3 ms·
> ... for a girl to be considered really beautiful to me, she should fall at least two standard deviations above the norm > ... [in intelligence] I will settl
by tmorton 10y ago
> ... for a girl to be considered really beautiful to me, she should fall at least two standard deviations above the norm
> ... [in intelligence] I will settle for someone a mere one standard deviation above the normal
Yeah, that would do it. Nothing to learn here.
- rhaps0dy 10y agoAnd of course, he forgot to take into account selection effects. You don't meet and go on dates with random people, you meet and go on dates with people similar enough to you to be in your social circle.
- douche 10y agoOr whoever swipes right (left? I don't know) on Tinder, or whoever emails you on dating websites. Going on dates with random people that exist outside of your social circles feels like it's more normal than perhaps it once was. At least in areas that are populous and transient enough that you don't have that two to four degrees of separation factor that you get in small towns and college campuses.
- Helmet 10y agoExtremely beautiful women are neither on Tinder or on online dating sites. They are walking down runways, being photographed, or acting in films.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- empath75 10y agoAnnoying, unattractive nerd sets standards too high, news at 11.
- avisser 10y agoThe meme is "Film at 11"
- Aaargh20318 10y agoI don't see the problem with setting your standards high if your fine with either outcome.
- rerx 10y ago> Let's make the rather conservative assumption, then, that a girl would go out with someone if and only if they were at least one standard deviation above her idea of average At least he's not that picky about how picky his girl friends should be.
- hueving 10y agoWell obviously, nobody wants to date someone who is picky. :)