|
Generally speaking I find more guys complaining that they cannot find a girlfriend than girls complaining that they cannot find a boyfriend.
Now, despite my lack of hard statistical data, my observation is that the standard deviation in popularity with the opposite sex is larger for males than for females. What I mean here is if say you take a sample of 100 guys and 100 girls at the age of 20 or so, for the girls maybe you get 40 who have say 3-4 boyfriends before, maybe 20 who have 6 or more boyfriends, 20 who have maybe just 1, 10 who have 10 boyfriends and above and 10 who have none at all.
On the other hand for the 100 guys, maybe you have 30 who have say 3-4 girlfriends before, 15 who have 6 or more, 15 who have had just 1, maybe 5-10 who have had more than 20 girlfriends before and the remaining 30-35 have had none at all.
In other words, the distribution is furthur spread out for men. The super popular ones are really super popular while the unpopular ones are really really unpopular.
You may say that "It's the same for girls, compare a pretty cheerleader with a weird loner girl". It is true that the cheerleader will attract way more guys than the loner girl, but if you compare the difference in "capacity to get a mate" between them, that difference may not be as big as the difference between a hot popular jock and a weird loner guy.
Hence more complaints from guys - the ones at the high end enjoy more, but there are more at the low end to feel the pain compared to girls.
This theory also explains why people say guys cheat more than girls. If we think of the matter logically, neither sex can cheat more than the other as each "cheating incident" will include one of each gender. However, since guy popularity is concentrated more at the high end than girls, more single girls will be cheating with attached guys on the high end, and so by definition, the guy is cheating but the girl is not as she is single.
  
|
true. i never had a gf before TT
foreveralone
|
What did I read?
The biggest issue with your giant observation is that it does not account for cultural differences whatsoever. Which, if you are unsure, determines a large part of gender relations, marriages, number of sexual partners (don't men have had more sexual partners than women by like 3? [women being 4 and men being 7; someone correct me on this]).
http://www.data360.org/pdf/20070416064139.Global Sex Survey.pdf
Average says 9 across the globe.
This isn't a theory because it has no real substance besides anecdotes.
What I mean here is if say you take a sample of 100 guys and 100 girls at the age of 20 or so, for the girls maybe you get 40 who have say 3-4 boyfriends before, maybe 20 who have 6 or more boyfriends, 20 who have maybe just 1, 10 who have 10 boyfriends and above and 10 who have none at all. 3 or 4 boyfriends before the age of 20 O___________________O?? What determines they are the status of a Girlfriend or Boyfriend, what is the generally view of the longetivity of a relationship before they hit that status.
You may say that "It's the same for girls, compare a pretty cheerleader with a weird loner girl". It is true that the cheerleader will attract way more guys than the loner girl, but if you compare the difference in "capacity to get a mate" between them, that difference may not be as big as the difference between a hot popular jock and a weird loner guy.
But you don't account for individual values of the cheerleader, who, despite can get multiple partners, may only have one or keep one for several years. In addition, these social differences are in the very small age-group who are sifting through hormonal periods and discovering both their sexuality and relationships, there's no account for that at all.
Hence more complaints from guys - the ones at the high end enjoy more, but there are more at the low end to feel the pain compared to girls. This is a bias statement, you're implying that those who do not get any relations or women are in "pain" or feeling alone in comparison to girls who somehow equally suffer and actually value or desire a partner at their age. Those who do not get a girlfriend aren't necessarily searching for it and may put values such as their education, family or sports at a higher priority than impressing the opposite sex (especially when they have the maturity to realize that university is where it really is at :B)
|
|
|
It's impressive how much you just managed to pull out of your ass.
You hear more from guys because, I'm guessing, you're a guy. If you were a girl you'd be saying girls complain more, they do actually, a lot. The whole gender divide is utter tripe, girls sleep around just as much as guys but social pressures are more against them being open about it ie the girl who sleeps around has 'insecurities' whereas the guy who does it too is just confident, total nonsense.
I don't know much about Malaysia, I know its a very religious country so perhaps its also very patriarchal, ever considered culture as a factor?
Also for gods sake, you did not just state a theory, at all, you stated a very brief hypothesis, stated you have no data, then started talking about standard deviation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
Standard deviation is a statistical tool used in the analysis of data, no data no standard deviation. You cant just make up a sample, my statistics lecturer is a lovely man but he would probably punch you in the face for that post.
If you want to sound like you have some sort of higher education, finish school first, please.
|
Harsh, but pretty much the above. You should really do some googling at least before-hand.
|
Denmark3807 Posts
So if girls have more boyfriends than boys have girlfriends, who are they in a relationship with??
That's like saying: Guys have more one night stands..... WITH WHO?????
I know you say that the top 10% of guys get like the top 40% of girls or whatever, but still. You sir just made my statistics professor puke in his mouth....
Literally, I just showed him.
|
On May 13 2012 06:41 Grovbolle wrote:
So if girls have more boyfriends than boys have girlfriends, who are they in a relationship with??
That's like saying: Guys have more one night stands..... WITH WHO?????
I know you say that the top 10% of guys get like the top 40% of girls or whatever, but still. You sir just made my statistics professor puke in his mouth....
Literally, I just showed him.
Now I wanna email my stat prof this link... though I think he's already facepalmed enough from the project proposals the class turned in two weeks ago. He gave us a lecture about how observational studies != experiments, therefore failure by 75% of the class to read instructions.
|
Interesting...seems pretty rational if you ask me.
|
On May 13 2012 06:21 adwodon wrote:Also for gods sake, you did not just state a theory, at all, you stated a very brief hypothesis, stated you have no data, then started talking about standard deviation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviationStandard deviation is a statistical tool used in the analysis of data, no data no standard deviation. You cant just make up a sample, my statistics lecturer is a lovely man but he would probably punch you in the face for that post. If you want to sound like you have some sort of higher education, finish school first, please.
lol.
he acknowledged that he didn't have any data. He's just using standard deviation in an illustrative sense - that the observations are less centered around the mean. That's what he meant to say, so he's using it correctly. Maybe once you've completed your statistics course you will understand.
|
My first thought is that it seems legit. Then I read some comments and it seems like they all think it's BS. But it probably fits your community and it fits mine too so yeah. of the 20 guys in my class; 6 have had more than 3, 4 have had 1 or 2, 10 have had 0 lol. Of the 20 girls, only 2 haven't had a boyfriend. I'm not gunna say it's the same everywhere but that's just the numbers for my little shool.
|
Lmfao, the replies to this thread are perfect.
OP, you done goofed.
|
Haha, right at the start I did acknowledge I didn't have any hard data right?
However my use of the term standard deviation is just to try to illustrate how I think the bell curve looks like for either gender. Yes my theory is from personal observation only, but given that I have roughly the same number of guy friends and girl friends, I think I'm not skewed by knowing more guys.
Just think about the people you know, does my theory sound true in any way?
|
On May 13 2012 13:13 targ wrote:
Haha, right at the start I did acknowledge I didn't have any hard data right?
However my use of the term standard deviation is just to try to illustrate how I think the bell curve looks like for either gender. Yes my theory is from personal observation only, but given that I have roughly the same number of guy friends and girl friends, I think I'm not skewed by knowing more guys.
Just think about the people you know, does my theory sound true in any way?
No, it doesn't.
and I listed several reasons why.
A theory can't be based on personal anecdote.
|
On May 13 2012 13:13 targ wrote:
Haha, right at the start I did acknowledge I didn't have any hard data right?
However my use of the term standard deviation is just to try to illustrate how I think the bell curve looks like for either gender. Yes my theory is from personal observation only, but given that I have roughly the same number of guy friends and girl friends, I think I'm not skewed by knowing more guys.
Just think about the people you know, does my theory sound true in any way?
so...
you have no data.
you know you're pulling numbers basically out of your imagination
and that your imagination and personal experience is the sole reasoning behind your theory in the first place making the assumption that literally anything matches it, let alone everywhere
and...so.
i guess ill give the answer you're looking for.
the trying to follow candy land logic answer:
no. no your theory does not sound in any way shape or form accurate.
|
Pardon my usage of the word "theory", I admit that what I've typed is not scientific research in any shape or form.
Actually what I want to say is that I observe that the difference in popularity with the opposite sex varies more from the high to low end for guys compared to girls, and I was curious to see whether others think the same way as well. Perhaps I came off sounding a little too pseudoscientific in my opening, and I'm sorry for that.
|
Stop bashing the poor guy. He tries to use scientific vocabulary to describe something that is nothing more then his own thoughts on the question. There's nothing scientific about it, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.
In fact I agree with him, it'll always be easier for a girl to find a boyfriend than the other way around. This is simply due to the fact that, in most societies, it's up to the boy to "seduce" the girl. There are just as many shy boys as there are shy girls, but being shy when you're a boy means you won't get to meet anyone, whereas being shy as a girl doesn't prevent you from being hit on by boys.
|
On May 13 2012 08:58 applejuice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 06:21 adwodon wrote:Also for gods sake, you did not just state a theory, at all, you stated a very brief hypothesis, stated you have no data, then started talking about standard deviation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviationStandard deviation is a statistical tool used in the analysis of data, no data no standard deviation. You cant just make up a sample, my statistics lecturer is a lovely man but he would probably punch you in the face for that post. If you want to sound like you have some sort of higher education, finish school first, please. lol. he acknowledged that he didn't have any data. He's just using standard deviation in an illustrative sense - that the observations are less centered around the mean. That's what he meant to say, so he's using it correctly. Maybe once you've completed your statistics course you will understand.
What level of statistics you've completed? I took my final last week, I've completed the course, I had some trouble on the exam though, it was incredibly tough, maybe if I scanned it in you could help me clear up one or two things?
It's a 4th year Masters level course taught by this guy:
http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/glen-cowan(9556b676-63ce-4947-9ce4-9f7c10ce513d).html
You sound like you know what you're talking about though.
Honestly I tried to think of something genuine to say in response to that, but I'm just sitting here in disbelief that someone would actually say something like that, I don't really care for memes but I actually pulled the WTF guy face.
On May 13 2012 07:15 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 06:41 Grovbolle wrote:
So if girls have more boyfriends than boys have girlfriends, who are they in a relationship with??
That's like saying: Guys have more one night stands..... WITH WHO?????
I know you say that the top 10% of guys get like the top 40% of girls or whatever, but still. You sir just made my statistics professor puke in his mouth....
Literally, I just showed him. Now I wanna email my stat prof this link... though I think he's already facepalmed enough from the project proposals the class turned in two weeks ago. He gave us a lecture about how observational studies != experiments, therefore failure by 75% of the class to read instructions.
haha failing most of the class, that's harsh!
What else can you do when everyone completely misses the mark though!
|
On May 13 2012 05:28 Torte de Lini wrote:What did I read? The biggest issue with your giant observation is that it does not account for cultural differences whatsoever. Which, if you are unsure, determines a large part of gender relations, marriages, number of sexual partners (don't men have had more sexual partners than women by like 3? [women being 4 and men being 7; someone correct me on this]). http://www.data360.org/pdf/20070416064139.Global Sex Survey.pdfAverage says 9 across the globe. This isn't a theory because it has no real substance besides anecdotes. Show nested quote +What I mean here is if say you take a sample of 100 guys and 100 girls at the age of 20 or so, for the girls maybe you get 40 who have say 3-4 boyfriends before, maybe 20 who have 6 or more boyfriends, 20 who have maybe just 1, 10 who have 10 boyfriends and above and 10 who have none at all. 3 or 4 boyfriends before the age of 20 O___________________O?? What determines they are the status of a Girlfriend or Boyfriend, what is the generally view of the longetivity of a relationship before they hit that status. Show nested quote +
You may say that "It's the same for girls, compare a pretty cheerleader with a weird loner girl". It is true that the cheerleader will attract way more guys than the loner girl, but if you compare the difference in "capacity to get a mate" between them, that difference may not be as big as the difference between a hot popular jock and a weird loner guy.
But you don't account for individual values of the cheerleader, who, despite can get multiple partners, may only have one or keep one for several years. In addition, these social differences are in the very small age-group who are sifting through hormonal periods and discovering both their sexuality and relationships, there's no account for that at all. Show nested quote +Hence more complaints from guys - the ones at the high end enjoy more, but there are more at the low end to feel the pain compared to girls. This is a bias statement, you're implying that those who do not get any relations or women are in "pain" or feeling alone in comparison to girls who somehow equally suffer and actually value or desire a partner at their age. Those who do not get a girlfriend aren't necessarily searching for it and may put values such as their education, family or sports at a higher priority than impressing the opposite sex (especially when they have the maturity to realize that university is where it really is at :B)
Men having in average more sexual partner just show how women lies, because you need a women to have an heterosexual relationship, so the average should be the same (I'm not pulling that out of my hat, it's a well known fact in sociology, that's cultural difference yes : it's easier for men to brag about their sexual experience because their sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman).
What he is saying is perfectly true, the man population is more spread. It's way easier for women to be in couple if they want. I must add that what he is saying is also true for a lot of things in society : for the vote for exemple, men tend to vote for the extrem (far left or far right) while women tend to vote for more centrist figures (left, right, center).
And he is only talking about the occidental countries in my opinion.
|
we are mammals, more accurately apes, and therefor men are kinda dispensable.
Say if 20% of Men die without procreating it wouldnt hurt our human race much because other men(more likely to have better genes and therefor be more attractive) can fill their place with ease. a man can impregnate hundreds of women in 9 months, but a woman can birth once every 9 months at most, thats why even less attractive women are not useless to our race biologically since they raise the our birth capacity.
Now thats obviously not something important in human society anymore(procreating as much as possible), but it was
|
On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
According to whom?
You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced?
|
On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
According to whom? You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced?
You didn't quote my sentence man, I said bragging about sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman. The idea of purity is still important for our society, as stupid as it is... "like a virgin". Having blond hair means exactly that by the way: Alfred Hitchcock preferred to cast blonde women for major roles in his films as he believed that the audience would suspect them the least, comparing them to "virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints", hence the term "Hitchcock blonde".
What I mean is, with friends we can brag about our sexual experience, and having many partner is something that is positiv, while it's not the case for women.
|
On May 14 2012 00:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
According to whom? You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced? You didn't quote my sentence man, I said bragging about sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman. The idea of purity is still important for our society, as stupid as it is... "like a virgin". Having blond hair means exactly that by the way: Show nested quote +Alfred Hitchcock preferred to cast blonde women for major roles in his films as he believed that the audience would suspect them the least, comparing them to "virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints", hence the term "Hitchcock blonde". What I mean is, with friends we can brag about our sexual experience, and having many partner is something that is positiv, while it's not the case for women.
You must be out of touch with the recent generation of young women.
|
|
|
On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced?
yes.
|
On May 14 2012 02:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced? yes.
Why?
|
On May 14 2012 02:29 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 02:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced? yes. Why?
cause i find monogamy attractive and non-monogamy to be unattractive.
and i mean monogamy as in one life=one partner.
|
On May 14 2012 02:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 02:29 Mstring wrote:On May 14 2012 02:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 13 2012 23:01 Mstring wrote:On May 13 2012 20:01 WhiteDog wrote:
sexual experience is something positiv for a man and not for a woman.
You'd prefer to sleep with someone less experienced? yes. Why? cause i find monogamy attractive and non-monogamy to be unattractive. and i mean monogamy as in one life=one partner.
If you are in a happy relationship/marriage then congrats and thanks for sharing.
In the alternate case, the question isn't in a very good form for you but thanks for sharing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
