Why is it that the preponderence of douchebags on this site are 100% straight males?

[Symphonic]

Well, if the ratio is the same, and there are fewer 100 percent straights, then she would hardly be encountering many 100-percent straight assholes, right, Symphonic?

Incorrect.

I don't think she's saying all 100-percent straights are assholes.
Merely that the assholes are 100-percent straight.
(And I'm sure she doesn't believe that, either. Ever heard of retorikul exajerashun?)

Isn't that attention whoring?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Incorrect.

Please explain.

Isn't that attention whoring?

Of course.

 

[Symphonic]

Please explain.

Simple probability. If 2/3's of any group has trait X the chance you will run into X increases the smaller the group is. It's like drawing M&M's from a bag versus from a tub; if 2/3's from the tub are green and 1/3 is red it will seem that you get more of the red one's from the tub than from the bag.

Since people are social animals they tend to hang around those with the same traits, another variable, so if there were 1,000 people on the website and let's say 900 were not 100% straight and 100 were dividing both in half that means 450 people out of the non-selected group will be desireable and only 50 out of the 100% group will be desireable.

Same ratio, but different outlook; it's easy to get along with the idea that 450 people are going to be as there'll be larger groups of cooler people. Doesn't work that way with smaller groups, rather than getting 30~40 people who know eachother like the 450, perhaps 5~10 might be able to come together out of the 50 cool people.

Mathematical illusions are quite fun, but there are other factors anyway.

Isn't that attention whoring?

Of course.

Is life that dull?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Simple probability. If 2/3's of any group has trait X the chance you will run into X increases the smaller the group is. It's like drawing M&M's from a bag versus from a tub; if 2/3's from the tub are green and 1/3 is red it will seem that you get more of the red one's from the tub than from the bag.

You've baffled me.
It seems to me that you will get, over the long term, the same number from both, given the same number of 'draws,' assuming that the tub and the bag alike have 2/3 green and 1/3 red.
And you seem to contradict yourself when you say
--first, that the chance you will run into X increases the smaller the group is, and
--second, if 2/3's from the tub are green and 1/3 is red it will seem that you get more of the red one's from the tub than from the bag (assuming, as seems reasonable, that the group in the tub is far larger).
(Maybe I'm unusually dull today.)

Is life that dull?

Boards work well when there's a certain amount of prancing about, Symphonic. The more the merrier in that sense.
I notice you have joined recently.
Well, I have a feeling you'll know what I mean quite soon.
Meanwhile, welcome.:tongue:

 

[Symphonic]

You've baffled me.
It seems to me that you will get, over the long term, the same number from both, given the same number of 'draws,' assuming that the tub and the bag alike have 2/3 green and 1/3 red.

That would be the point sir. It's an illusion. That's why they are both by ratio. And it's not "same number", it's "same ratio", one is obviously larger than the other.

And you seem to contradict yourself when you say
--first, that the chance you will run into X increases the smaller the group is, and

That was an error; the corrected statement is:

"the chance you will run into X seems to increase the smaller the group is."

That would mean you'd seem to run into more green M&M's the smaller the sample is by ratio. I shouldn't assume you'd assume the last two words, and I did mistate the statement to begin with. My apologies.

--second, if 2/3's from the tub are green and 1/3 is red it will seem that you get more of the red one's from the tub than from the bag (assuming, as seems reasonable, that the group in the tub is far larger).
(Maybe I'm unusually dull today.)

The first statement was a contradiction to this, I'll admit that, but I can't configure how to explain this any clearer. If there are four balls in a hat and you stick your hand in you'll seem to get different colors more often than if there are sixteen in the hat, four of each color. Eventually they'll even out by ratio, but at first the scales will seem tilted. Same here, there are more red ones to be had in the jar than in the bag by raw numbers and so it'll seem you are getting more red ones from the jar than otherwise. It's just an illusion.

Boards work well when there's a certain amount of prancing about, Symphonic. The more the merrier in that sense.
I notice you have joined recently.
Well, I have a feeling you'll know what I mean quite soon.
Meanwhile, welcome.:tongue:

Oh, um... Hi.

Interesting place you got here.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Interesting place you got here.

Door's always open.:biggrin1:

 

[Mule]

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

Disagree. Douchebags seem to be supplied in all flavours, here and elsewhere.

One example that bucks your trend and springs to mind is the recent poster who said that he didn't want to have to trawl through posts of "old, stretched-out cunts" in order to see the big cocks.

 

[sevencirc]

Goddammit, I knew I spelled that wrong and forgot to change it. So much for winning the state spelling bee in 5th and 6th grades.

Good one Snoozan.....:biggrin1:. That was a keeper. Hey, I was an incredibal
spellur back in the day, two! We never had state spelling bees in the
60's (I'm dating myself aren't I?).... I could've kicked ass!

 

[ZOS23xy]

The small minded fucktards on the board seem to hit and run. They slam someone and get banned and are replaced by a new crew of equally intellectually like minded fellows.

 

[B_superlarge]

Mathematical illusions are quite fun

Yes, but it's also why many people's numerical perceptions can't be trusted.

In the following link see my post #21 concerning raw number perception vs actual percentage. Even though the scale is a bigger number than fully applicable to people's experiences, it still applies to some extent. Recall is often predispositioned based.

http://www.lpsg.org/82355-asian-women-tighter-2.html

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Are you stealing the erstwhile hotmilf's new posting schtick? Be careful, she looks like she could rearrange your snout. Yes! I'll go recunt myself!

Maybe she was just channeling?

 

[cowboyfireman]

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

Sir,
Are you implying that I am in any way...STRAIGHT?!?

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

disagree - straight males I have encountered have been 100% perverts ... I like that. reminds me of me :biggrin1:

 

[Lex]

Best.


Thread.


Ever.


Snoozan--I gave up being 100% straight (in my profile) a long time ago!

 

[Gab_Stone]

I wasn't a douchebag the last time I checked. And I haven't noticed a sexual prefference correlation. In fact I've noticed douchebags of every orientation

 

[dong20]

Simple probability. If 2/3's of any group has trait X the chance you will run into X increases the smaller the group is.

Err, no.

The likelihood of finding trait X in a total population of Y will be X/Y regardless of the initial size of that population. Of course the actual likelihood will change if the population changes, although the calculation for that likelihood remains constant.

Likelihood of X = number of X in population/Total Population

How it 'seems' is irrelevant.

In your case of M&Ms it would make no difference if you started with 100 or 100 million. The relative numbers of each colour would remain the same. Thus the count of each colour removed would be the same (well up to the number in the smaller sample) assuming they were removed at random from their respective populations according to the initial statistical probability - 2 green for each red, the ratio would always remain 2/3. Of course that's unlikely, so the probability of a green would vary within and between populations - but the actual size of the populations has no bearing on this - and over time it would even out.

Your other examples are borderline incomprehensible, and flawed. For example:

Since people are social animals they tend to hang around those with the same traits, another variable, so if there were 1,000 people on the website and let's say 900 were not 100% straight and 100 were dividing both in half that means 450 people out of the non-selected group will be desireable and only 50 out of the 100% group will be desireable.

No, it doesn't. Well, it might, depending. Your 'random' split theme suggests that 50% are desirable, in which case - the dividing in two bit ... it's meaningless, the likelihood of someone being desirable is 50% regardless of the 'split'. The numbers in each group are irrelevant.

If the criteria for selection i.e. 'desirable' was being 100% straight, then again your example makes no sense. If you isolated the 10% that are 100% straight as desirable based on that criteria you will now have two separate populations, one of 100 and one of 900. The desirables in one group will be 100/100 or 100%, and 0/900 or 0% respectively.

Alternatively, you divide the initial population into two groups at random then each new population will each contain 10% desirable and 90% undesirable. Dividing each new population in half again, won't change the likelihood of picking a 'desirable', it will remain 10%.

If your underlying criteria for desirable is simply 50% then again, these splits make no difference, it will remain 50%. You seem to be confusing sample size with probability. Alternatively you're not explaining your thinking clearly enough for me.:biggrin1:

Also it could be me, I hated probability and it's late.:frown1:

Sorry about diversion. I can't say I've noticed a trend, the idiotic seem quite evenly distributed.

 

[snoozan]

Isn't that attention whoring?

Are you calling moi an attention whore? Nevar.

One example that bucks your trend and springs to mind is the recent poster who said that he didn't want to have to trawl through posts of "old, stretched-out cunts" in order to see the big cocks.

Yes but those are fewer and more far between than the regular douchebaggery of a certain subset of 100% straight men on this site.

Best.


Thread.


Ever.


Snoozan--I gave up being 100% straight (in my profile) a long time ago!

I know what you really like is getting PMs soliciting sex from those 100% straight men, eh?

Err, no.

The likelihood of finding trait X in a total population of Y will be X/Y regardless of the initial size of that population. Of course the actual likelihood will change if the population changes, although the calculation for that likelihood remains constant.

Likelihood of X = number of X in population/Total Population

How it 'seems' is irrelevant. :frown1:

[...]

Sorry about diversion. I can't say I've noticed a trend, the idiotic seem quite evenly distributed.

I like how some of the more intelligent discussion on the board is happening on the most inane of threads. Carry on, it's interesting.

 

[transformer_99]

Wow, a thread in my honor ? Is this like a roast of sorts ? But now I'm a bit confuzed, previously it was @sshole, now it's douchebag ? Please don't hold back your true feelings, but whatever you do, don't vacillate/waffle on me now, I'll never truly be able to know how you really feel and more importantly be able to truly define and understand myself. Another step towards self actualization.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

Flirting ? Ok
If you are mean to Homosexuals you are homophobic, if you are mean to women you are sexist if you are mean to hetrosexual males? - well they will probably be given medals for it soon oke:

*smooches*

 

[rob_just_rob]

Because gay males have no use for a douche bag?

Because there is evidence that douchebags can pull some serious "Bleeth"? Hot Chicks with Douchebags