The Pareto Principle – Confirmed

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2016-11-08T03:00:22+00:00

The 80 / 20 rule is a generalization, and needs statistical backing of the topic itself to be verified in that topic, it cannot be assumed from the onset

That said there is also the foundational issue here, ironically, because of the separation between men and women. For the 80 / 20 rule to usually work, there needs to be a continuum in the things which you are talking about, however, if you view men and women as a sharp divide, where one quantity is effecting the other, the 80 / 20 rule usually no longer works.

V-sauce has a good video on this subject.

The best hypothesis one can make is that 20% of people, have 80% of the sex, which makes a hell of a lot more sense then "20% of men fuck 80% of women," which starts to fall apart the second you look at it in real life.

SpaceWhiskey · 2016-11-08T04:23:53+00:00

How women rate men on one dating site is not analogous to all real life dating. The article/blog post you linked even gives possible explanations that don't point to "hypergamy":

What causes this huge difference in how men and women rate each other? Is one being more honest than the other? Are they rating based on different criteria (perhaps men are rating based on looks, and women are rating based on whether or not they think the men would make a good mate)? Perhaps women are hesitant to rate a man highly, because they know that will trigger okcupid to send that man a message letting them know which woman rated them highly?

I think it's a combination of men being overly generous with their ratings in the hopes that someone will date/fuck them and women having a more aloof way of using dating sites, that they're pickier because they're less likely to actually go on dates from the internet because of the much higher risk. You know the saying, a man's biggest fear on a first date is that she'll be fat. A woman's biggest fear is that she'll be murdered.

Also, you say this

There's always a constant bleating on this sub for stats to back up RP principles.

like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't people ask for stats to back up claims?

shogunofsarcasm · 2016-11-08T02:47:03+00:00

What's your opinion on the data pool being a very specific demographic? Specifically a dating site where we might expect to see far thirstier men than women that might not have succeeded in the usually local SMP.

honeypuppy · 2016-11-08T10:02:47+00:00

I was hoping this was something new, but it's the same OkCupid data we've discussed a hundred times on this subreddit.

The thing is, there are many other plausible explanations other than "80/20 rule confirmed". Maybe online dating or OkCupid specifically are unrepresentative. Maybe women are less likely to be aroused by a picture and instead have a more holistic view of attractiveness. Maybe men take worse pictures on average. Maybe women are just pickier in their ratings of everything. (Indeed, I actually find it somewhat surprising that men had well-calibrated ratings of women. People are often pretty crappy at calibration in general).

This is the only evidence that RPers ever produce for the 80/20 rule, and it's circumstantial at best. Meanwhile, actual studies of human sexual behaviour have shown nothing of the sort.

cxj · 2016-11-08T03:10:06+00:00

When you look at response rates in that same study, the graphs are basically flipped with women responding more to average and even below average men, and men focusing on the top 2/3 of women. Also, unattractive men respond to unattractive women's messages (35%) much less than unattractive women responded to unattractive men (45%).

So basically if you look at response rate instead of ratings, you would come to the exact opposite conclusion.

MasterTeacher88 · 2016-11-08T12:33:23+00:00

The average young single man(18-26) in America is getting no ass. The vast majority of casual sex by guys in this range is had by a small pool of dudes. Everyone else you're either in a relationship or has palmela.

College is a classic example. Frat guys, Atheltes, generally good looking guys are doing the overwhelmingly majority of the hooking up. You got back up QBs on the football team who have a roster of women lol

exit_sandman · 2016-11-08T06:45:12+00:00

[deleted]

What is this?

SpaceWhiskey · 2016-11-08T03:08:02+00:00

This is a serious question, but are dating site statistics relevant to real life dating that much?

oodsigma · 2016-11-08T12:33:44+00:00

Ugh, this is such a perversion of Pareto's ideas.

cxj · 2016-11-08T06:12:28+00:00

Rollo, what do you think of my take on hypergamy and the 80/20 rule? Does this elaborate well on redpill theory, or do you think I am I way off base here?

ifelsedowhile · 2016-11-08T09:32:15+00:00

you can observe how true this principle is in real life: women seldom initiate and seldom respond positively to advances from strangers unless said strangers are on the top level.
the same mating dynamic is observable in pretty much any other species bar few exceptions.
the idea that humans are detached from their basic instincts is a delusion of progressive ideologies.

statsfodder · 2016-11-08T10:41:40+00:00

I like to apply femme logic here and claim "it FEELS like 20% of the men fuck 80% of the women" therefore that is proof of the claim after all we all know that feelz > realz :)

80_20 · 2016-11-08T19:03:52+00:00

This was in response to someone else, but it contains answers to all your questions.

It was published here.

So anyone who says the okcupid chart is flawed, they are just wrong. But we knew that already because Christain Rudder in his book saw other non-okcupid websites, including Tinder, that had the same pattern. Source:Dataclysm (also used facebook to disprove the dating site has ugly people myth)

Here is the same chart that you see in the published study confirming the same thing.

A lot of women try to explain this away but the closer you look at it, all the data shows it. This graph also from Dataclysm show why women's messaging pattern is the same, and it is actually much worse than men because they don't message. At all. It shows how little men are messaged, and it shows the 80/20 rule in practice.

Here in the published study, they control for attractiveness. Namely they break it all down by percentiles. It shows the bottom 20 percent of women send only 10 percent of their messages, to the equally attractive counterparts. So yeah, those /r/incels and /r/ForeverAlone might have a point. They don't bring it upon themselves, they are ignored by 90 percent of their own kind. The published study also says 18 percent of men receive no messages at all. (compared to 2 percent of women)

I would argue that it is even far worse than 80/20, as that only shows messages replied to. The actual reality might be a lot worse because obviously you don't go on dates with everyone who you message and the opposite sex who message you.

This is why the reality of Dataclysm's big data results are so spectacular. They are the first real indication of what is going on outside of a lab, outside of college studies with 50 grad students. The sample size of 80/20 rule was half the single population in the United States.

That is why the subtitle of Dataclysm is: "Dataclysm:Who we are when we think no one is watching". Because people behave differently when they know they are being watched.

You don't even have to believe me, just ask women. How many people do you swipe right on? They'll tell you. Out of hundreds, they will only swipe right on a couple.

That is when you can stop. Because out of the hundreds they see, they are in fact telling you they only swipe right on 1 out of every 25 people. At BEST. So there is all the proof you need of the 80/20 in action.

The really interesting evidence:

Genetics. Still preliminary, so I won't sing it's praises. It isn't proof of anything. But it is very very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

http://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13

Hawanja · 2016-11-08T07:41:08+00:00

What does TPP think?

I think the entire thing is total bullshit of the highest order. It's like a myth that guys tell themselves, so that they don't feel bad for not being able to get women.

[deleted] · 2016-11-08T22:34:22+00:00

And similarly, most men want the most attractive women.

In other news.....

AutoModerator · 2016-11-08T02:37:59+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

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

exit_sandman · 2016-11-08T11:09:42+00:00

What does TPP think?

Well, I don't know what TPP thinks, but I think 20% is being generous. Here's what I wrote some time ago on this:

Being in "the 20%" is actually pretty nondescript if you consider enough factors. Here's my thought experiment from yesterday: For the sake of this thought experiment, assume that (a) you could objectively measure all traits on a scale (for some traits one can't) and (b) that they don't correlate with one another (they do to some extent). Now you have a woman who wants a guy who is above the median in the following categories (which isn't remotely unrealistic, underperforming in any of them happens to be a pretty reliable dealbreaker for plenty of women):

intelligence/IQ
height
looks/facial aesthetics
physique/fitness
confidence/charme
wealth/status

Nothing out of the ordinary, right? After all, above the median means that you have a 50% chance to nail it as a guy, right? Well... you see, the problem with that list is that you have to get all of these, and suddenly the 50% chance shrinks to a measly 1/2^⁶ = 1.56%.

Granted, some things correlate (intelligence and wealth being the most obvious), but on the other hand "at least median" doesn't cut it if it sucks (for example, having an "above median" physique is still perfectly compatible with being a fat slob in a society where 2/3 are overweight). Which means that in some of these categories, not being in the top 30% is already a fucking common dealbreaker (for example height and physique), and being in the top 10% in pretty much all of them is a fucking common ideal. And this doesn't even take additional priorities into account like age, ethnicity, personality and compatibility (hobbies, interests, political opinion etc.).

So, if you want to be top 20% in the eyes of a woman who values all these traits equally, it's already enough if you don't suck too much. The problem with "top 20%" is that in TRP, it's usually more like "top 20% in every of the categories", which is misleading because it't terribly rare. To illustrate, let's look at the 666 guy - sixpack, six feet, 6 on the rating scale. Such a guy would have to be

fit (let's say top 10%, very few people are actually enough into sports to have a sixpack)
tall (top 30%)
somewhat handsome (top 30%)

Since these stats are largely independent from one another, this would mean that less than 1% of all guys qualify for this. And we haven't even checked yet whether that guy is wealthy, confident or smart! So yeah, don't be too fixated on being in "the top 20%" - if you're reading this, you're probably in them already by virtue of some combination of traits.

BPremium · 2016-11-08T12:22:12+00:00

80/20 may not be totally correct, but it gives credence to the fact that women are way too picky. And that's the point of the study

Transmigratory · 2016-11-08T16:01:29+00:00

Rollo, by now surely you should understand that confirmation bias beans some of those who asked for backing up of RP principles (usually aimed at the one who think about their RP hatred or got triggered by some comments) will never be convinced.

Entropy-7 · 2016-11-09T18:36:01+00:00

Women are harsh in rating men, but they are much more lenient in their messaging patterns online, compared to men. They don't actually message the "top 20%" as much as would be suggested by the Pareto Principle.

And there are is good data to suggest that it isn't the top 20% of guys that are actually fucking 80% of women but rather the top 5% or 10% sluttiest women that are fucking everybody, including doing the rounds of all the guys with the top n-counts.

Title	The Pareto Principle – Confirmed
Author	Rollo-Tomassi
Upvotes	11
Comments	70
Date	November 8, 2016 2:37 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5bqom0/the_pareto_principle_confirmed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-pareto-principle-confirmed.271961 https://theredarchive.com/post/271961