23 Comments

>Most women can’t tell a one-inch difference, and some can’t tell a two-inch difference.

😏

Expand full comment

*snerk!*

I know what *you're* thinking... 🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
Aug 12, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

If you were trying to make a dating app that would bring people together for long term relationships, how would you structure it? Presume that you'd be running this platform at a loss and gave Zero Fucks about that (basically, pretend you're Elon trying to raise the TFR).

Is it even doable at scale?

Expand full comment
author

I think it is. I may write that article up at some point.

Expand full comment

I would be very interested to read that.

Expand full comment
Aug 12, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

If you were 5’-6”, you wouldn’t have dared write this article.

Expand full comment
author

I KNOW RIGHT

Wait for the dick length article, it's going to be baller.

get it?

BALLER

Expand full comment

Most remarkable is that 2" difference stuff. Men worry about size much more than women, I'm told. I suppose there are size queens always. My late wife commented about my size compared to a past lover. Her take was he was too big but most critically he didn't know how to use his equipment; she was quite pleased that I did despite being among the less endowed from average. But I shall await your astute observations. My take is that you can be too big or too small but equipment use is more critical. Can't recall ever actually commenting about dick size in print nor in casual conversation now curious if women ever talk about the topic.

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

The 50 line for women is very true. And conversely, lying about your age UP is an excellent sex/hookup site strategy to filter the worst chaff out. I've been over 50 on sex sites since my late 40s and the change in the number of asshat messages was clear and noticeable.

More interestingly, though, perhaps, is that MIDDLE AGED men lie about *their* age a lot. And I don't mean, just putting it under the magic line of 50. I mean, by up to 10 years. Always down. And it starts around 52-53 but stretches alllllll the way up to their 60.

Expand full comment
author

Fascinating. Every anecdote is enlightening.

Expand full comment
Aug 13, 2023·edited Aug 13, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

If I were you I'd just round it up to 6'0. 99% of women can't tell an inch, and most won't care.

I'm 5'10 and list myself as 5'11, that lie gets me nothing. So I think I'll just increase the lie to 6'0. Maybe I'll put 5'10" in the text portion of the profile, so as to get through the filters, but probably not.

I abhor lying too, but thing is everyone does it on these dating apps to the point you almost have to, and there's no cost (and yes women lie about their age and no it's absolutely not simply rounding by 2-3 years from 51 to 49 or 48 ... it's listing age as 31 and the person who shows up looks 45). Women on these apps lie by a LOT, not simply a year or two if they are near a round number. FWIW I never "call out" these lying women, I simply have a conversation, pay for their drink, and don't ask them out again ... unless she's a hot 45 year old, in which case who cares, just mentally put her in the "casually date only" category.

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

Whenever there's a fence, it's a natural human tendency to try to get around it. :D

Expand full comment

When I first met my partner, who is six years older than I am, as things were getting hot and heavy she sat me down and looked into my eyes and said, "I want to make sure you know, I'm over 50," like it was some kind of dark admission. At the time I really wondered where the hell that came from.

Expand full comment
Aug 15, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery

Ahh yea, that "Shit... did I wake up in Logan's Run?!" moment :D

Expand full comment

CONTEXTUALIZE THE DATA

Height filters are optional in the dating app this is from (Bumble), they're also a premium feature beyond the first 2 you get to set for free (since removed).

You are seeing ONLY the preferences of WOMEN WHO ARE CHOOSING TO FILTER FOR HEIGHT

These women were either paying for premium, or were prioritising height over things such as wanting kids, relationship type or religion. Of course the preferences will be extreme.

Don't publish articles while being so ignorant.

Expand full comment
author

The whole data pool is questionable and I said that multiple times. Get off your height horse. ;)

"An attempt to identify the source (Statista) came up blank and several Reddit threads called this out as fake, so this graph may have simply been manufactured by an angry short dude to farm clicks."

"just for fun let’s proceed as if this is real for the sake of discussion."

"Since the source of that Bumble graph is highly questionable and unreferenced, and we’re literally pretending it’s true with our analysis..."

"By comparing these two sets of data – the ***presumed*** Bumble height desirability statistics and the height distribution statistics, we can back-calculate"

Expand full comment
May 8·edited May 8

But I like my height horse.

It's not that it's questionably sourced. It's that even assuming it's exactly correct as you suggested for the sport of it, it's still not going to be representative of all women on the app because we don't know what percentage of women have the height filter set. i.e. the critical information you and many people commenting on this graph aren't managing to learn exists is 'height filters are optional, and a paid feature - how many women actually set a height filter'.

You do understand this entire analysis is entirely irrelevant if this filter was only set by 0.1% of women right? Naturally reality would be somewhere inbetween, but it's entirely believable that a majority of women prioritise things like wanting kids or religion over height. Because in the app, you could set 2 free filters, or as many as you wanted while paying. They removed the 2 free filters at some point.

Expand full comment
author

"By comparing these two sets of data – the ***presumed*** Bumble height desirability statistics and the height distribution statistics, we can back-calculate"

Expand full comment

You're ignoring my point. The point is that even treating the data as accurate, it's still not insightful in the way you think it is. Treating the data as accurate, it's an extremely biased sample. You can't use the preferences of those who set filters to infer the preferences of people in general.

I see the same logical fallacy being used to infer paternity fraud rates. 10% of paternity tests return a non-matching result, and people (retards) extrapolate that this means 10% of the time in general, a father's supposed child isn't actually his. When applying basic logic you know that to get a paternity test, there is probably suspicion of infidelity.

Now it's a bit more forgivable with the alleged Bumble height filter data since you need to know that filters are completely optional to realise it's a biased sample. Having no context for the data should throw up red flags for any analyst but it's much easier to do if you're not experienced with data analysis, since you might not have been caught out by this sort of lapse of logic before.

What part of this don't you understand? How can you have a substack and not be able to comprehend this?

Expand full comment
author

Whether such a bias exists or not in the data would be gleanable from the data's source. And the data has no source. You don't know whether your claims about the data are true or not any more than I do, because the data is sourceless. It's garbage data. The article was about how to better understand a dataset that did look like that, if we were to discover that we had a good data set, that was sourced.

Expand full comment

So you've changed track now. That's progress, of a sort...

You were taking the data at face value for the sake of analysis. Why is its accuracy taken at face value when now you're to suggest what it is even presented as be ignored? This is absurd, and this isn't what you were doing in this article.

You never wrote this article with the intention of showing "how to analyse data". You wrote the article with the intent of getting actual value out of the data given the possibility that it's accurate. Here, your words: "And when I saw this graph, that showed I was being excluded by 69% of women in their Bumble searches, I counted it as a wash. " - this shows that you didn't understand the point I've made in the previous comments when you wrote the article, that taking it at face value, it relates to OPTIONAL filters. Otherwise, you would have written "And when I saw this graph, that showed I was being excluded by 69% of women who set a height filter in their Bumble searches, I counted it as a wash. " and would have followed up with the point that you don't know what % of women on Bumble set the height filter.

If you're honest you'll admit you made this mistake and rewrite your article. You didn't know they were optional, or a paid feature. That's forgivable. This hole you're digging in the comment section to save face isn't. You've misled yourself and judging from the other comments, a bunch of people too.

Expand full comment