Current Events > Tinder researchers have scientifically proven Chad is real

(+) Yeah! (+)

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.
---

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.

COVxy says otherwise
---

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.

What it means in the context of the experiment is simply "likelihood of getting liked back if you were to like everyone". So it's not really a strong metric in the first place.
---

Callixtus posted...

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.

COVxy says otherwise

Yeah I wonder if @COVxy is incel
---

The major flaw of this study is assuming a "like" even means anything. Tinder is a bubble full of meta bullshit where men will right swipe everything and women in response left swipe everybody but the best. It's a dynamic exclusive to Tinder.

I believe that dynamic exists in real life, just not nearly as exaggerated.

This topic should have just been a one-and-done joke about the country Chad.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Callixtus posted...

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.

COVxy says otherwise

Yeah I wonder if @COVxy is incel

I have no opinion on the claim itself, just the meaningless dismissal based on sample size that has no empirical merit.
---

COVxy posted...

I have no opinion on the claim itself, just the meaningless dismissal based on sample size that has no empirical merit.

@COVxy
I challenge you to name a single non-hypothetical "study" that only has a sample size of 27 that can be considered valid.

Take your time, feel free to post any study you find that qualifies.

Oh and for the record, tinder has roughly 50 million users with 12 million matches per day.
---

COVxy posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Callixtus posted...

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Uh maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see any data justifying his 80/20 claim, or what "attractiveness" means or how it was measured. Coupled with the highly non-representative sample, the "study" is basically worthless.

COVxy says otherwise

Yeah I wonder if @COVxy is incel

I have no opinion on the claim itself, just the meaningless dismissal based on sample size that has no empirical merit.

just talkin to hear yourself talk, huh?
---

CookieMarvin posted...

what made you hate women? is it an insecurity thing?

Because of how they've treated me. They're mean and rude to me for literally no reason. They don't give me a chance, since I don't look like Fabio.
---

Tadamoto22 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

what made you hate women? is it an insecurity thing?

Because of how they've treated me. They're mean and rude to me for literally no reason. They don't give me a chance, since I don't look like Fabio.

Harboring resentment towards half of the planet cause they dont want to suck your dick is really unhealthy.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

COVxy posted...

I have no opinion on the claim itself, just the meaningless dismissal based on sample size that has no empirical merit.

@COVxy
I challenge you to name a single non-hypothetical "study" that only has a sample size of 27 that can be considered valid.

Take your time, feel free to post any study you find that qualifies.

Oh and for the record, tinder has roughly 50 million users with 12 million matches per day.

Lmao, there are thousands of studies with fewer subjects published in high tier studies every month.
---

COVxy posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

COVxy posted...

I have no opinion on the claim itself, just the meaningless dismissal based on sample size that has no empirical merit.

@COVxy
I challenge you to name a single non-hypothetical "study" that only has a sample size of 27 that can be considered valid.

Take your time, feel free to post any study you find that qualifies.

Oh and for the record, tinder has roughly 50 million users with 12 million matches per day.

Lmao, there are thousands of studies with fewer subjects published in high tier studies every month.

ok pick one and post it, should be easy with the thousands of studies.
---

Zhang and Luck, 2008

Publisher in Science.

Edit: published in Nature actually, Husain and Bays, 2008 was in science I think.
---

COVxy posted...

Zhang and Luck, 2008

Perfect!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588137/

See that works.

They had a control experiment, they have 150 trials for each of the people in that experiment.

That presents a FAR more accurate example then a random sample size of 27 people with no control whatsoever.
---

The sample size is like 9 or something in that study. According to your reasoning on miniscule sample sizes, it can't possible tell us anything.
---

COVxy posted...

The sample size is like 9 or something in that study. According to your reasoning on miniscule sample sizes, it can't possible tell us anything.

They conduced 150 trials with each person and had a control. Sample size can obviously be trumped if other steps are taken to get an accurate assessment, which clearly happened in the study you posted.

As opposed to selecting 27 out of 50 million users with no control and no scientific method whatsoever and no possible way to get an accurate assessment.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

That presents a FAR more accurate example then a random sample size of 27 people with no control whatsoever.

The sample wasn't random, though, it was quite synthetic.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

That presents a FAR more accurate example then a random sample size of 27 people with no control whatsoever.

The sample wasn't random, though, it was quite synthetic.

The fact that he selected people who liked his fake profile changes nothing I have said other then a minor semantics issue.

@COVxy
Perhaps you would be happier with my statement if I said "a Sample size of 27 people is far too tiny of a sample to get an accurate assessment unless OTHER steps are taken to do so." It is quite clear that the study the TC posted had absolutely no other steps taken to ensure accuracy. Does that satisfy you?
---

Dustin1280 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

That presents a FAR more accurate example then a random sample size of 27 people with no control whatsoever.

The sample wasn't random, though, it was quite synthetic.

The fact that he selected people who liked his fake profile changes nothing I have said other then a minor semantics issue.

The difference between a random and a synthetic sample is more than just semantics. You know that.
---

Looks
Money
Status
---

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

That presents a FAR more accurate example then a random sample size of 27 people with no control whatsoever.

The sample wasn't random, though, it was quite synthetic.

The fact that he selected people who liked his fake profile changes nothing I have said other then a minor semantics issue.

The difference between a random and a synthetic sample is more than just semantics. You know that.

You are right, but it doesn't change the main point of anything I have said. Replace the word random with synthetic and my point remains the same.
---

So you're saying that the sample size needs to be the same regardless if the sample is synthetic or random?
---

scar the 1 posted...

So you're saying that the sample size needs to be the same regardless if the sample is synthetic or random?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I am saying the fact of the matter is a sample size of 27, whether random or synthetic is not enough to provide accurate results unless other steps are take to do so. None of which were taken in the article the TC posted.
---

Did the OP ever claim any accuracy?
---

scar the 1 posted...

Did the OP ever claim any accuracy?

The OP didn't need to, it's simple a "study" was posted that was completely inaccurate, i called it out for what it was.

At least Covxy had somewhat of a point.

You are just being contrary for the hell of it.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Did the OP ever claim any accuracy?

The OP didn't need to, it's simple a "study" was posted that was completely inaccurate, i called it out for what it was.

At least Covxy had somewhat of a point.

You are just being contrary for the hell of it.

My whole motivation for this little spat has been your insistent discrediting of something that doesn't try to pass itself off as credible, and your doing so with the very tired and often uninformed "sample size" argument. As if the tiny sample is the largest flaw of the study.
---

The author DOES try to pass it off as creditable, he frames the entire article to do so.

The "sample size" argument is not right 100% but in many cases it is plenty if no other steps are taken to ensure accuracy in other ways.

I simply posted how incredibly inaccurate it was based off one of the many issues with the way it was conducted.

Simply put that article is trash appealing to the lowest common denonminator of people and has almost no basis in reality other then "hot people get more likes."

That fact that that author even had the gall to make a statement with his "data" like "It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men." is beyond stupid.
---

On that, I disagree. The experiment shows a way to apply socio-economic metrics to a Tinder population. He additionally proposes a metric to measure how attractive you seem to other Tinder users. Just because he does a fitting with a poor sample doesn't mean the metric itself is worthless.
This is partly my point; people tunnel so hard on SAMPLE SIZES that they discredit way more than they actually account for.
---

scar the 1 posted...

On that, I disagree. The experiment shows a way to apply socio-economic metrics to a Tinder population. He additionally proposes a metric to measure how attractive you seem to other Tinder users. Just because he does a fitting with a poor sample doesn't mean the metric itself is worthless.
This is partly my point; people tunnel so hard on SAMPLE SIZES that they discredit way more than they actually account for.

The sample size was plenty to discredit this persons attempt though, especially with the statement he made.

Do you agree that the statement that I have posted numerous times is actually accurate? Or do you think it's bullshit based on personal bias?

If he plans to make such a MASSIVE statement generalizing the entire population of tinder, don't you think needing a larger sample size would be one of the many requirements to do so?

EDIT: Sidenote: TC stated "Tinder researchers have scientifically proven Chad is real" and no they haven't. Not based on that article anyway...
---

Philoktetes posted...

there truly is no hope for nice guys in the current year

Philoktetes posted...

it was determined that a man of average attractiveness would be liked by approximately 0.87% (1 in 115) of women on Tinder.

That's definitely not impossible if there's millions of women.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

The sample size was plenty to discredit this persons attempt though, especially with the statement he made.

Do you agree that the statement that I have posted numerous times is actually accurate? Or do you think it's bulls*** based on personal bias?

If he plans to make such a MASSIVE statement generalizing the entire population of tinder, don't you think needing a larger sample size would be one of the many requirements to do so?

Like I've said, it's a poppy blog post. I take his statements with a grain of salt, considering the joking tone in the parentheses he has all over the text. If it were an academic paper, I'd of course say that the conclusions don't match the reservations, and the results aren't strong enough for a journal (maybe a conference, those things admit a lot of stuff). But it's not an academic paper, and shouldn't be read as one.
---

I just have a problem with people making broad generalizations on little other then their bias (blog or otherwise). If you plan to make a sweeping statement about millions of people, you better be able to back it up.
---

This isn't exclusive to Tinder, but to the majority of online dating. The only thing you have to go by is their looks, so yes of course they're going to be more superficial about it.
---

I guess im chad

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

The sample size was plenty to discredit this persons attempt though, especially with the statement he made.

Do you agree that the statement that I have posted numerous times is actually accurate? Or do you think it's bulls*** based on personal bias?

If he plans to make such a MASSIVE statement generalizing the entire population of tinder, don't you think needing a larger sample size would be one of the many requirements to do so?

Like I've said, it's a poppy blog post. I take his statements with a grain of salt, considering the joking tone in the parentheses he has all over the text. If it were an academic paper, I'd of course say that the conclusions don't match the reservations, and the results aren't strong enough for a journal (maybe a conference, those things admit a lot of stuff). But it's not an academic paper, and shouldn't be read as one.

Doesn't change the fact that plenty of people with less than half a brain would eat that shit up and see it as proof for their own bias.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Perhaps you would be happier with my statement if I said "a Sample size of 27 people is far too tiny of a sample to get an accurate assessment unless OTHER steps are taken to do so." It is quite clear that the study the TC posted had absolutely no other steps taken to ensure accuracy. Does that satisfy you?

No, criticizing sample size without any statistical justification is inappropriate, full stop.

Almost unilaterally, when given without justification, criticisms of sample size come from not liking the conclusion.
---

Izual_Reborn posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

The sample size was plenty to discredit this persons attempt though, especially with the statement he made.

Do you agree that the statement that I have posted numerous times is actually accurate? Or do you think it's bulls*** based on personal bias?

If he plans to make such a MASSIVE statement generalizing the entire population of tinder, don't you think needing a larger sample size would be one of the many requirements to do so?

Like I've said, it's a poppy blog post. I take his statements with a grain of salt, considering the joking tone in the parentheses he has all over the text. If it were an academic paper, I'd of course say that the conclusions don't match the reservations, and the results aren't strong enough for a journal (maybe a conference, those things admit a lot of stuff). But it's not an academic paper, and shouldn't be read as one.

Doesn't change the fact that plenty of people with less than half a brain would eat that shit up and see it as proof for their own bias.

When anyone here reposts false copypasta containing an anecdote about a single woman, people use it as proof for their own bias. They use literally everything conceivable as proof for their own bias.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Izual_Reborn posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

The sample size was plenty to discredit this persons attempt though, especially with the statement he made.

Do you agree that the statement that I have posted numerous times is actually accurate? Or do you think it's bulls*** based on personal bias?

If he plans to make such a MASSIVE statement generalizing the entire population of tinder, don't you think needing a larger sample size would be one of the many requirements to do so?

Like I've said, it's a poppy blog post. I take his statements with a grain of salt, considering the joking tone in the parentheses he has all over the text. If it were an academic paper, I'd of course say that the conclusions don't match the reservations, and the results aren't strong enough for a journal (maybe a conference, those things admit a lot of stuff). But it's not an academic paper, and shouldn't be read as one.

Doesn't change the fact that plenty of people with less than half a brain would eat that shit up and see it as proof for their own bias.

When anyone here reposts false copypasta containing an anecdote about a single woman, people use it as proof for their own bias. They use literally everything conceivable as proof for their own bias.

Sure thing. Doesn't mean it's not shitty click bait article. Doesn't excuse the fact it should be considered garbage.
---

Izual_Reborn posted...

So women are more discerning then men? Who knew.

Noooot quite.... Those top 20% are the same ones they complain about "not being there, being unfaithful, emotionally unavailable, and or uncaring".

If you know you want a bad boy / Chad and are feel the downsides are worth the upsides... cool, go you. But don't turn around crying complain that a Chad turned being *gasp*... "a Chad"
---

Izual_Reborn posted...

Sure thing. Doesn't mean it's not s***ty click bait article. Doesn't excuse the fact it should be considered garbage.

I just mean that it's weird to consider it garbage on the merit that people here will misunderstand it. Go ahead and say it's as garbage as you like, but when unskilled readers confirm their biases, it doesn't have to be attributed to poor source material :P
---