Feminists Reality On Dating

SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
BOP said:
This is where I got that calculator from. From the comments, a great many people don't get it.

You can almost always tell who the female commenters are, because they CLEARLY don't like the calculator. Same goes for the simps as well.

The thing is, people don't do well with large numbers of anything; it's like one of those D&D type of repelling spells. Otherwise, our national debt wouldn't be eleventy-trillion bazillion dollars.

Neck it down to, say, 100 men, for the sake of simplicity.

- the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS in this country that makes over $200K is 20%. So that's 20 men.

- the percentage of men in the US who are over 6 foot (the average is 5'9") is roughly 10% (90th percentile).

The calculator looks at those 20 men who make over $200K, figures out how many of those 10 men who are over 6 foot, overlap the two, and derives a number based on both those (and more) factors. I've never been good at math - okay, I suck at it - but in that overlap, the odds of finding a guy who's both 6 foot tall (or taller) AND who makes over $200K a year seem pretty small.

Click to expand...

ONLY - IF - YOUR universe of selections is the entire country - which it never is.
Remember, if your number came out to 4% - that's 4% of 330 million, or 13 million.

I'm sure you could find SOMEONE in 13 million you could be happy with.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
Women are emotionally driven ?
Click to expand...
No it's obvious that the woman here was not drawing conclusions from the number she was being given - she kept hoping that another random choice would give the answer, as though each number given had no bearing on finding the solution. They might as well never given her a number at all unless it was "5".
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
ONLY - IF - YOUR universe of selections is the entire country - which it never is.
Remember, if your number came out to 4% - that's 4% of 330 million, or 13 million.

I'm sure you could find SOMEONE in 13 million you could be happy with.
Click to expand...
If you're so selective only 4 percent of the country meet your criteria, then that 4% probably meets the criteria for 96% everyone else so why would they choose you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Kyle said:
Talk about a speed-dating marathon.
Click to expand...
It's only depressing IF - your selection criteria is EXTREMELY narrow.

But it's like listing all of the food items in the store and saying, see, your chance of getting a good steak is one in a million, because of all the things there that AREN'T steak.

Except you go straight to the meat section, over to beef, and pick out which kind of steak you want. The "probability" never matters.

UNLESS - you add criteria to make it nigh impossible - like decide when you go to Harris Teeter you only want grass fed Kobe beef that was butchered that morning, and your chances go down to ZERO, because there won't be any in that venue.

That's the relevant point - HIGH selectivity that drives the POPULATION of candidates to zero is more pertinent than "chances".
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Clem72 said:
If you're so selective only 4 percent of the country meet your criteria, then that 4% probably meets the criteria for 96% everyone else so why would they choose you?
Click to expand...
Because most of that population - isn't looking. Remember, one of those options is - "married". Not everyone is looking.

I mean, yeah, it is true that more desirable, attractive people have better choices when it comes to looks and some of those other criterion -

But then, 1) that's not being measured and 2) a more fair and sensible population pool would be -

"Persons who are single and actively looking for someone" - and then you re-apply the numbers.

Plus I don't think they do more than simply multiply percentages, and that doesn't work - because percentages WITHIN categories are going to be different. For example, Asians tend to be shorter than the general population - so you can't take the percentage of the larger population of persons and just multiply it by the percent of Asians. They need cross tabs, and I don't think they do them.
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
It's only depressing IF - your selection criteria is EXTREMELY narrow.

But it's like listing all of the food items in the store and saying, see, your chance of getting a good steak is one in a million, because of all the things there that AREN'T steak.

Except you go straight to the meat section, over to beef, and pick out which kind of steak you want. The "probability" never matters.

UNLESS - you add criteria to make it nigh impossible - like decide when you go to Harris Teeter you only want grass fed Kobe beef that was butchered that morning, and your chances go down to ZERO, because there won't be any in that venue.

That's the relevant point - HIGH selectivity that drives the POPULATION of candidates to zero is more pertinent than "chances".
Click to expand...

Or the Steak is in an opaque box, with four rolls of packing tape binding it up, and the box is bat crap crazy.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Several CRAZY videos and dating profiles - they're are at their WORST and blame MEN.​









Young Gen Z Female: I'm happy

.... guys are nutting in me
... I got so many guys nutting in me, if I got pregnant I wouldn't know who the baby daddy is
... my kid don't need a daddy I didn't have a daddy, I turned out ok


🤦‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top