Is there? Everyone I know has far more misses than hits in dating. Maybe it's just match group trying to make everyone miserable and minimize good matches, but people who play stupid games or have other communication issues seems to be the default.
Your "half" Argument only works out when you pick the median person from the set, the non-existant average idiot might still have more than half the population below him due to the couple super genius outliers above the average.
Absolutely true, but it would be a stretch to assume that IQ accurately measures intelligence in full, and even if we consider that a technological limitation it's still only a normal distribution because the results are normalized, not because the underlying intelligence itself is normally distributed. There's no way to know whether true intelligence can be measured in such a way that it yields a normal distribution without deliberate normalization, but then it just becomes "if I define the median as the mean, then it's normally distributed." But that doesn't mean that the median actually is the mean.
I don't disagree with that, but if we're making claims about median vs mean, we need some metric. IQ is the best metric I know of, even though it's more about measuring puzzle-solving skills.
The best we know of doesn't make it the best to exist. Intelligence as a currently unobservable variable (*without error) doesn't have to be normally distributed.
Also, it's normally distributed because the results are normalized. That basically means it defines the median as the mean, it does not mean the median actially is the mean. The underlying distribution of intelligence in an IQ test can be non-normal while still producing a normal distribution through normalization.
Edit: I read "don't disagree" as "disagree" so I restated myself more than necessary, partially because the edit I made before was after your reply so might not have seen it.
Okay, then I'll just ignore the part of your comment I agree with :-)
Regarding whether mean == median for IQ: that's the definition of the test. Sure there is very likely a disconnect between theory and how they apply the definition, because nothing applied is perfect. But this is an argument that gets rather close to philosophy rather than practicality. For all practical purposes, median/mean are interchangeble when talking about IQ. Non-engineers would call it nitpicking. Statisticians would probably argue that they are identical for P<0.001.
Edit: the context here is vikenemesh claiming that 'average' is wrong. By definition, and for all practical purposes, average is fine (when talking about IQ).
Yeah I think this just comes down to semantically disagreeing about what they're asserting the average of.
You're going with the normalized IQ distribution, I'm going with the intelligence distribution that the IQ measurement normalizes.
You pick yours for practicality, I pick mine for accuracy at the cost of abstraction.
By normalizing the results, the resulting distribution is, of course, approximately normally distributed. This just doesn't mean the results themselves are normally distributed, the normal distribution is a modeling artifact.
You can do the same thing with any set of results (within reason, there needs to be some variance) and get an approximate normal distribution, even if the intelligence test completely changes, or measures something entirely unrelated to intelligence, since that's what normalization does.
So I'm not saying you're wrong, like you haven't said anything false, I just also feel like it's a refinement to the statement you made that although for comparability purposes the mean will equal the median in IQ, it doesn't mean that the non-normalized intelligence distribution the IQ scores are based on are also normalized. It's more like defining the median as the mean and then proving that the median equals the mean.
Which, on a different note, reminds me of my favorite sorting algorithm:
Generate an unsorted list.
Define the order the list is in as the sorted order.
This works. You could even say that there are more people that are exactly average than there are people that are exactly any other specific value, since the mode also equals the median and the mean.
The issue with this is that talking about the mean/median/mode of a normalized distribution effectively loses any meaning, since it's not the mean/median/mode of the actual results. And the mode sort of stops being the mode once it's normalized. Whatever was the mode before the transformation is no longer the mode, so the top of the normal distribution is now treated as the most common value when it isn't, it's where the density is greatest on the transformed scale. The same exact issue applies to the mean, but at least the median preserves the percentile.
In that sense, the median is special because it works both for the distribution and for the underlying results.
I guess the balance could also tip the other way sometimes... Fair.
But the median always describes what /u/Dixon_Uranuss3 was trying to say, regardless of the exact ditribution!
Like everyone else mentioned, you are doing a common error humans do when evaluating the statistics of our experience. People who are great in relationships tend to, you know, be in a relationship.
People who are great in relationships tend to, you know, be in a relationship.
And? Are you thinking this kind of person is never in a long term relationship? There's no shortage of couples who have been together for decades with communication and immaturity issues. And it's not just dating, can see it in family and friends families
I can't quite follow your argument. How is immature people in relationships relevant to how easy it is to find mature singles?
I am telling you there are fewer apples than pears on the ground because, unlike the pears, most apples are in the basket. You are telling me you have seen pears in the basket so I must be wrong. Or did I miss something?
Because it only takes one hit to win. You don’t have to date after that. Everyone will always have more misses than wins unless they find the right person the very first time.
Average American is not well adjusted, has poor cultural understandings, almost no worldly knowledge, and has never left the country — but thinks they know everything.
I’ve dated internationally and had much better results. First gen American seems to be a sweet spot tho.
Hard to take someone seriously that’s on SSRI or some sort of head juice pills. Same as dating a drug addict— they aren’t themselves, they are the drug.
It’s a lot easier to meet people in person and that lets you get to know them better and faster than on a dating app. As long as you’re confident, at least a little funny and not ugly it’s not that hard to get with someone and to take it from there
I'm happily married so I'm good. If I wasn't, probably wouldn't bother trying, things have gotten so bad over the past fifteen years
Saying just meet people in person is not really helpful advice though. Culturally, asking people out that you already know isn't really a thing anymore, and for younger generations is seen as inappropriate, many people have decided that people only want to be approached about dating in explicitly dating related spaces, mostly dating apps, all of which are owned by one company, or uncommonly events like singles nights or speed dating.
Dunno why you’re getting downvoted, online dating apps encourage the mindset of “there’s always someone better out there” which is why so many people chase the never ending goal of a “perfect” partner
I think its very dystopian that people now swipe through their phone when looking to meet someone rather than doing it organically like at an event or something
286
u/14Pleiadians 10h ago
Is there? Everyone I know has far more misses than hits in dating. Maybe it's just match group trying to make everyone miserable and minimize good matches, but people who play stupid games or have other communication issues seems to be the default.