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.
You're claiming my assumption, is wrong. The burden of proof is on you to show that this claim is correct.
Astute you may find these links useful
Quote:
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
After 4 months, the ugliest girl got almost as many messages as the second most handsome guy.
Its amazing reading this data, but this data has always supported my thesis and theory that online dating handsome men get tge same number of hits as average or even below average women.
I'm always surprised that people read this stuff and swallow it wholesale.
I agree, since these popular "studies" are nothing but silly fluff. They are not exactly from professional peer reviewed journals. They are just for "fun" and the authors are probably not even "researchers" in the professional sense of the term, but writers who are hired to boost sales and traffic for the entity involved.
Any researcher/scientist who seriously believes this nonsense should do a lot of self-examination to make sure his own beliefs and needs are not getting in the way of objectivity.
Don't believe me? Guess what would happen if a scientist seriously quoted one of these fluff studies at a professional meeting, or just casually when with a group pf colleagues?
The data clearly shows women find the vast majority of the women surveyed found 80% of men to be "below average", and unless you believe that is not synonymous with unattractive and are playing semantics here, then you are clearly in the wrong. I know data analysis pretty well, seeing as I spent upwards of 5 years doing it for my PhD.
Implying they do. I have a hard time believing that. Most men do get married, but let's not conflate being married with getting sex regularly (which is more often than not not the case). What's actually going on here is that most women are sleeping with that elusive top 20% of men in their late teens and through their 20s till they hit their 30s. At this point, their looks start to deteriorate and they realize there isn't enough of these men to go around for a monogamous relationship like marriage, which is why they settle for a man in the bottom 80% that they can tolerate. Given all of this, it really is no surprise so many marriages are failing and the divorce rate continues to grow without bound. Interestingly enough, 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife.
Of course, I don't there's anything wrong with this nor am I complaining or whining about it. As a scientist, I prefer learning the cold hard truth rather than delude myself with fictional cliches such as "there is someone for everyone".
The story of the washed-up party girls settling in their 30s would be more compelling if the average age of marriage wasn't 28.
Wasn't in the social sciences, but rather physical sciences.
Well, that at least partly explains your lack of success with women. Trust me, 80% of us are not physics nerds who can't get laid. You're part of a very slim minority. Nice try, though, Captain False Generalization.
The sooner you stop blaming women and start learning some interpersonal skills, the happier you'll be. I promise. Nobody with a happy sex life is on internet forums spouting off about 80/20 B.S. Stop arguing and start changing.
So in a nutshell, it says that women can and do judge looks and are harsh judges of looks, but it isn't a priority for them since, while they find most men unattractive, they are more willing to message and date them.
I thought the graph that illustrated how much more important a woman's looks are to men than men's looks are to women to be very telling. Maybe it will put to rest some of these notions that "women only care about looks." I doubt it though.
So in a nutshell, it says that women can and do judge looks and are harsh judges of looks, but it isn't a priority for them since, while they find most men unattractive, they are more willing to message and date them.
I thought the graph that illustrated how much more important a woman's looks are to men than men's looks are to women to be very telling. Maybe it will put to rest some of these notions that "women only care about looks." I doubt it though.
Exactly. And that's what I mean about the OP apparently not knowing how to interpret basic social sciences data. He's missing the forest for the trees.
Average-looking dudes get laid all the time. That's how our species exists. Be thankful that we don't have to be hot to do well-- it's a privilege. Apparently this guy would rather make excuses and debate online than date.
The data clearly shows women find the vast majority of the women surveyed found 80% of men to be "below average", and unless you believe that is not synonymous with unattractive and are playing semantics here, then you are clearly in the wrong. I know data analysis pretty well, seeing as I spent upwards of 5 years doing it for my PhD.
Implying they do. I have a hard time believing that. Most men do get married, but let's not conflate being married with getting sex regularly (which is more often than not not the case). What's actually going on here is that most women are sleeping with that elusive top 20% of men in their late teens and through their 20s till they hit their 30s. At this point, their looks start to deteriorate and they realize there isn't enough of these men to go around for a monogamous relationship like marriage, which is why they settle for a man in the bottom 80% that they can tolerate. Given all of this, it really is no surprise so many marriages are failing and the divorce rate continues to grow without bound. Interestingly enough, 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife.
Of course, I don't there's anything wrong with this nor am I complaining or whining about it. As a scientist, I prefer learning the cold hard truth rather than delude myself with fictional cliches such as "there is someone for everyone".
I don't believe you are using scientific principles when looking at this. I think you are confusing your opinion with science in this case.
1) This isn't peer reviewed data... it's a flipping OKCupid survey. Survey Says?: How to Trust Them
2) Assuming it is a scientific survey, you are only looking at one part of the data and ignoring all the data that does not agree with your conclusion. You ignore where it says that while more women find men to be average looking or below average looking... that they date men they consider average and below average (where most men in the survey won't do that). I think it's funny that you use this survey to back your opinion, but then say the same survey is false when it doesn't back your opinion. Which is it? You can't cherry pick data.
3) You assume an awful lot and are making up "facts" to support what you assume. That's not very scientific either.
Look, I have no issue with your opinion, everyone has opinions and we don't always agree. That's life. But don't try to make it sound like it's based in any scientific principles.
Last edited by jillabean; 10-28-2013 at 07:09 AM..
I'd think you'd find this equally link equally useful, Camlon:
Quote:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latinlex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.
Let me ask you a question Camlon: Are you the type of person to look up in the sky when he sees an unidentified object and think "Aliens!"? Because there simply is no evidence it can't be something mundane like birds, the International Space Station, a plane, etc.? Because those are unprovable assumptions, therefore, they are all equally likely until someone proves it actually is? If you are, then that would explain a lot.
The most simplest and logical conclusion is that women have the same standards they do online as they do in the real world. Saying this isn't true is implicitly claiming there is some sort of unknown psychological mechanism by which their standards are a function of whether they are online or not, which you'd have to provide some evidence for. The Razor has essentially shifted the burden of proof from me onto you, as you're the one who's making a claim that needs to be substantiated. Until you can provide evidence for this undiscovered, unknown psychological mechanism than the simplest and most logical (and only) conclusion prevails: That women do not magically change their standards from the online dating world to the real world.
Let me ask you a question Camlon: Are you the type of person to look up in the sky when he sees an unidentified object and think "Aliens!"? Because there simply is no evidence it can't be something mundane like birds, the International Space Station, a plane, etc.? Because those are unprovable assumptions, therefore, they are all equally likely until someone proves it actually is? If you are, then that would explain a lot.
The most simplest and logical conclusion is that women have the same standards they do online as they do in the real world. Saying this isn't true is implicitly claiming there is some sort of unknown psychological mechanism by which their standards are a function of whether they are online or not, which you'd have to provide some evidence for. The Razor has essentially shifted the burden of proof from me onto you, as you're the one who's making a claim that needs to be substantiated. Until you can provide evidence for this undiscovered, unknown psychological mechanism than the simplest and most logical (and only) conclusion prevails: That women do not magically change their standards from the online dating world to the real world.
Or, instead of jumping to conclusions after taking some data from an OKCupid survey, you do a little digging and read a real Journal article from the Association for Psychological Science that indicates that people date differently online and have a different (dare I say more picky) mindset. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...ting-proof.pdf. So no, online is not a good indication of how people date offline.
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.
are nothing but silly fluff. They are not exactly from professional peer reviewed journals. They are just for "fun" and the authors are probably not even "researchers" in the professional sense of the term, but writers who are hired to boost sales and traffic for the entity involved. 
