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.
I cannot agree with you at all. That is a shockingly obtuse statement made by a person who states that he is not unattractive, based on viewing a single TV article. Of course I haven't seen the TV article but it is possible that her marriage took place before the disease presented in that form: or even if not, a single exception does not invalidate many years of adverse experience undergone by myself and many others as a consequence of being significantly under the average in appearance. Would you consider suggesting to someone suffering from dwarfism (for example, not comparison) that the problem doesn't really exist?
There is a huge difference in having to move heaven and earth to try to find anyone interested in you as a person at all, or as 'Mr Average' perhaps appealing to 2 or 3 out of 5 opposite gender in any room.
You then go on to suggest that this is nothing compared to the poor 'beautiful people' who really have it hard! Apart from rubbing salt in the wound- and this thread isn't about the problems of the beautiful, anyway- your statement is at odds with scientific findings and incorrectly assumes that the beautiful have no influence over things themselves.
It's not based on a single TV SHOW there are plenty of "ugly" people that are married and have children.
Who cares about scientific studies many scientific studies are proven wrong all the time. Studies usually only sample a small portion of people sorta like polls. There are 250+ million people in this country. A study done with 1,000 people, 100,000 people is not going to be accurate.
And my point about beautiful people is they have just as a hard time as "ugly" if you think about it deeply. Yes they get things in life a lot easier but for all the wrong reasons simply based on their looks. There is more to a human being besides looks.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278
Who cares about scientific studies many scientific studies are proven wrong all the time. Studies usually only sample a small portion of people sorta like polls. There are 250+ million people in this country. A study done with 1,000 people, 100,000 people is not going to be accurate.
This is not true. If you've studied and understood statistics, you'd understand how they can be very accurate. Even with small samples sizes, if stratified correctly, and the variance is reasonable. You can get vary accurate results with small sample sizes.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,737,988 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
An "ugly" man can certainly get a woman, as long as he has SOME income and is not an abuser or drug user. The "problem" is that he'll have to settle for a less than attractive woman, and very few men are willing to concede that. Every man, regardless of appearance makes a beeline for the 8's, 9's, and 10's with all other women sitting on the sidelines.
So, figure out what YOU'RE willing to concede in a woman and stop complaining that no one will concede to YOU regarding your looks.
I don't make a beeline for the 8-10s, I typically go for the 2-5s and even they won't touch me. Lowering your standards isn't necessarily the issue.
This is not true. If you've studied and understood statistics, you'd understand how they can be very accurate. Even with small samples sizes, if stratified correctly, and the variance is reasonable. You can get vary accurate results with small sample sizes.
It's not true to you in my opinion polls and studies are not accurate. You can have a sample size of 1,000 people and most of them go for option A and say your study concludes the findings that option A is the best. Now take another poll of another group of 1,000 people and that group finds option B is better. See what i'm saying? Unless you can get data on everyone the polls, studies, opinions are not accurate. It's just an accurate finding on that small sample size of people.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278
It's not true to you in my opinion polls and studies are not accurate. You can have a sample size of 1,000 people and most of them go for option A and say your study concludes the findings that option A is the best. Now take another poll of another group of 1,000 people and that group finds option B is better. See what i'm saying? Unless you can get data on a WHOLE group of people the polls, studies, opinions are not accurate.
Except that doesn't happen in scientific statistical sampling. An opinion poll is not a statistical sample (generally). With a statistical sample you'll get results, a variance and a confidence interval. That's completely different than asking someone A or B and making a decision. And you ignored the portion of my statement that spoke to properly stratifying the sampling.
You do not need a census to achieve highly accurate results. In fact, often trying to do a census results in less accurate results.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you've taken a statistics course.
Except that doesn't happen in scientific statistical sampling. An opinion poll is not a statistical sample (generally). With a statistical sample you'll get results, a variance and a confidence interval. That's completely different than asking someone A or B and making a decision. And you ignored the portion of my statement that spoke to properly stratifying the sampling.
You do not need a census to achieve highly accurate results. In fact, often trying to do a census results in less accurate results.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you've taken a statistics course.
My point is a small sample of people does not accurately reflect the thoughts of 250+ million people. No way a group of 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 is going to give accurate findings.
It's my opinion and no i haven't taken any classes on the subject. It's mostly common sense. You only ask a small group of people and they lean one way but the whole other mass of people you didn't ask could lean the opposite way. You get what i'm saying.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278
My point is a small sample of people does not accurately reflect the thoughts of 250+ million people. No way a group of 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 is going to give accurate findings.
It's my opinion and no i haven't taken any classes on the subject. It's mostly common sense. You only ask a small group of people and they lean one way but the whole other mass of people you didn't ask could lean the opposite way. You get what i'm saying.
It absolutely can give accurate findings. I really suggest you take a college class or two in statistics to learn why.
It should be requirement (statistics) in high school, I believe, as people don't understand polls, polling, sampling, standard deviation, never mind the findings of scientific studies. The fact that basic statistics isn't understood by so many really hurts our scientific literacy as a society.
And in fact, while it may not be common sense to you, but a census (counting everyone) is often understood to be less accurate than sampling. Which is why so many mathematicians (and others) believe for our National census we should actually move to sampling in order to improve our accuracy. The Constitution doesn't allow it though.
It absolutely can give accurate findings. I really suggest you take a college class or two in statistics to learn why.
It should be requirement (statistics) in high school, I believe, as people don't understand polls, polling, sampling, standard deviation, never mind the findings of scientific studies. The fact that basic statistics isn't understood by so many really hurts our scientific literacy as a society.
That would just teach me how polling, sampling is done. Doesn't change my opinion that is not accurate. Seriously how can you accurately find what 250+ million people think by asking 1,000 people? No matter what classes i take it still won't convince me it is right it will just will teach me how it's done.
It doesn't hurt our scientific literacy just some people fill their brain with other more important knowledge that is more useful. I also think shop class should be added to more schools but the opposite is happening and it's being taken away.
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.
It is extremely kind of you to say so! I'd blush if I could find a suitable emote!
