Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As did I. If yours was in the social sciences, I strongly suggest you find your committee and kick them in their groins for allowing you to graduate with such an utter lack of understanding of human behavior AND data interpretation.
Wasn't in the social sciences, but rather physical sciences. Still, I fail to see how that's relevant. All you're objections are essentially ad-hominem and not striking at the core of "my" interpretation of the data. I hope you've been taught how to actually attack an argument and not using common fallacies to discredit such arguments. The data is there, and it conclusively shows that the women surveyed found 80% of the men in the survey to be below average which means unattractive, ugly, or desirable. Take your pick. That's not what's in question here as it's already been established. What's up for debate is if such a study accurately represents the real world, i.e is the online dating world a perfect microcosm of the real dating world? No evidence has been provided to suggest the contrary, and there is no reason as of now to think that it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
I'm sorry to hear that you're not getting laid, but you're only hurting yourself by pretending that 80% of men share your condition and that women are somehow to blame.
Nice strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
I suggest you address reality and look at what you can do differently. The vast majority of people have sex.
The vast majority of people do have sex some time in their life, but that is not the correct question to be asking here. It's a useless question that doesn't tell us anything, as it includes men who have sex with prostitutes, as well as men who've only had sex once or twice in a marriage that was destined to fail in the fist place. The correct question to ask is are most men satisfied with their romantic and sex life? The data and literature suggests otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
IWhere do you think all of the regular-looking people in the world come from? They come from regular-looking parents who had sex with each other. If only the top 20% of attractive people got to have sex, that would mean we're all the offspring of really attractive people. Damn, we'd all be sexy!
The point completely flew over your head. My argument was not most people aren't having sex, but rather a large number of men are not. Most women are, as they can easily get it seeing as they are the "gatekeepers of sex", but most men are not outside of a marriage or prostitution. That's how you can have plain looking people, as attractive/good looking men spread themselves among the majority of the woman population, assuming genetics actually worked in the naive way you think they do. It seems you not only demonstrate a complete ignorance of basic science, but also an ignorance of the scientific method.
It is fact that back in the days before monogamous relationships such as marriage were the norm, the vast majority of women (80%) were only breeding with a select few of the top men (20%). Even if those numbers aren't accurate, the concept is right on the money. Just like all other species on this planet, only a minority of the males are deemed attractive and acceptable to reproduce. Humans are no different.
Inb4 more ad-hominem and strawman fallacies on how I'm bitter about not getting sex and are blaming women as a result. Actually, I don't blame women. They can't help only finding the top men attractive, and I'm certainly not calling for people to pursue people they don't find attractive. Again, just like any scientist, I want to understand the reality of it all no matter how brutal it is. I guess some people misconstrue that as bitterness.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Do you even have any possible way of quantifying "personality" and "confidence"? No, because such evidence simply does not exist. It is practically axiomatic that women would not date or sleep with men they aren't attracted to, no matter how much "personality" or "confidence" the men in question have. The survey I posted shows that women find the majority of men to be unattractive/ugly and not worth pursuing relationships with.
And what makes you think attraction is fixed. Many times they have no initial attraction to the guy, but it builds up when they get to know them.
That's because personality matters a lot more. For instance one evidence is how to turn women on. Think about nude pictures. That works very well with guys, but many women don't get turned on by it. That is because they need a setting. Seeing a naked man without a setting is meaningless for many women.
But you may be asking. Why does it seem like women are more picky than men in terms of looks? That is only true for random hook-ups where both genders pick after looks. Since a lot more men are looking for random hook-ups, then women can be very picky.
For long term relationships, women are more interested in personality than men are. However, it sometimes seems like women are more picky than men in long term relationships too. Why? Because they can. If you live in a country where more women are obese, and more women are waiting till their 30s. Then women will have the advantage in their 20s and demand more.
Quote:
What does that change? It is a perfectly valid assumption that online dating is a perfect microcosm of dating in the real world. The onus of proof is on you to show that this assumption is not valid.
No, that is a terrible assumption. Normal men and women don't need dating sites, hence they don't ever sign up. The people who go to a dating site, go there for a reason. It can someone who want to boost their self-confidence, it can be because they are unable to get anyone in real life or because they want to easily sleep around.
And no, its not my job to prove the assumption it is not valid. It is your assumption, that is needed to validate your claim. Hence, it is your job to prove the assumption is valid.
And what makes you think attraction is fixed. Many times they have no initial attraction to the guy, but it builds up when they get to know them.
There is no evidence of that, and conventional wisdom holds that women decide within the first few seconds they meet a man whether they are attracted to him and is a potential partner or not at all and the most he can be is a friend. You have to disprove this is the case as per the null hypothesis, which I'll go into further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
That's because personality matters a lot more. For instance one evidence is how to turn women on. Think about nude pictures. That works very well with guys, but many women don't get turned on by it. That is because they need a setting. Seeing a naked man without a setting is meaningless for many women.
That doesn't prove anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
But you may be asking. Why does it seem like women are more picky than men in terms of looks. First off a lot of women are just looking for a random hook-up. They will naturally pick by looks. Since a lot more men are looking for random hook-ups, then they can be very picky. However for long term relationships, women are more interested in personality than men are.
Not really, what I'm asking is if this is consistent with what people observe in the real world? Other than a few cases, it seems most in this thread do have similar experiences that confirm these results. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that women have different standards for hookups and long term relationships, and once again you have to prove that this is the case by providing supporting evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
No, that is a terrible assumption. Normal men and women don't need dating sites, hence they don't ever sign up. The people who go to a dating site, go there for a reason. It can woment who want to boost their self-confidence, it can be because they are unable to get anyone in real life or because they want to easily sleep around.
But here's the rub: You have to prove that "normal men and women" don't need dating sites. You're the one making a spectacular claim, not I. My claim is rather mundane and conventional, and thus, as per the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you to support your spectacular claims to the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence at this time that suggests the online dating world is simply filled with freaks and losers, you have to prove that assertion as the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders, not mine. That's the essence of the null hypothesis. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming the online dating world is a perfect microcosm of the real world is not an extraordinary claim, claiming the online dating world is filled with freaks and losers is and you must provide extraordinary evidence to support this.
There is no evidence of that, and conventional wisdom holds that women decide within the first few seconds they meet a man whether they are attracted to him and is a potential partner or not at all and the most he can be is a friend. You have to disprove this is the case as per the null hypothesis, which I'll go into further.
I agree with this actually, although it takes more than a few seconds.
The thing is, most women will decide yes/no based on physical attraction and a few others will give you a chance. But those 'maybe' women will make their decisions soon. So, either way, it all happens very quick.
So you see, it has to be a numbers game.
You watch Breaking Bad? You remember how Jesse met his GF? That's how it happens. Bang, bang. You meet, make a move, get your yes or no. Forget this trying to show your good side and spending years improving yourself.
This is very...interesting. I always was under the assumption the 80/20 rule was anecdotal in nature even if it did make sense, that it could never be determined statistically/numerically. Well here's some actual hard data. According to this, women for the most part are repulsed by the average joe and believe an above average or decent looking man to be unattractive/undesirable. The main rub is that it isn't just attractive women who have these standards, but plain and clearly ugly women on that site also have similar standards despite their relative attractiveness.
Not that there is anything wrong with this, of course, but it would help if women were a lot more honest about it like they were in this survey when given anonymity. It's not about things like "personality" or "confidence", it really is all about looks. Take height, for example. There are countless women out there (more than the majority) who require a potential significant other to be at least 6 ft tall. What they don't realize is that only 13% of men are 6 ft and taller. Hence, it should come as no surprise why so many men fail in the dating world and end up as 40 year old virgins. Most women are simply repulsed by them.
You obviously just read the headline and not the entire article.
If you had read the article, you would have found that while women did indeed rate 80% of the men as unattractive, the women also tended to message men who they judged to be their equals in terms of attractiveness. The men, by contrast, tended to rate the women's attractiveness in a way that mirrored the women's own self-assessment. However, despite this, the men tended only to message the most attractive women, regardless of how attractive the men considered themselves to be.
Why didn't you bother reading the article before commenting on it? I'll tell you why. Because your post is just about venting frustration at the fact the women you desire won't date you. believe me, everyone is so sick of all this "poor me" whining...
There is no evidence of that, and conventional wisdom holds that women decide within the first few seconds they meet a man whether they are attracted to him and is a potential partner or not at all and the most he can be is a friend. You have to disprove this is the case as per the null hypothesis, which I'll go into further.
That "conventional wisdom" is totally wrong. I know many people who has been friends for a long time, and then later they end up together. It happens a lot of the time. I was friends with my girlfriend for a year before we got together. My flatmate was friends with his girlfriend for two years before they got together.
Neither of us had any expectations of getting together, but we got closer over time.
Quote:
That doesn't prove anything.
yes it does, it shows for long term relationships, personality is more important than looks for women.
Quote:
Not really, what I'm asking is if this is consistent with what people observe in the real world? Other than a few cases, it seems most in this thread do have similar experiences that confirm these results. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that women have different standards for hookups and long term relationships, and once again you have to prove that this is the case by providing supporting evidence.
Right...
Shall we come back to the real world?
Quote:
But here's the rub: You have to prove that "normal men and women" don't need dating sites. You're the one making a spectacular claim, not I. My claim is rather mundane and conventional, and thus, as per the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you to support your spectacular claims to the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence at this time that suggests the online dating world is simply filled with freaks and losers, you have to prove that assertion as the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders, not mine. That's the essence of the null hypothesis. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming the online dating world is a perfect microcosm of the real world is not an extraordinary claim, claiming the online dating world is filled with freaks and losers is and you must provide extraordinary evidence to support this.
First off drop the statistical jargon. I know a lot of statistics, but I don't try to show off like you do.
And its pretty basic.
Your assumption: Online dating is a perfect microcosm of the real world. Hence all statistics from online dating is representative to the real world.
- I don't think your assumption is true.
Then if you know anything about statistics and is not a fake, then you would know that the person who makes the claim, is the one who is going to show evidence for it. It is not my job to prove that your assumption is wrong.
You obviously just read the headline and not the entire article.
If you had read the article, you would have found that while women did indeed rate 80% of the men as unattractive, the women also tended to message men who they judged to be their equals in terms of attractiveness. The men, by contrast, tended to rate the women's attractiveness in a way that mirrored the women's own self-assessment. However, despite this, the men tended only to message the most attractive women, regardless of how attractive the men considered themselves to be.
It seems you need to follow your own advice and read the thread before getting your foot stuck in your mouth, wiseguy. This was already addressed many pages ago, and if you read the thread, you would actually know that and would have realized your post was less than worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy
Why didn't you bother reading the article before commenting on it? I'll tell you why. Because your post is just about venting frustration at the fact the women you desire won't date you. believe me, everyone is so sick of all this "poor me" whining...
Yes, because stating facts and trying to have a healthy discussion on the topic is obviously an attempt at me whining about my personal failures. Please show where in my post I was whining or complaining about this, in fact, I qualified by saying that there is nothing wrong with women's standards if this were actually the case. And yet, that's still somehow me whining and blaming all women for my problems.
That "conventional wisdom" is totally wrong. I know many people who has been friends for a long time, and then later they end up together. It happens a lot of the time. I was friends with my girlfriend for a year before we got together. My flatmate was friends with his girlfriend for two years before they got together.
Anecdotal evidence is the worst form of evidence. It doesn't prove anything, so unless you actually have some hard data and numbers at hand, there is nothing to add here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
yes it does, it shows that personality is more important for looks for women, when they look for long term relationships.
No, you haven't shown anything. All you've provided were statements and then supported it with anecdotal evidence. Hardly what I'd call a convincing argument. Do some women care for personality more than looks? Sure, but they are the exceptions, the outliers. The vast majority of women do not, as has been shown in the linked survey as well as my other studies on the
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Shall we come back to the real world?
Prove it. You're the one now making a ridiculous claim, not I. I am just extending the logic to its natural conclusion: women have the same exact preferences for hookups as they do for long term relationships. This is not a claim, just a mere extension of logic. You're the one making a spectacular claim and thus have to support it with evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
First off drop the statistical jargon. I know a lot of statistics, but I don't try to show off like you do.
Actually, no I'm not talking statistics here but rather the scientific method and where the burden of proof lies. For someone who claims to understand statistics, you'd think they would be able to differentiate a statistical argument from a scientific one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Then if you know anything about statistics and is not a fake, then you would know that the person who makes the claim, is the one who is going to show evidence for it. It is not my job to prove that your assumption is wrong.
Again, you're the one making spectacular claims here. A claim must only be supported with evidence if it is found to contradict conventional wisdom as per the null hypothesis. It is a perfectly mundane and reasonable to claim that online dating is exactly a perfect microcosm of the real dating world, simply because no evidence exists that would suggest the contrary. This is why the burden of proof essentially rests on you, not I.
Anecdotal evidence is the worst form of evidence. It doesn't prove anything, so unless you actually have some hard data and numbers at hand, there is nothing to add here.
So you think our cases is special? That hardly anyone are friends for a while before they get together?
And we are on a relationship forums. Anecdotal evidence is used a lot on relationship forums.
Also, the only statistics you have given us, is some data from one online dating site. And then you have assumed with zero evidence that is a microcosm of the real world. In reality, you got nothing, you don't even have anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
No, you haven't shown anything. All you've provided were statements and then supported it with anecdotal evidence. Hardly what I'd call a convincing argument. Do some women care for personality more than looks? Sure, but they are the exceptions, the outliers. The vast majority of women do not, as has been shown in the linked survey as well as my other studies on the
Off topic. I was talking about what turns women on.
Quote:
Prove it. You're the one now making a ridiculous claim, not I. I am just extending the logic to its natural conclusion: women have the same exact preferences for hookups as they do for long term relationships. This is not a claim, just a mere extension of logic. You're the one making a spectacular claim and thus have to support it with evidence.
Aha... so claiming people have different standards for hookups and long term relationships is a ridiculous claim.
So what have you understood that no one else has understood? Because you are pretty much alone making that claim.
Quote:
Actually, no I'm not talking statistics here but rather the scientific method and where the burden of proof lies. For someone who claims to understand statistics, you'd think they would be able to differentiate a statistical argument from a scientific one.
Again, you're the one making spectacular claims here. A claim must only be supported with evidence if it is found to contradict conventional wisdom as per the null hypothesis. It is a perfectly mundane and reasonable to claim that online dating is exactly a perfect microcosm of the real dating world, simply because no evidence exists that would suggest the contrary. This is why the burden of proof essentially rests on you, not I.
What part of, drop the statistical jargon do you not understand. You are just trying to show off, and making a fool out of yourself. And, Null hypothesis is a statistical term.
Sorry the one who makes an assumption has to prove it. It is not my job to prove your assumption is wrong. Your claim that it is conventional wisdom, and should be accepted by default, is totally ridiculous. Get your head back into the real world
Last edited by Camlon; 10-28-2013 at 12:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
