4 ms·

Female Delusion Calculator

8 points by beefman 3y ago

slater 3y ago
seriously?
xpdx 3y ago
Turns out I'm quite the catch. Who knew?
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  >> Delusion score >> *** >> 4/5 >> Cat enthusiast Oh that made me laugh
pinewurst 3y ago
There needs to be a corresponding Male Delusion Calculator.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  Males are way less choosy than females. Before I met my wife I would go out with any female that wasn't a complete mess.
smoldesu 3y ago
> The stats can prove there're not enough high quality men for every girl out there. I... don't even know where to begin with this statement.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  I think the subcontext is > The stats can prove there're not enough high quality men for every girl out there given their standards.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's an extension of the online dating meme where X% of guys get all the swipes or whatever you call it. When people are asked their "standards" online they have high ones because they treat it like a wishlist, but when they actually interact in person based on it you find out everything's negotiable.
rainytuesday 3y ago
I see it as partially an income inequality story; many men are not achieving enough financial success to interest women.
scrum-treats 3y ago
I think there's actually something wrong with the calculation. For instance, it doesn't appear to control for sample size by Age group and Height (e.g., weighted average). Meaning, it's sensitive to sample size (i.e., sampling bias). So, just having more/less data points for 20-30 year olds than 30-50 year olds will skew the outcome (and, surprise, it does). For example, if I expand the Age window from 30-50 to 20-50 (holding other setting constant; Weight, Race = "Any", Income = 80K, Height = 5'11") I would expect my success rate to increase, as I am increasing the pool of applicants. However, the tool shows a decrease (30-50 = 9.2%; 20-50 = 6.2%). If I change the Height to 6", we again see a reversal (30-50 = 5.5%; 20-50 = 3.9%). Guess it's hard to find a guy who knows statistics too.

8 points by beefman 3y ago

slater 3y ago

seriously?

xpdx 3y ago

Turns out I'm quite the catch. Who knew?

brodouevencode 3y ago
>> Delusion score >> *** >> 4/5 >> Cat enthusiast Oh that made me laugh

pinewurst 3y ago

There needs to be a corresponding Male Delusion Calculator.

brodouevencode 3y ago
Males are way less choosy than females. Before I met my wife I would go out with any female that wasn't a complete mess.

smoldesu 3y ago

> The stats can prove there're not enough high quality men for every girl out there. I... don't even know where to begin with this statement.

brodouevencode 3y ago
I think the subcontext is > The stats can prove there're not enough high quality men for every girl out there given their standards.
bombcar 3y ago
It's an extension of the online dating meme where X% of guys get all the swipes or whatever you call it. When people are asked their "standards" online they have high ones because they treat it like a wishlist, but when they actually interact in person based on it you find out everything's negotiable.

rainytuesday 3y ago

I see it as partially an income inequality story; many men are not achieving enough financial success to interest women.

scrum-treats 3y ago

I think there's actually something wrong with the calculation. For instance, it doesn't appear to control for sample size by Age group and Height (e.g., weighted average). Meaning, it's sensitive to sample size (i.e., sampling bias). So, just having more/less data points for 20-30 year olds than 30-50 year olds will skew the outcome (and, surprise, it does). For example, if I expand the Age window from 30-50 to 20-50 (holding other setting constant; Weight, Race = "Any", Income = 80K, Height = 5'11") I would expect my success rate to increase, as I am increasing the pool of applicants. However, the tool shows a decrease (30-50 = 9.2%; 20-50 = 6.2%). If I change the Height to 6", we again see a reversal (30-50 = 5.5%; 20-50 = 3.9%). Guess it's hard to find a guy who knows statistics too.