3 ms·

Without knowing other numbers, and for being at a specific place, one out of ten couples is huge if you consider "at work" is an insignificant fraction compared

by Nadya 9y ago

Without knowing other numbers, and for being at a specific place, one out of ten couples is huge if you consider "at work" is an insignificant fraction compared to "the rest of the entire world". In comparison, how many met at a club? At college? At Disneyland? While backpacking through Ireland? Through online dating? For example, "Work (1/10); College (1/30); Disneyland (1/1,000); Backpacking through Ireland (1/100,000,000)" Work would then be the best place to find a partner with significantly higher chances of occurring than anywhere else, even if "anywhere else" comprises the remaining 90% of couples as a collective. For "only 10%" to be a bad thing, other locations would have to be significantly higher. For example, "College (6/10), Local Club (2/10), Disneyland (1/10), Work (1/10)" Where the other 90% comes from is very important in whether or not 10% is vastly significant or not.

rayiner 9y ago
It's not like the 10% that met at work would be required to get divorced. The point is that even if you categorically banned workplace relationships, 90% of the ways of meeting people would still be open. If you limited that ban only to relationships involving a power imbalance, say 97% of avenues would remain open. Say 3% of Starbucks shut down. Would that really burden peoples' ability to get a latte?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Without knowing other numbers, and for being at a specific place, one out of ten couples is huge The three that are over 20% are “through mutual friends”, “online”, and “at a bar/restaurant”. Work is #4, at less than half of any of those. Back around 1990, work was #2 at around 20% (still well behind mutual friends). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-much-life-has-changed-in-one-incredible-chart-about-dating/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...
- Nadya 9y ago
  Thanks for going through the effort of finding some of those other numbers for me, puts a proper frame around the picture. I'm also sure "online" will likely continue growing. A bit of a tangent, but I'm a tad amazed "through mutual friends" is as high as it is. Statistically, I'd think I'd be able to think of far more couples around me that I know met through a mutual friend. I would've ballparked it at less than 3% if I had to guess it myself.
  - 5555624 9y ago
    Don't think of it as someone introducing someone because they think they'd hit it off. Instead, "A bunch of us are going to the watch the fireworks, want to come?" You accept and meet someone in the group -- you met through mutual friends.
    - Nadya 9y ago
      That's how I was already thinking of it as. eg. mutual friend throws a party, two people meet at the party Still an uncommon thing among the people I know and with that statistic I would think it should be much higher. I just thought it was interesting that my personal experience differs so much that I'd have assumed it was much lower than it is. And "how we met" is such a common couple's story, unless I assume my friends are liars, "met at a party" or "at a (mutual) friend's wedding" is maybe one or two of their stories.
- vacri 9y ago
  If you think that 10% is worthy of the appellation 'only', then just watch the froth appear when you tell any HNer that their income will be cut by that amount.

by Nadya 9y ago

rayiner 9y ago

It's not like the 10% that met at work would be required to get divorced. The point is that even if you categorically banned workplace relationships, 90% of the ways of meeting people would still be open. If you limited that ban only to relationships involving a power imbalance, say 97% of avenues would remain open. Say 3% of Starbucks shut down. Would that really burden peoples' ability to get a latte?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Without knowing other numbers, and for being at a specific place, one out of ten couples is huge The three that are over 20% are “through mutual friends”, “online”, and “at a bar/restaurant”. Work is #4, at less than half of any of those. Back around 1990, work was #2 at around 20% (still well behind mutual friends). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-much-life-has-changed-in-one-incredible-chart-about-dating/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...

Nadya 9y ago
Thanks for going through the effort of finding some of those other numbers for me, puts a proper frame around the picture. I'm also sure "online" will likely continue growing. A bit of a tangent, but I'm a tad amazed "through mutual friends" is as high as it is. Statistically, I'd think I'd be able to think of far more couples around me that I know met through a mutual friend. I would've ballparked it at less than 3% if I had to guess it myself.
- 5555624 9y ago
  Don't think of it as someone introducing someone because they think they'd hit it off. Instead, "A bunch of us are going to the watch the fireworks, want to come?" You accept and meet someone in the group -- you met through mutual friends.
  - Nadya 9y ago
    That's how I was already thinking of it as. eg. mutual friend throws a party, two people meet at the party Still an uncommon thing among the people I know and with that statistic I would think it should be much higher. I just thought it was interesting that my personal experience differs so much that I'd have assumed it was much lower than it is. And "how we met" is such a common couple's story, unless I assume my friends are liars, "met at a party" or "at a (mutual) friend's wedding" is maybe one or two of their stories.
vacri 9y ago
If you think that 10% is worthy of the appellation 'only', then just watch the froth appear when you tell any HNer that their income will be cut by that amount.