I am currently researching as a foundation for certain parts of this book so i thought I'd prepare a post here on this psychological principle and see what the response was.

Social Matching Theory, in essence, is defined as follows; All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themself.

Just as an aside, this is a well recognized social psychology theory, not one of my own formulation.

This is a naturally occuring commonality among many specific aculturations and societies. The trick to this theory is that 'All Things' are rarely equal. However, my point to this isn't to naively assume that attraction and sexual pairing happen in a vacuum - far from it. It is to illustrate an underlying psycho-biological principle that operates beneath our consciousness that prompts other psychological schemas from an intimately personal (micro) level to the social psychology of an entire (macro) culture.

Now check this picture out:
How to spot a rich guy

We laugh our asses off at this joke, but why is it funny? It is funny because human beings, like many other animals have the innate ability to make cognitive comparissons on a subconscious level. The reason it's humorous, is because we see an imbalance in a system and make deductive conclusions with regard to other people's individual conditions. This is the basis of the Social Matching Theory.

As I've posted in several threads with regard to "Why Women Cheat" or why men are so compelled toward sex with attractive women, the root of this desire is a psycho-evolutionarily developed opportunisim that is founded on our ability to make and assess these natural comparissons in order to better facilitate our own survival and the survival of our offspring. It has served our species so well over the millennia that this natural comparisson making capacity has become an autonomous and subconscious aspect of our experiencing our environment. We understand that eating the large apple is preferable, from a survial standpoint, than eating the small one. We have a tendency to want what our biologies compel us towards and develop idealizations based on what we think would best satisfy these ends.

I understand that attraction and intersexual relations do not happen in a vacumm and there are many (generally predictable) variables that influence this, but Social Matching Theory isn't about the process of attraction or pairing so much as the motivations for selection.

I'm often asked whether physical appearance, prowess, bearing influence attraction, and I can speak from my own experience saying yes, it absolutely does. A fat guy is simply not going to attract a Fitness America competitor without some very unique circumstances influencing this attraction. Neither would I support this attraction being based in a qualitative genuine physical desire for the fat male. It is an imbalance in a system.

All things being equal; socio-economic, intellectual, emotional levels etc. you will have a tendency to attract and be attracted to people of similar physical presence as yourself. This is the root of the psychological schema many men and women apply when they follow the "He/She's out of my leauge" mentality. They are manifesting this subconscious understanding that the prospects of another person of a more idealized physical presence being attracted to them or pairing with them would be an likely match. They self-perceive this imbalance and thus limit themselves to opportunities that have a better likelihood of success in gratifying their need - in this case sex.

Look at the 'Rich Guy' picture again. The woman in this imbalance we are regarding as a 'Golddigger'. This too is inspired by an innate understanding of the Social Matching Theory. Why else would an (arguably) attractive woman in comparatively good shape, wearing a thong, be with a morbidly obese male if he didn't posess some other redeeming variable to inspire the match? We see picture and laugh and women make the internalized rationalization that she's not genuinely interested in the guy, but is 'in love' with his means. Superficial? Perhaps, but it still illustrates this comparative instinct we have, particularly when we know nothing about individual circumstance.

Finally, I should add that the Social Matching Theory is also one of the primary foundations upon which AFCism and ONEitis is based. This natural fear of rejection associated with both of these schema stem from a subconscious understanding of this theory. ONEitis in particular can be traced back to this self-perception of imbalance leading to the "I'll never find a better woman/man than this person" mentality in so much as it represents a limitation of opporuntism. In other words, it becomes preferable for a person to stay and accomodate an otherwise intolerable relationship if that person has internalized the understanding that their relationship represents an imbalance in this Social Matching. Abuse endured from the more idealized mate becomes preferable to rejection from anonymous, less idealized sources of intimacy.

id like to add

My understanding of what you wrote, is that this is the least important aspect of the rules of attraction, since you are assuming that "all other things are equal" in the first place.

Social Matching Theory, in essence, is defined as follows; All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themself.

Click to expand...

This is by no means original material, but as usual you frame it and package it better than most. This has been around for many years as the number theory, which says that everyone has a number, and that you can date at or below your number, but not above it. For example, if I'm a 7, and I'm dating a 9, I gain some social proof, while she loses some.

I've always thought that one of the best attributes of a DJ is that he can redefine the rules, and date whatever number he wants, high or low, without any apologies or justifications.

Agree somewhat with this. However, sometimes you are what you believe. After a good dosage of this site while in grad school, I started carrying myself a little different and actually believed I deserved someone nice, classy, and great looking and that's what I attracted. But yeah, if I was a complete overweight, non-confident slob, I wouldn't attract similar women.

Carrying oneself with confidence can go miles in upping the kind of women one attracts.

Re:

My only question is...

Neil Straus never struck me as the next MODEL, so how was he able to land what MOST would consider a 9 or 10?

I get the theory, but again, the loophole is, things are NEVER equal in society, as equality is a matter of perception between PEOPLE. Rights might be equal, but rights are objects, things, and can be standardized toward humanity, but not toward races or sexes or religions.

The factors are anomalous, as I've seen...

*HOT Hoes find themselves with so-so goody guys who treat them well.
*Purported GOOD girls that are hot end up with low class guys.

I think the bottom line theme coming from such thinking is that...you don't know what you don't know, you'll never KNOW truly who would love, like or want you, UNTIL you approach them and find out more about them.



A-Unit

Re: Re:

Originally posted by OneArmDeeJay
Social Matching is different for men and women.


Men don’t want fat, ugly, boring women.

And

Women don’t care too much about the physical appearance.

Click to expand...

Do they really? Perhaps I could agree with this from the perspective of a woman who's conditions warrant her to be more accepting of, and to lower her standards for a guy who represents a long term investment in her future security inspite of his physical shortcomings - however, the fact that she HAS standards in the first place is evidence of a Social Matching dynamic. A guy with washboard abs and no game or money to speak of can still get laid with some regularity on the merits of his physique. An out of shape guy must find means to compensate for this deficit in order to circumvent Social Matching.

I think easily observable behavior will contradict that women don't care too much about physical appearance. The physical standard for male idealization is far more demanding than men hold for women. Let me explain; a woman's standard for idealization is more easily acquired in that she can augment herself more easily (implants etc.) as well as only having a physical requirement to maintain a slender appearance (i.e. flat stomach, thin legs and ass etc.), whila a man must work hard to achieve this same degree of idealization (i.e. muscularity).

It's not that Social Matching is insurmountable; there are emotional connections and psychological dynamics that benefit attraction of course, but it's that it exists in the first place or is an unimportant or in some way less integral part that I think is underappreciated aspect.

Originally posted by WestCoaster
sometimes you are what you believe.,,Carrying oneself with confidence can go miles in upping the kind of women one attracts.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but as I've stated in my Plate Theory post, it's easier not to give a fvck, if you're genuinely confident enough to actually NOT give a fvck. If you have a firm realization (or even a subconscious one) of where you stand in a Social Matching dynamic this goes a long way for boosting that confidence. That isn't to say that learning the Game is less necessary than devoting concentration to the physical aspect, if anything it's more important. I know plenty of very attractive jocks who're great at ONSs, but not much else.

Originally posted by A-Unit
My only question is...

Neil Straus never struck me as the next MODEL, so how was he able to land what MOST would consider a 9 or 10?

Click to expand...

My caveat would be, I wonder if Style would've been successful enough in his endeavours to write a book, much less hook up with the HB 9-10s if he'd been 20lbs. overweight and was a sandwich artist at Subway rather than an author and staff writer for Rolling Stone even if he'd done exactly what Mystery taught him?

Social Matching isn't a cut on or a substitute for DJ skills or the mindset, nor is it meant to detract anything from PUA skills or it's purpose. However, it's an undeniable reality that a fat DJ is going to be quantifiably less successful than an in shape one because of this dynamic. I'm not posting this to suggest that everyone drop their DJ game face and join Gold's Gym to hook up. I'm posting this to illustrate that a firm understanding of Social Matching can be another very useful tool in a DJs tool box as well as explaining common misconceptions, such as the "she's out of my league" mentality.

So, basically, you're writing a book about homogamy and your reasoning for the deviations from it?

However, the term homogamy implies marriage, and your book does not necessarily have to deal with marriage. The concept of homogamy is the same as what you're theorizing: People, as a whole, typically choose partners with like characteristics. They are usually similar physically, mentally, socially, economically, and et cetera et cetera.

Your writings also fail to take propinquity into account.

Take this into consideration: Who's the hottest woman you've ever seen in mass media? For me, it's Kate Hudson.
Now, this little 7.5 blonde that I went on a date with last Friday didn't look anything like Kate Hudson, but if these were the days prior to mass media, that 7.5 could have been a 10 in my eyes, simply because I might have never seen someone more sexually attractive. Our concept of 1-10 is altered by the proximity of highly attractive people in mass media.

True, all things being equal attractive people will always be more inclined to hook up with other attractive people.

But one interesting thing I have noticed is that when a man is judged on his mate preference it is generally based upon the physical attractiveness of his woman. On the other hand, when I see people judging a WOMAN'S choice of a mate it is more likely based upon the man's level of status, success, ambition, etc.

I dated a girl a few years ago who wasn't ugly by any stretch of the word, but she was the kind of girl who didn't place as much emphasis on taking care of herself and as such she wasn't 'dolled up" 24/7. I used to hate the sh!t my friends gave me over dating this girl because they didn't feel she was up to my level looks-wise.

With women, you just don't see the same kind of social pressure to live up to a physical standard. Women's friends and family are more likely to ask "what does he do for a living?" than, "what does he look like" before they have met the guy.

I would rather be an average looking guy than an average looking girl ANY day of the week. Boob jobs and lipo are only going to go so far to make a woman more attractive, but if you are a guy you can always find ways to make more money.

Originally posted by reyalp
Our concept of 1-10 is altered by the proximity of highly attractive people in mass media.

Click to expand...

We're socially conditioned by advertisers and the news media to accept, with cognitive dissonance, that which is universally seen as beautiful and attractive. Not through our own eyes and but those with whom an ideal has been blasted into our everyday experiences.

Originally posted by STR8UP
Boob jobs and lipo are only going to go so far to make a woman more attractive, but if you are a guy you can always find ways to make more money.

Click to expand...

Subjectivity aside, Men need to concentrate on our own happiness and make our decisions regarding whom we find attractive based on qualities we relate to and admire.

Originally posted by reyalp So, basically, you're writing a book about homogamy and your reasoning for the deviations from it?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. This is merely one aspect I'm currently exploring and is not the basis of my writing. Ergo, I'm bringing this to the forum for review.

Our concept of 1-10 is altered by the proximity of highly attractive people in mass media.

Click to expand...

I agree here again; mass media most definitely modifies our idealizations - it would be hard to argue otherwise - however, I must point out again that this in no way disproves the significance of Social Matching as it is still a human condition to opportunistically strive after the most beneficial conditions we have the capacity to attain. Given your example, consider these two possibilities:

1.) Juding from you idealization of Kate Hudson, ask yourself how much of that is due to your personal socialization and how much can be accounted for basic biology? I don't know your personal conditions, but were the opportunity to arise that you realistically had a shot to engage with a woman of this physical and social calibre, (not Kate herself) would you have reservations or internal anxieties in doing so? Is the reason you're contented with a woman you'd personally rate as an HB 7.5 due in part or in whole to the reason that your personal conditions and self-awarness are such that you're subconsciously more comfortable in pursuing a less than ideal woman? Or perhaps the HB 7.5 is a more realistic idealization given your individual circumstance? Please don't take this as a flame, it's not my intent, but it's no great mystery solved to figure that (baring PUA/DJ skills) men have an easier time approaching and engaging women who are at or below their personal physical standard.

2.) While it's undeniable that culture directly influences our idealizations, there are certain universal characteristics and physical features that make a person more or less desirable in measure to how they compare to these ideals and embody masculine or feminine traits. Several global studies have been done across cultures and across racial lines defining the commonality of these characteristics. So while I would agree that aculturation influences idealization, this modification is still rooted in basic biological and subconscious Social Matching. Even within specific culture the opportunistic desire is still to mate with the best possible candidate(s) from a biological perspective.

Originally posted by STR8UP
when a man is judged on his mate preference it is generally based upon the physical attractiveness of his woman. On the other hand, when I see people judging a WOMAN'S choice of a mate it is more likely based upon the man's level of status, success, ambition, etc.

Click to expand...

For a long term prospect I'd agree, but in intial attraction it's a comparisson of individual to physical idealizations. Discovering a man's provisioning capacity (ambition, success, status, etc.) comes AFTER attraction - and consequently desire. That's not to discredit or devalue provisioning ability as an attractant, obviously these things matter mating longevity, however there's no shortage of fat, balding, middle-age men earning six figure incomes resorting to mail-order brides from Indonesia to satisfy their need for sex and companionship. Likewise there's no shortage of hot women ready to line up to have sex with the unemployed guy with chisled features and washboard abs irrespective of status or finances.

Originally posted by STR8UP With women, you just don't see the same kind of social pressure to live up to a physical standard. Women's friends and family are more likely to ask "what does he do for a living?" than, "what does he look like" before they have met the guy.

Click to expand...

I really think this is a misconception that many men would like to convince themselves of since it serves the latent purpose of benefiting their breeding potentials. In a similar fashion women perpetuate the idea that they're ultimately looking for a guy who conforms to a laundry list of prerequisites (funny, sensitive, a good listener, intelligent, etc.) when thier behaviors regularly and predictably contradict these items. The degree to which a man conforms and identifies with these esoteric criteria more often than not disqualifies him with a woman or at least conveniently puts him 'on hold' until she decides he is an acceptable mating option. This benefits her overall breeding opportunities by creating a larger pool of potential suitors willing to apply the time and effort to identify with her in this social mechanism.

Likewise men perpetuate and self-confirm for women (and themselves) the idea that women are less interested in the physical than they are in security provisioning, as this increases their value and at the same time masks any physical deficits by socially delimiting them. Women with less capacity to live up to physical idealization are only too willing to accept and confirm this since it increases their breeding potential as well. However, I would suspect that the more a woman embodies this physical idealization (HB8-10), the less likely she'd be to agree that a man's physique is less important.

Also remember that a woman's sexual marketability declines as she ages and therefore necessitates that she reorder the priorities of the requirements she places on acceptability for her intimacy. Add this to the mix and the older a woman becomes the more likely she would be to agree that a man's looks are less important because this schema better serves her conditions.

All one need do is eavesdrop on women's conversation with women to understand that the physical is a high (if not as high) priority as it is for men.

For me the proof is in the pudding.

I've seen too many 9-10 Hb's with ugly/fat guys and vice-versa. Only rarely do I see a really good looking person with another good looking person and when I do I'm elated.


I was looking at Dr Phill last night and his son agreed to go undercover in this mall disguised as a perverted looking 35-40 yr old guy. Well, of course no-one gave him the time of day, becsue he was unkempt and had a fat belly.

Then he went back as himself (host of extreme makeover?) he's a very nice looking guy and a couple of ladies tried to pick him up.

Finally, they showed him trying to pick up this blond women (who i found un-attractive) and of course she rejected him, but he didn't know that they had told her before hand to tell him that she was married, of course "he" was unaware that she was in on the gag!

As it turned out later on she is his real life girlfriend. Imho she is only about a Hb-6. He would rate much higher on the soci-economic, looks scale, etc.


Make of it what you will but tell us, Is this what you have observed in real-time=reality?




Sayno'

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi


I agree here again; mass media most definitely modifies our idealizations - it would be hard to argue otherwise - however, I must point out again that this in no way disproves the significance of Social Matching as it is still a human condition to opportunistically strive after the most beneficial conditions we have the capacity to attain. Given your example, consider these two possibilities:

1.) Juding from you idealization of Kate Hudson, ask yourself how much of that is due to your personal socialization and how much can be accounted for basic biology? I don't know your personal conditions, but were the opportunity to arise that you realistically had a shot to engage with a woman of this physical and social calibre, (not Kate herself) would you have reservations or internal anxieties in doing so? Is the reason you're contented with a woman you'd personally rate as an HB 7.5 due in part or in whole to the reason that your personal conditions and self-awarness are such that you're subconsciously more comfortable in pursuing a less than ideal woman? Or perhaps the HB 7.5 is a more realistic idealization given your individual circumstance? Please don't take this as a flame, it's not my intent, but it's no great mystery solved to figure that (baring PUA/DJ skills) men have an easier time approaching and engaging women who are at or below their personal physical standard.

2.) While it's undeniable that culture directly influences our idealizations, there are certain universal characteristics and physical features that make a person more or less desirable in measure to how they compare to these ideals and embody masculine or feminine traits. Several global studies have been done across cultures and across racial lines defining the commonality of these characteristics. So while I would agree that aculturation influences idealization, this modification is still rooted in basic biological and subconscious Social Matching. Even within specific culture the opportunistic desire is still to mate with the best possible candidate(s) from a biological perspective.

Click to expand...

Well truth be told, the little 7.5 blonde piqued my interest. Honestly I've found that, on average, the closer a woman gets to my personal ideal of a 10, the less interesting she is. I used to work as a tech manager in a callcenter employing about 500 people, we lost/recruited about 20-30 people per week, and around 80% of our employees were female. So I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of varying specimens.
The 7.5 from last week and I had a lot of similar interests (homogamy chipping in again) and I really didn't feel like I was "settling for less." In my actual dating scene, I bring out the more interesting specimens. However, when I'm at a bar, I beeline straight for the one I think is the most physically attractive. I suppose it's because I have two different goals in mind. A date for me is more of an interview for LTR possibilities. A night at the bar is an interview for bedroom possibilities.
But to answer your question more directly about approaching my ideal of a 10, yes, I used to be apprehensive about approaching anything hotter than a 7. Before I even learned anything about DJ, I just got to a point where I'd nitpick her appearance in my head until I mentally brought her down several notches.


I agree with your second contention. I remember reading an interesting articly/study/tidbit about something similar.
The hypothesis was that a specific symmetry plays a role in biological attraction. The study took a group of I think 500 attractive women and took a portrait photo of their face. They then put anchor points on all of the facial features of the photos using computer software. I'm not sure if you ever played with that old photo morphing software where you could morph two people's photos together, but I suppose it's similar to that.
So they did this to all of the photos and used the computer to render an average of them.
It's been a while, but I thought the result looked strikingly like Meg Ryan.

I'm running 36hrs on no sleep so I'm afraid I have nothing further to add at this time.

Re:

Social Matching aside, which to me, in the days before 'society', mass interconnectivity, and the media, you had no reflecting mirror. There wasn't an ideal. Improvement of one's physicalities was minimal at best, compared to present times. Furthermore, the only reflecting pool was your own backyard, namely your town/city.

Obviously people chose those 'specimens' that piqued their interest most, which were EXTERNAL visions of something. What is this SOMETHING? How did we know, pre-media, pre-physical improvement to the Nth degree, what WE wanted?

To what degree do family lifestyles, father/mother roles, culture influence us?

For instance, I know a half Portuguese, half French girl. You see her, she looks TOTALLY white. Nice, creamy skin. A perky set of D's. A round plump bum. Petite. 5 feet. Her parents are divorced. Father is somewhat absent, but still present. Her mother is a larger influence and has a BF. Due to the divorce, this girl grew in an apartment, always shifting around. At a young age, she was trouble. She's matured since then. Her choices in men are VERY unwise, and I could surmise what her internal drives, but they'd be mere guesses.

She's into thuggish guys, those who treat her badly, use words like 'Skank' (though she isn't), she swears a good deal, dresses femininely sexy (classy cute), but due to her very buxon body, it's hard to contain ain ANY clothing.

To me, it would appear Social programming is but 1 degree, but has become MORE important in this current climate where the family architecture is dwindling, girls spend MORE time away from home, or father's are not present, and relationships become MORE pass and go. That to me isn't the ONLY way we choose partners. Raise a girl, with only her family, no introduction of magazines, newspapers, TV, movies, or pictures, and let's find out what's attractive to her.

From my limited understanding, appears to be but ONE component of the overall mating ritual that factors into the selection process.



A-Unit

Re: Re:

Originally posted by A-Unit Social Matching aside, which to me, in the days before 'society', mass interconnectivity, and the media, you had no reflecting mirror. There wasn't an ideal. Improvement of one's physicalities was minimal at best, compared to present times. Furthermore, the only reflecting pool was your own backyard, namely your town/city.

Click to expand...

You hit on a couple of things here. First, the propinquity theory that REYALP brought up is the idea that people in close consistent proximity to each other will have a tendency to develop relationships. Obviously this facilitates interaction more readily, but it does nothing to address or counter Social Matching's validity. Mass media has only served to broaden the scope of Social Matching to a worldwide scale in this instance. Women the world over still tend to gravitate towards the MySpace pages of guys with washboard abs and better physical features in their user pics, just as guys focus their attentions more intently on women with idealized features. Worldwide scale - same principle at work. And yes I understand how random this illustration is, but it's predictably consistent even in this realative state of anonymity.

Secondly, in the days before all of this interconnectivity, the standard was even more difficult to attain. Have a look at the art of ancient Greece or Rome and see for yourself the idealizations of the human form (particluarly the male form) in this period. Idealizations of the physical are fairly consistent with today. Going back even further to our hunter gatherer beginings, it's here where this idealization was defined in hunting prowess (for men) and childbearing/rearing potential (for women), and the qualities that made a man or woman more physically desirable for mating purposes.

But I think were focusing too much on the idealization aspect here rather than the methodology and mental schemas used to address the problem of attracting a mate at or around our equal level of physical presence. Both men and women tend to form rationales based on these subconscious understandings ("She's outta my league") and this is the basis of Social Matching.

I think a lot of PUA and/or DJs would rather take Social Matching with a grain of salt. The very premise of learning Game skills is to circumvent this dynamic and it can be done to a greater or lesser effect. However, I think it's important to understand the principle in order truly realize what it is we're circumventing in the first place to be more successful at it and to temper our expectations of it. It's great when Neil Strauss can snatch a woman away from a more muscular guy who would otherwise have taken home and bedded his target, but it would be fantasy to assume the overweight guy in my "Rich Guy" picture successfully doing this.

I think it would be helpful to assume the visceral before the emotional. Not to discount the emotional at all, but to see that attraction at least starts in the visceral. Would you leave a girlfriend if she got fat? I've responded to this in several threads and the answers I've read in them have always been something to the effect of asking her to get in shape and if she continued to stay fat then they'd leave her. The reverse could be asked as we'll:

"If you got fat and your girlfriend stayed sexy and thin, would you still trust her desire for you would be undiminished and genuine? Would you be more apt to question her fidelity to you in a monogamous situation?"

The reason we take pause to question this at all is evidence of Social Matching.

The anonymity bit might need a little more exploration.

Assuming that the Social Matching Theory doesn't take into account peacocking, for lack of a better term, the anonymity aspect could really be expounded upon.

The last time I was on Bourbon St, my wingman made an interesting comment. He said "You know, there's a bunch of small-time skeezballs running around here. The sad part is, we look just like them and women can't tell the difference."

He's right.
When I'm in public, and assuming I'm dressed like everyone else, there's no way to immediately distinguish me from the broke bums who live with their mom.
What does this leave for a decision making process?
Not a whole lot. Mostly, biological attraction. To some extent, my body language could play a role, but we're trying not to take that into consideration right now.
So, why didn't I approach that HB9 getting out of the Ford Pony with the duct taped headlight at the gas station last week?
I'm not exactly sure, but I did remember thinking "She must do drugs."
I'd only put myself around a 7 on the sheer looks scale, but if you count everything else I've got going, my social value is higher than hers. Yet I didn't approach.
On the other end of the spectrum, there was once a so-so chick (B6) that I never approached just because she was an elitist sorority softball *****, and I suppose I felt like her social status was higher than mine.


It may be interesting to see how beta/alpha male mindsets play into the social matching theory. I'd think a beta male would be more likely to think "She's outta my league" than an Alpha male, given two with an identical 1-10 rating in the physical attractiveness department.

Why do you suppose Peacocking works? Because in it's absence we are left to our natural peacocking capacity - the physical. Social Matching is the base point to which we add Peacocking to increase our potentials. In this sense women Peacock everytime they apply makeup or a push up bra.

What would be a more effective Peacock, an outlandish piece of clothing, or a tight fitting shirt that defines a man's muscularity?

What does your theory say about the process through which a person works out what their level of attractiveness is? Is it a raw assessment based on comparative observation or partially based on social and cultural ideals. Fat chicks were well regarded in Reuben's time, but not now. But you seem to lean towards an idea that beauty crosses cultural barriers.

I sometimes note, to my amusement, that some couples bear a physical resemblance to each other even down to their facial features. That is, the woman looks like a female version of the male partner.

As you say, this is an old theory. It says does it not, that if you don't have something to compensate such as money, personality etc, for a looks disparity, the relationship must ultimately fail.

One of my LTR's girlfriends told her that I was too good looking for her. In terms of the how do we know he is rich joke, what are the assumptions which we make if we see an ugly woman with an attractive man, that she is rich? What assumption would we make if we saw an ugly 20 year old with a good looking 50 year old? Fair deal or perhaps something unflattering.

Throughout history there have always been fetishisms. Reubenesque women were large, Chinese nobel women were required to squash their feet into 2 inch wide shoes and some African women of high status wear necklaces that enlongate their necks. However these phenomenon are less about physical beauty standards as they are about social status. Large women in the Renaissance or Baroque periods were regarded with higher status not because they were fat, but this fat indicated they weren't low-born peasants. Similarly white, pallid skin at the time indicated a woman was of nobility class since she obviously wasn't working in the fields under the sun all day. All of this is reflected in the high-art of the period, which of course was commissioned by these wealthy, noble class patrons.

Today we have every variety of fetish from chubby chasers to foot worshipers, but are these instances representative of a majority? Certainly not. However they do present a challenge to Social Matching; here we have individuals for whom Social Matching is superceded by a fetish. The obvious answer is that fetishes are learned behaviors used to circumvent Social Matching by internalizing a specialized sexual preference. In other words, Brad Pitt could be a chubby-chaser if he lacked the social intelligence to attract women on par with his own level of atractiveness.

Reversing the role with an extremely attractive man being paired with a less attractive woman doesn't adress the initial attraction in Social Matching. I have plenty of male friends who are with women who've "let themselves go" over the course of their relationships who were of at least the same or in some cases better looking than they were when they first got together. This of course could be the factor with the Rich Guy as well I suppose, but in either case we still interpret an imbalance and this subconscious (or sometimes recognized) perception is a fundament of Social Matching.

bump

People are attracted to beautiful people. Ugly people are not attracted to other ugly people, they settle for whatever their "local maxima" seems to be IMO.

That's perhaps badly put, but in essence I don't see it like the OP says it is although I would say there are similar outcomes I think the root causes are not correctly identified.

Perhaps I'm looking to closely at details and we're meant to be looking at outcomes rather than causes?