Then again, it's pretty bad for anyone in America in 2010 to answer this question incorrectly.
"Does the sun revolve around the earth?"
"Meh, maybe? Never thought about it. I don't really look up or care"
"People who like other people"?
first thing I thought there are much more high school kids than anyone else. Then I found this:
I.e. "larger" in terms of what? Importance? Population? Perceived size from our point of view?
Absolute size is the interpretation that makes most sense to us male geeks, but it is not by any means the only option you could think of.
To me that would explain why more women pick the unusual option, as they are more likely to think outside the rational box. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignorant.
I don't see anyone outlawing morbidly obese teachers or teachers with multiple speeding tickets, although those are not attributes you look for in a role model.
EDIT: It could also be an honest opinion that homosexuals are dangerous; still not related to lesson quality, but more honest than the role model justification.
Also, I've found that not assuming the worst possible about people I disagree with helps a lot in creating a world view that isn't completely black and white.
They need Google-style auto-correction ;)
Second, the fact that more women got the answer wrong doesn't tell you anything about the average intelligence of each gender. What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance? There could be a bigger number of women (compared to men) at the extreme ends of the intelligence spectrum. I don't believe that's the case, but the "argument" you present is far from "convincing".
>What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance?
Sure. But if anything, it has a smaller variance (if there is a difference; the "greater" male variance hypothesis is a bit under fire recently.)
To be completely fair, there are stellar bodies much smaller than earth which an earth-sized planet could easily be a satellite of.
Then again, if you know about such objects, you probably also know the earth is bigger than the sun.
(Ok, I admit it - I just don't know anything about astronomy. Also, elephants are bigger than the moon, right?)
These facts are independent.
Only if you allow for comparisons between life forms. If you assume that he's speaking of a single life form that contains all the systems then the question is well-defined.
Come on guys, I didn't say that women are dumber than men. I just said that this is the single most convincing piece evidence for that. Doesn't say much for the existing evidence given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post, now does it? Knee-jerkers.
You're missing the deeper implication that you're cruising around the Internet looking for, and pouncing on, such evidence. Why is it important to you whether or not women are dumber than men?
> given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post
In my opinion, OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions for which a lot of people are either completely uncertain of the answer or have terrible misconceptions.
Perhaps he is, in fact, cruising the information looking for evidence that women are dumber than men. So what? His desire for knowledge harms no one. You imply (without evidence) that he is biased. What is the point of your comment, besides lowering his status?
Wouldn't you want to know if you carry within you an inherent deficit or advantage? I do. That's why I got my genome sequenced. Now I know my risk of colorectal cancer. Knowledge is power. Blah blah blah.
Also it's interesting. And clearly it's not just interesting to me, but to HN as a whole. There's a sex-related post on the front page practically every time it loads.
>OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions
So you admit that in terms of one scientific fact that has implications for a person's understanding of size, scale, and space, women are inferior to men.
Well, I think we need to spend a little time agreeing on the definition of "dumber." Does it mean IQ? General knowledge? Something else?
If we can agree on a test of some kind that we can apply to a single person, how do we determine whether a group of people is smarter or dumber than another group of people?
For example, let's say Test "A" is to ask a single question, whether the Sun is larger than the Earth. Let's say that 90% of group "M" gets this question right, while only 10% of group "F" gets this question right. Is group "M" smarter than group "F?" That doesn't make any sense because the group isn't an organism, it isn't smart or dumb.
And we can't extrapolate much about members of "F." What if "F" consists of 100 people, 90 of whom are illiterate and the remaining 10 are Astronomy PHds, while "M" consists of 100 high school seniors. Is "F" now smarter than "M" because ten of its members are more educated than all of the Ms?
Selection bias matters. Remember that the OkCupid sample consists of people who are dating online. The information is interesting, but might be skewed. Perhaps a lot of educated, intelligent women are in monogamous relationships and not dating?
We see this phenomenon in job hunting, where a random sample of programmers looking for a job is a terrible representation of programmers overall.
Extrapolating from my experience with women (only a tiny minority find me attractive), why would I think that all gay men want to have sex with me?
It's fun to just make up shit about people we disagree with, but it's still dishonest and wrong.
As for cheating, if a man cheats, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's treating women poorly, it means that he's treating a woman poorly.
Regrettable word choice.
(I'm straight, and I normally wouldn't say something like this on HN, but it's sooo perfect right here...)
On that note, one should be able to easily Google up studies that have shown correlation between homophobia and being aroused by gay porn...
"Gay people are not sexually interested in straights"
but in fact, what their data indicates is better stated as:
"Gay people will not attempt to date people they know to be straight"
which is something different.
> The subtext to a lot of homophobic thinking is the idea that gays will try to get straight people into bed at the first opportunity, or that gays are looking to "convert" straights. Freud called this concept schwanzangst; the U.S. Army calls it Don't Ask Don't Tell.
I haven't really heard any arguments from those people that made any sense, but all the same this came across as an uncomfortably large leap.
The explanation isn't that weird though. If you're straight you can always dismiss it, it's not "real", it's just because of this weird situation living with only guys for some time, and out in real life you're as straight as they come. But for gay guys, it is real, so you're a lot more careful about something that might develop into a relationship.
From http://www.okcupid.com/faaaq - people get to explicitly filter potential matches according to the answers those matches have provided to these questions. It is not a black box recommender system - people can mandate explicit rejection criteria.
This creates an incentive to lie on the questions.
It would make sense for users to try and make their profile statistically close to what they think the [type of people they would like to date] specify.
For example, Bob wants to go out with a 'good girl' (lets call her 'Alice').
Bob reasons that Alice, being a 'good girl' would probably want to go out with a guy who has never cheated; so Bob will neglect to mention his affair with Eve on his profile.
I would guess that users, even if they don't initially realise the strategic situation they are in, will quickly learn it socially and through feedback, and adjust their profiles accordingly.
The end result being that the answers given on the website, that provide the data being visualised here, should be treated with caution.
I imagine that certain questions such as 'number of sexual partners' comes with large disincentive to lie, due to social pressure.
As such, the conclusions here should be taken with a grain of salt - and that's even before discussing selection bias amoung the users of a particular social dating site.
Such services are adopted as they spread through the underlying social network; it is well established that social networks are heavily clustered, and rarely give representative samples until they get very large.
Its still very interesting stuff, but we should be careful about how strongly we interpret it.
Edit: Forgot to mention... there's no real reason to lie to a match question on OKCupid. You can skip the question or answer it while making your answer private.
Depending on how much emphasis you're placing on "real", sure there is. You could be using it as a proxy to lie to yourself. You could be trying to convince OKCupid that you're the kind of person that should be recommended to the kind of person you want to meet. You could be setting up multiple personas for hook ups vs real dates. Etc, etc.
Society reinforces this because women are much more able to make out/hook up without it being considered gay (and often with it being considered hot), but there seem to be physiological reasons as well.
For example, a Northwestern study showed men and women gay male, straight, and lesbian porn and measured their sexual arousal. Men tended to only be aroused by the porn that their sexuality would suggest, but women tended to be aroused by all of it http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.ht...
First of all, it attempts to argue that gay people aren't promiscuous on the basis of statistics derived from a dating site. It is perfectly possible that gay OKCupid users aren't more promiscuous than straight OKCupid users, but gay OKCupid users aren't representative of gay people overall. The article doesn't actually mention sample size. It may be possible that they have a very small gay userbase, for instance. It certainly is interesting to know the differences between gay and straight OKCupid users, but it tells us less than they seem to suggest.
First off, it's a dating site, not a hookup site. If you want to find out whether people are promiscuous, you can't work that out simply on the basis of a dating site because dating sites (as opposed to hookup sites) find people who are interested in romance rather than casual sex. You wanna know whether gay people are more promiscuous? Take OKCupid statistics and compare them to statistics from a sites like AdultFriendFinder (or some of the Craigslist sections)...
Secondly, Jim DeMint is not saying gay people shouldn't be teaching in schools because straight people are better teachers. No, he's saying it because he thinks gay people will - I dunno - somehow transmit gayness rays to students. DeMint is bigoted and his suggestion is idiotic, but OKCupid's response is irrelevant because DeMint isn't saying that gay people are less intelligent - he's saying they shouldn't be teachers because they are gay and, you know, they like to recruit people and indoctrinate them into the secret gay liberal agenda (or something equally barmy).
Men: 90% straight, 6% gay, 4% bi.
Women: 85% straight, 5% gay, 10% bi.
-Max Shron (Data Scientist, OkCupid)
Go OKCupid! Please keep doing this!
Another interesting stats that they release is about how the user profile photo affects the message they get:
I'm not putting down anyone who uses such a site, in this day and age I certainly would if I was single, but I am not sure the sexual habits of single people who use a dating site is really a good subset of data for this.
Personally, I'm using the site because I frequently find myself hanging out with friends. Most are male, but there are a few females who are either in relationships or are longtime friends who aren't sexually interested in me. I'm just hoping to meet a few women to go out on casual dates with and to bring into our "friend group." As a 26-year-old who is out of college and whose coworkers are all 35 or older, a dating site seems like a good way to meaningfully meet people.
I think your assumptions of the types of people on dating sites are way off. Based on my chats with women on the site, they seem to be in a similar position to me. With dating sites, not only do you get to meet someone outside the context of a bar, you also know that you're talking to someone else who is looking to meet people. It completely removes the awkwardness of trying to figure out if someone is in a relationship, if they have at all similar interests, or if they're going to just be totally bitchy for no reason.
That aside, the real question seems to be if the site is representative. I would argue that for the age group of 18-35, the site is highly representative.
It's reasonable to assume that the subset of people who use OKCupid is not representative of society as a whole. Now im not sure exactly what biases this might introduce, but one should always be aware, especially considering that the OKCupid users are a self selected sample (not a random sample) of society.
Absolutely, but that's not what DirtyAndy was getting at - he's assigning his own stereotype of an OKCupid user, which he has little data to back up.
It's perfectly valid to be suspicious of population bias in a website - any website for that matter - but to extrapolate and pretend to know just how that bias is tilted (without data) is doing yourself a disservice.
As for no data, I did write my comment with no data to back it up. I would imagine less than 10% of comments I see on HN are made with solid information to backup someones thoughts. Most people on here are smart people that can make up their own minds and provide information from the world they see around them.
Did you have any data to back your comment up? Here's a start, OKCupid claim the median number of partners for both men and women, gays and straights is 6. I've just gone out and googled for such numbers, and whilst I didn't find anything definitive, I didn't find one median or average as low as 6, in fact looking at 18-35 as another commentator points out as OKCupid being representative of, 9 would appear more likely (my guess would have been 8). So that probably supports my assumption that there is a bias to some degree - OKCupid users appear to be getting less than the average. I have no idea where OKCupid falls in the spectrum of dating sites, I have no idea how many active users there are in the world of dating websites, but I would be staggered to see statistics that extrapolate to the user base of a singles website being indicative of overall society. In 10 years time, maybe, but at this point in time I doubt it. This article is trying to claim it has real facts, all I am saying is take those facts with a grain of salt.
What does one have to do with the other? They will meet in the flesh at some point, you know.
I've known my wife for 10 years since meeting on Yahoo! I still remember vividly the first time we saw each other. If it wasn't love at first sight, it was certainly love that first night.
"In personality traits" chart, gay men appeared to be more feminine (or less masculine) while gay women appeared to be more masculine (or less feminine). But following this line of thoughts, in the "what's bigger: the sun or earth" chart, the gay men and women seemed to have the places switched.
Just something I noticed.