4 ms·

This kind of thing is what they're talking about. > It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22%

This kind of thing is what they're talking about. > It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men [1]. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
So, this guy set up a fake profile and interviewed women who matched with him, without disclosing he was doing research? Ethics aside, he doesn't discuss his methodology at all. How did these interviews turn into a Gini curve? How could they, without some heroic statistical assumptions?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  It's been studied a lot, I just threw that up as example since it was posted here a couple of days ago. Here's one of OKCupid's own studies [1]. You can search for others that confirm the same thing over and over again. 1. https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    That study shows the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The third figure shows that the vast majority of women's messages go to men they rate as less than 4/5 attractive. The last figure shows that even the least attractive men still got replies to their messages 22% of the time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
You shouldn't be taking pareto claims on a sample size of n=27 seriously There are apple flavored flat earth medicine studies with stronger statistics
- guerrilla 5y ago
  It's been shown plenty of other places, including by OKCupid, which why I qualified with "kind of thing." It's common knowledge at this point.
  - vajrabum 5y ago
    There's lots of common 'knowledge' in social psychology including studies done by serious reputable researchers that turns out to not be so. This is a big enough issue that it's termed the "replication crisis". So, yes, maybe. Maybe not.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      Being shown by a lot of studies means its been replicated a lot.
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        only the ones with valid statistics count some guy dug up a bunch of studies done on abductions by satanists in the 1990s. remember that, from 60 minutes? the punchline was there had never actually been such an abduction, but there were 30+ studies. and that's replicated a lot. the quality of the replication matters.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        Alright, keep that goal post moving then. In the meantime, I'll go with the best we got.
        5y ago

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

So, this guy set up a fake profile and interviewed women who matched with him, without disclosing he was doing research? Ethics aside, he doesn't discuss his methodology at all. How did these interviews turn into a Gini curve? How could they, without some heroic statistical assumptions?

guerrilla 5y ago
It's been studied a lot, I just threw that up as example since it was posted here a couple of days ago. Here's one of OKCupid's own studies [1]. You can search for others that confirm the same thing over and over again. 1. https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  That study shows the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The third figure shows that the vast majority of women's messages go to men they rate as less than 4/5 attractive. The last figure shows that even the least attractive men still got replies to their messages 22% of the time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

You shouldn't be taking pareto claims on a sample size of n=27 seriously There are apple flavored flat earth medicine studies with stronger statistics

guerrilla 5y ago
It's been shown plenty of other places, including by OKCupid, which why I qualified with "kind of thing." It's common knowledge at this point.
- vajrabum 5y ago
  There's lots of common 'knowledge' in social psychology including studies done by serious reputable researchers that turns out to not be so. This is a big enough issue that it's termed the "replication crisis". So, yes, maybe. Maybe not.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Being shown by a lot of studies means its been replicated a lot.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      only the ones with valid statistics count some guy dug up a bunch of studies done on abductions by satanists in the 1990s. remember that, from 60 minutes? the punchline was there had never actually been such an abduction, but there were 30+ studies. and that's replicated a lot. the quality of the replication matters.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        Alright, keep that goal post moving then. In the meantime, I'll go with the best we got.
        5y ago