Using statistics to reflect attraction is oversimplifying attraction.

wtknight · 2021-11-29T13:30:42+00:00

Re-flaired as CMV as this is an affirmative claim.

PlayfulLawyer · 2021-11-29T04:00:42+00:00

Obviously everybody's going to have their own individual experiences with certain things but statistics or just use for a good measurement on a bounce of probability

cautionTomorrow555 · 2021-11-29T04:09:38+00:00

What sometimes seems random and chaotic stops seeming so random and chaotic when you have enough numbers and people viewing the data which is the case with dating. If it was just some peoples individual experiences you would be right, but if we get to the point of omnipotence and can view all the individual experiences as a whole then it stops being that way.

Mark_Freed · 2021-11-29T04:15:31+00:00

nature is chaotic and physics is oversimplification.

But you need to start someplace and throwing your hands up and using black box words like vibe, chemistry, spark to try and act as if you explained attraction is not a better alternative.

You are giving a valid criticism about the model and how using a few stats from underpowered studied is not enough to make such rules. So the solution is to draw from literature, art, history, biology and multiple studies and at the same time keep a healthy dose of skepticism towards any such patterns that we seem to identify.

The fact is there is no alternative that you can propose that is better, so we make do with the best rules we have. We start someplace and iteratively get better at this.

This topic is very sensitive because no one ones to feel shallow and no one likes to be manipulated to feel attraction. So there is a lot of pressure to be politically correct.

CommanderBobcat · 2021-11-29T05:54:48+00:00

What are we to use without stats? Made up personal anecdotes?

AutoModerator · 2021-11-29T03:21:24+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 according to these guidelines., 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.

NockerJoe · 2021-11-29T03:22:33+00:00

On a macro level it kind of isn't. Sure, you need multiple statistics but experts and laypeople do it all the time.

jordan_form · 2021-11-29T06:07:55+00:00

For the record, my critique applies to both sides. Thoughts?

it would apply to one side much more, because one side uses statistics and research and data much more than the other side.

heyitsjeape · 2021-11-29T03:55:01+00:00

Well it is, because while stats may say something about large swaths of people, they may or may not say anything about your personal situation.

baresquad · 2021-11-29T04:43:01+00:00

It’s so fucking stupid

The world doesn’t exist in absolutes. People are dynamic. One size fits all approaches are nonsensical

calfshrug · 2021-11-29T04:17:47+00:00

There are some people who will, without a doubt, fare better in dating than others. For example, if you’re an NBA player, you’ll definitely be successful in dating, and 1/7 of men who are currently in their 20s and over 7 feet tall are currently NBA players, thus being over 7 feet tall has a high certainty of yielding dating success. Or if you look like V Shred, Jeff Seid, David Laid, Dwayne Johnson, etc, you will have no problems with dating, because they’re extremely good looking and jacked. You don’t need a study to know that these are good looking people, but when we get down to the 80th percentile, then it becomes harder to determine differences from individual to individual, and to assess the balance of personality traits, life skills, money, talent, looks, height, etc, that leads to dating success.

The existence of these extremes is not an irrelevant bit of static like BP would want to have us believe, but it is the in-flesh support for RP ideas.

BP ideas have utility, but they’re a practice, a mindset, a simulation, more than the biological and existential reality that is encompassed by and encompasses RP. BP ideas attempt to bring heart and justice to RP world, but the reality is that BP is only as a lens or simulation to bring compassion to a cold RP world, where in truth, lies are not needed to do so. The redpill is that compassion and acceptance can come even with an understanding of the brutality and selectiveness that makes up our existence, solely because as intelligent beings, we can choose to have empathy and embrace values, and be self aware.

MisterJose · 2021-11-29T04:40:46+00:00

Yes and no. What I've found is that humans are simpler than we want to believe. There are some serious base money-brain cues and attractive features that are pretty widely shared. We often tell ourselves the reasons are complex when the reasons are actually simple.

PM_ME_ZED_BARA · 2021-11-29T05:55:07+00:00

Attraction is complex but if you make a good survey and use appropriate statistical tools, you can observe some useful trends and make good prediction. Law of large number can often deal with randomness. Chaotic systems are often studied with great accuracy.

That is not to say that theories proposed by pill space are all correct. But human nature is not so special that it cannot be studied from statistical perspective. Like, you can have a study to examine whether women or men prefer taller mates. The tricky part is to use statistical to answer why humans have such attraction patterns.

cuckspace · 2021-11-29T06:45:07+00:00

Using statistics to measure the effectiveness of a drug or a vaccine is oversimplifying, because it may have adverse or no effect on 0.01% percent of the population, but does that mean we should not use it? Approximate generalization is how progress is made in any science that concerns humans. There are always deviations on the normal curve but that doesn’t invalidate its existence. In fact that’s what makes it a normal curve.

2021-11-29T10:31:50+00:00

Imagine engaging in a discussion forum about general human behaviour on a macro level, and yet, at the same time, get triggered by generalisations. Do we really need to preface everything we say with tropes about how there are no rules without exception, or how everything might not be applicable to everyone?

Pilling_it · 2021-11-29T10:32:53+00:00

It's like trying to make economics assumptions using models.

You have to make so many assumptions to even theorize that by the time you get to something usable it's already not possible to apply.

If you were to find the perfect formula solving attraction, you'd find there's so many variables out of your control it's not practically usable, or reliable consistently.

Bandit174 · 2021-11-29T03:35:37+00:00

Measure what? what people find attractive?

caption291 · 2021-11-29T06:59:56+00:00

When you think of a chair you don't actually think of a chair, you think of a statistical aproximation of what a chair is because the actual object is way too complex chaotic and random for you to actually understand it.

The strength of statistics is their ability to deal with things that are too complex, random and chaotic for us to understand.

No_Exercise_8670 · 2021-11-29T10:43:09+00:00

You don't really understand how statistics work

Title	Using statistics to reflect attraction is oversimplifying attraction.
Author	Pretend_Dependent_60
Upvotes	0
Comments	22
Date	November 29, 2021 3:21 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/r4m4b5/using_statistics_to_reflect_attraction_is/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/using-statistics-to-reflect-attraction-is.1086003 https://theredarchive.com/post/1086003

Comments