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.
They are (I don't know of anybody that requests a SPECIFIC height.....just a minimum). The point was that it's not linear, so you can't look at it like a "it's just x inches more than average" mindset.
Egh my post wasn't intending to imply it's linear rather that the height requested doesn't seem like such a large difference from the average height thus it's reasonably to me in the above average percentage. Considering they're not requesting a specific height they appear to be choosing from a pretty large pool.
That doesn't necessarily counter my post as 20% of a country's population doesn't seem ridiculous.
Well, the point of the original post is that if you start to combine all of these criteria, then you have a problem. If you want a 6' man, that means that 80% of men are gone immediately. That's before you look at anything else about the man. Again, if that suits you then so be it. We are all free to live our lives how we want to.
Egh my post wasn't intending to imply it's linear rather that the height requested doesn't seem like such a large difference from the average height thus it's reasonably to me in the above average percentage. Considering they're not requesting a specific height they appear to be choosing from a pretty large pool.
It isn't. It's when it's coupled with a bunch of other criteria that it can BECOME ridiculous. 20% of 20% is 4%. 20% of THAT is .8%. And so on.
Again considering the percentage is on the entire population it's not ridiculous to me. When the pool is in the double digits then I can see it as ridicuous.
Well, the point of the original post is that if you start to combine all of these criteria, then you have a problem. If you want a 6' man, that means that 80% of men are gone immediately. That's before you look at anything else about the man. Again, if that suits you then so be it. We are all free to live our lives how we want to.
Like I said, that is the goal. Eliminate the incompatible, and choose the most compatible.
For a monogamous relationship, indeed the goal becomes to eliminate all but one. But the question, and the point of contention on which this thread is predicated, is the route by which this elimination occurs. Namely, are candidates ruthlessly being eliminated because they don't meet quantitative criteria, before they are met in person? Or are they being eliminated once a conversation occurs, and points of incompatibility become noted?
The point, I think, is that the elimination is done foolishly, if it's too dependent on uncompromising lists with specific numbers.
Well, the point of the original post is that if you start to combine all of these criteria, then you have a problem. If you want a 6' man, that means that 80% of men are gone immediately. That's before you look at anything else about the man. Again, if that suits you then so be it. We are all free to live our lives how we want to.
I was responding to Prince_Frog's post where the only criteria was height. He was stating it was ridiculous for them to have that singular criteria yet a pool of 20% doesn't seem not ridiculous.
Again considering the percentage is on the entire population it's not ridiculous to me. When the pool is in the double digits then I can see it as ridicuous.
You might be surprised how often it is. And hypocritically, how often the people demanding such criteria are not amongst the "double digits" in quality themselves.
You might be surprised how often it is. And hypocritically, how often the people demanding such criteria are not amongst the "double digits" in quality themselves.
Edit: phrasing
I doubt I'd be surprised by how often seeing as in the OP 3.9% was assumed to be 173,123.72 males and that's with a higher height criteria and to me a padded income.
I doubt I'd be surprised by how often seeing as in the OP 3.9% was assumed to be 173,123.72 males and that's with a higher height criteria and to me a padded income.
Pixie, what would be an appropriate income in your estimation? I will recompute it, and see what the numbers are.
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.
