0
0

Women and exclamation points/smiley faces/emoticons - the data is in (self.ForeverAlone)

TimRattayGotScrewed が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -8 ポイント-7 ポイント  (11子コメント)

When 70% of a 100 person sample tests positive for something, that means something.

Or what, the women on OKCupid are somehow different from women in the general population? Give me a fucking break.

The conclusion is simple: Women use exclamation points and smiley faces far more often than men. There's a reason for that, and that reason is women and men think differently.

[–]SageOfTheWise 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (9子コメント)

You tested 100 women who use online dating in your area to represent the whole of society. You used such scientific measurements as your own vague opinion on whats 'not very much'. You're comparing these female statistics to males, except you never even did a similar sample for men. And based on your other comment in this post, your conclusion is that since women use exclamation points, you shouldn't treated as human beings. I'm still really unclear on the point you're trying to make. Even if your little experiment was scientifically sound, your conclusion isn't supported by it, you're making even bigger assumptions on the meaning of punctuation.

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You tested 100 women who use online dating in your area to represent the whole of society.

Apparently you don't understand how sampling works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my method. When they do scientific studies, they do not perform the study on every single person on the planet. Absolutely nothing is done that way. They don't calculate television ratings by analyzing everyone, either. They estimate them with samples.

Any woman who wrote anything was included in the sample.

Dating websites are just a random sample of women.

You're comparing these female statistics to males, except you never even did a similar sample for men.

Someone else can feel free to do that. It'll be a significantly lower ratio.

I'm still really unclear on the point you're trying to make.

Well, that's because you're a moron.

The expression, "treat women as human beings"/"think of women as human beings" means, "treat women like they're men." Human beings are men and women. The statement, "treat women like women" would be meaningless, and clearly what is meant when someone trots out that old line is, "you need to stop thinking of women like they're so different from you. Talk to them like normal."

Except talking to them like normal isn't the answer. If you write a serious, masculine-sounding message, you'll be met with her thinking, "wuuuuuuhhhhh? i'm, like, not responding to that....:( ignore"

[–]SageOfTheWise 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You need to look up representative sample. What you did is literally textbook bad sampling. That's not how sampling works. And while we're on the subject of scientific rigor.

Someone else can feel free to do that.

Oh yeah, that's how science works. "Well I've done half the work, I'm sure the data will meet my predrawn conclusions, someone else can finish this if they want."

And again, somehow the fact someone uses specific punctuation, or god forbid, likes food, makes them impossible to communicate with, or even classify as the same species.

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You need to look up representative sample. What you did is literally textbook bad sampling. That's not how sampling works.

So now there are "different types" of women that are somehow defined by whether or not they're on a dating website? This is a very interesting claim. So are you saying that women who use dating websites are somehow different intellectually than women who don't, making them more or less likely to use exclamation points whenever they write a significant amount of text?

Oh yeah, that's how science works. "Well I've done half the work, I'm sure the data will meet my predrawn conclusions, someone else can finish this if they want."

I've already seen enough to know it's significantly lower. I just didn't go through and actually count. This isn't a scientific journal. If you want to make a counter-argument, do the work yourself. That said, people have already done it for me and made the same conclusion I did. I provided you with a link referencing such studies.

And again, somehow the fact someone uses specific punctuation, or god forbid, likes food, makes them impossible to communicate with, or even classify as the same species.

Exclamation points are not legitimate punctuation, nor are smiley faces/emoticons. They are amateurish and juvenile; the mark of a bad writer. I have a hypothesis as to why women use them so much, but that's a topic for another day.

Classifying as the same species isn't the issue here. It's the subtext of the statement, "treat women like human beings." When people say that, what they mean is to treat them the same way you treat men. But women are not the same as men and should not be treated the same. Talking to women as though they're men and expecting it to be effective is delusional.

The "likes food" thing was just another ridiculous trend I noticed. These women will conclude by telling men not to message them with something generic "because that means you didn't read my profile," but they write such pointless garbage as, "I love food." Yeah, wow...I like food too. Soulmates.

[–]SageOfTheWise 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

A group of women who all use the same dating site can absolutely be a biased sampling group depending on the subject. You have to show that it isn't before you can declare it unbiased.

But the much bigger one was that you sampled women from a single zip code and applied the results globally. Or at least nationally. That is clearly not a unbiased sample.

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually used a different zip code than the city I'm in. It's going to be similar everywhere. It's obvious just from pure observation.

[–]Chel_of_the_sea 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Dating websites are just a random sample of women.

...no. No they are not. They're a sample of overwhelmingly single women, mostly within a certain age range, and probably disproportionately wealthy. That's anything but random.

Someone else can feel free to do that. It'll be a significantly lower ratio.

Lol. Nothing says "science" like saying "I already know what the control group will do".

Except talking to them like normal isn't the answer.

Nothing says "relationship expert" like "frequent ForeverAlone poster". You ever think that treating women as some monolithic group might not be helpin' your chances?

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

...no. No they are not. They're a sample of overwhelmingly single women, mostly within a certain age range, and probably disproportionately wealthy. That's anything but random.

Which affects their likelihood to use exclamation points and smiley faces how?

So it's not the fact that they're women that makes them different, it's the fact that they're the "type" of woman who is on a dating website that makes them write like idiots? Ashley from the frat party is less likely to use exclamation points and smiley faces than Obese Plain Jane who calls herself "curvy?"

Lol. Nothing says "science" like saying "I already know what the control group will do".

Is the title of this forum r/science?

I do already know what the control group would do. I looked at various heterosexual male profiles and noted it was obviously less common. There are also other people's studies showing exactly what I tell you you will find.

Nothing says "relationship expert" like "frequent ForeverAlone poster". You ever think that treating women as some monolithic group might not be helpin' your chances?

"helpin'" my chances? Oh, goodie, an obnoxious attempt at slang to try to make yourself seem witty. Typical johnny-come-lately reddit feminist/SJW who is on alert for anything "offensive" on a subreddit that has nothing to do with him/her. It's so predictable. You guys lurk until you see something disparaging toward women or gays or transsexuals or whatever poor, "oppressed" minority is en vogue and then pounce excitedly.

[–]Chel_of_the_sea 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which affects their likelihood to use exclamation points and smiley faces how?

It may not. Doesn't change the fact that it isn't a random sample and that that introduces dozens of confounding factors.

Typical johnny-come-lately reddit feminist/SJW

<sigh>

who is on alert for anything "offensive" on a subreddit that has nothing to do with him/her.

Let's drop courtesy then: no one wants to date someone bitter and angry who's looking to pin their issues on anyone but themselves. That better?

[–]TimRattayGotScrewed[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It may not. Doesn't change the fact that it isn't a random sample and that that introduces dozens of confounding factors.

None of the variables you could present matter. It would be as stupid as saying, "oh, but there weren't any poor people included in that study for that vaccine." Who cares? They're biologically human.

Let's drop courtesy then: no one wants to date someone bitter and angry who's looking to pin their issues on anyone but themselves. That better?

How do you know? Guessing? That's not very scientific.

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)