~ archived since 2018 ~

The Dark Side of Tinder; Study N=271 demonstrates Tinder users had higher levels of the 'dark triad' traits compared to non-users.

June 18, 2019
135 upvotes

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/BlackPillScience.

/r/BlackPillScience archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title The Dark Side of Tinder; Study N=271 demonstrates Tinder users had higher levels of the 'dark triad' traits compared to non-users.
Author Altmark22
Upvotes 135
Comments 26
Date June 18, 2019 10:45 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/BlackPillScience
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/the-dark-side-of-tinder-study-n271-demonstrates.242648
https://theredarchive.com/post/242648
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/c20q25/the_dark_side_of_tinder_study_n271_demonstrates/
Red Pill terms in post
Top posts by Altmark22
Comments

[–]Altmark22[S] 27 points28 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Abstract:

Tinder is the leading online dating application. This study (N = 271) explored the Dark Triad personality traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) and sociosexuality as correlates of Tinder use. The results revealed that Tinder users had higher scores on the Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality, compared to non-users. Also, Tinder users with higher scores on the Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality significantly showed greater motivation to use Tinder for short-term mating; however, there was no significant relation with Tinder use and motivation for long-term mating. This finding supports the idea that Tinder can be a new venue for people high on the Dark Triad to pursue their short-term mating strategies.

[–]insecure_manlet312 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"I may be a sociopathic narcissist, but at least I'm not a manlet"

[–][deleted] 1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry NoodlezzFucker, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]BlackPillledChad6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm a poster boy for Dark Triad and I've slept with around 80 women.

Black pill is the truth.

[–]Kondijote1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Any proof?

[–]undisputed6030 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Coach black pill, is that you?

[–]HBenedek385 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

A study of 271 people? LMAO

[–]kross123cx9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

"what is the central limit theorem?"

[–]HBenedek384 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I know what the central limit theorem is, but let's make something clear - there are 3 dark triad personality traits, hence the name. There are also a lot of people using Tinder, people of different personalities. There are so many goddamn variables that you simply can't control to, that in order to observe an actual pattern, you'd have to get a sample size where the distribution of participants in other things is equal too - equally attractive, equally tall, similar racial makeup, etc... And this is simply not possible to be taken into account with a sample site this tiny.

Ideally you can see a normal distribution after 10-12 participants. In reality a study with a sample size below 2000 is rarely if ever taken seriously. It's way too easy to include bias in such a small sample size too. For example, if you advertise through newspaper, you're already more likely to interview people who are less tech-savy. If you advertise through internet, the oppositve. If you pay for participation, you will end up with more opportunistic people, and poorer people possibly. These are all things that should be accounted for, which 200ish people simply can't account for, unless you deliberately choose people of specific traits to create a controlled distribution - and even then, it's unlikely you'll get a represetnative sample.

Just to demonstrate what I mean -

- you need 10 people for a rough estimate of normal distribution for any subgroup.

- you need groups based in height (really short, below average, average, above average, really tall), that's X5

- you need people of difference attractiveness - let's say, again, 5 groups - 2/10, 4/10, 6/10, 8/10 and 10/10. I know this is subjective, but let's say we rank like this -that's X5

- you need people of varying wealth - annual <10K, 10K-20K, 20K-40K, 40K-80K, 80K-200K, >200K, that's X6

- you need to split these groups by intelligence - again, i would propose a 5 grade ranking. That's X5

- you need people of different races - say, European, African, Asian, Indian, Middle-Eastern, South-Asians - just to pick the simples. That's another X5.

- you need males and females - X2

- you need people of different level of Tinder use - never used, has used a few times, has used for an extended period of time, is actively using, and has been for a long time. That's X4.

So we get:

10*5*5*6*5*5*2*4 = 300000

So to even come close to assessing this issue accurately, you'd need 300000 people. I know that's not possible, but this gives you an idea of how small of a number 271 is.

[–]Carkudo15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your argument is that a sample isn't "representative" because it fails to account for an arbitrary factor that you just pulled out of your ass. By that reasoning, any possible sample that doesn't include the whole population will unrepresentative, thus defeating the purpose of statistical calculations. Feel free to base your research on that but don't expect others to adhere to that ridiculous standard.

[–]HBenedek380 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your argument is that a sample isn't "representative" because it fails to account for an arbitrary factor that you just pulled out of your ass.

So you don't think height, attractiveness, wealth, intelligence and etnicity are relevant to one's sexual strategy and world views?

You can only possibly observe things accurately if you account for these obviously important factor.

For example, if I want to prove that short eared animals are slower than long eared ones, and I pick hippos, kangaroos, bears, rabbits, arctic fox and mice, I seemingly proved my point. But I could prove the opposite as well. If I don't disclose the exact sample I took, you'd never actually know how I got my conclusion. And clearly there are different things in play here - climate and hearion ability to mention the least.

The fact is that if you present a study with a sample of less than 2000, and draw any legitimate conclusions from that, you'll be ridiculed by the scientific world.

[–]lotikpotik 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link

"studying" dark triad traits, most of the time it's just normal human traits that for whatever reason have a negative tone to it. Like, oh wow, you have self confidence, you must be a narcissist.

I wonder what fucking big nosed circumcised guy who own most of the worlds money came up with that trash.

[–]Altmark22[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Confidence and narcissism (excessive self-love) are different, but yes I imagine onlookers (particularly women) often conflate the two.

Most people tend to score quite low on psychopathy in the studies I've seen also. Don't know about the prevelance of machiavellianism.

The main pioneer of the concept of 'Dark Triad' was the psychologist Delroy L. Paulhus, don't know if he is a 'big nosed circumcised guy'.

[–]CockyAndHot14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Confidence: I'm awesome. I dont care if anyone thinks the opposite, because I know I'm awesome. Im fine wether people like me or not.

Narcissism: I'm awesome. Fuck anyone who thinks the opposite. People must like me.

[–]Stutercel4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not how it works. Confidence = I know my value. That's it.

[–]look_in_the_mirror2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Confidence: I am good. Narcissism: Everyone else is shit.

[–]Zeebuss0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh joy some casual antisemitism

[–]insecure_manlet30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah seriously what was up with that?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

higher

meaningless without a figure

how much higher?

[–][deleted] 1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry tortieaway, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Black_Mexican_Incel 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

r/Braincels

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry Black_Mexican_Incel, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry sayyouwill_, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter