ew
forum
ew
posted
Total Posts
38
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
Bruh
me tooAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
These right here are why I love the forums, actual funny topics of discussion
Topic Starter
Off topic - I FUCKING LOVE CHI'S SWEET HOME! 10/10 pfppeacefulcat wrote:
me tooAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
thank you!!ANGELF708 wrote:
Off topic - I FUCKING LOVE CHI'S SWEET HOME! 10/10 pfppeacefulcat wrote:
me tooAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
dyslexia hurtspeacefulcat wrote:
me tooAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
holy shit I dont look at GD for a while and this happens
you're looking at this completely wrong, you cant use the basis of capitalism to describe dating, some people will get into one sided relationships where someone does all the work, that thing happens. You can get emotional security without having money, and for some people, they want to date insecure people because they like it, this is human relationships with are deeply related to psychology, which isn't really an exact science, and multiple professionals would disagree on multiple topics.
you saw the stadistic of emotional abuse and extrapolated a totally unsupported theory, there are many factors why emotional abuse happens in a relationship, there are many reasons why someone wouldn't really quit the relationships or choose to willingly stay on it. Someone could be a toxic asshole in one relationship and then meeting a different person and acting totally different. Classifying something as complex as the entirety of human relationships into "needy" "undesirable" or "unnafected" is missing the point. You were aiming to land in earth and you landed on the moon type of thing
you're looking at this completely wrong, you cant use the basis of capitalism to describe dating, some people will get into one sided relationships where someone does all the work, that thing happens. You can get emotional security without having money, and for some people, they want to date insecure people because they like it, this is human relationships with are deeply related to psychology, which isn't really an exact science, and multiple professionals would disagree on multiple topics.
you saw the stadistic of emotional abuse and extrapolated a totally unsupported theory, there are many factors why emotional abuse happens in a relationship, there are many reasons why someone wouldn't really quit the relationships or choose to willingly stay on it. Someone could be a toxic asshole in one relationship and then meeting a different person and acting totally different. Classifying something as complex as the entirety of human relationships into "needy" "undesirable" or "unnafected" is missing the point. You were aiming to land in earth and you landed on the moon type of thing
- This is just for fun. Posting it here, because A. I like these forums, and B. I think the discussion here would be more interesting/funny. Please don't take this model seriously btw
but he did, and it is funny to readcephaphysic wrote:
i feel like something as emotion-centeric as romantic relationships can't really be viewed from this kind of lens. humans are complicated. what one person finds to be a fulfilling relationship may feel like a living nightmare to another, and while with one person someone may act in a toxic manner (possibly due to their partner acting in such a way as well), things can be entirely different with another person. you just can't turn something like this into an objective model
ChatGPT can summarise it into dotpoints for you.Anaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
This is basically the idea of sexual market value.ANGELF708 wrote:
Can I model the chances of me getting a girlfriend like I would in economics?
It's fun periodically reading the replies to this thread despite not having actually read the original post itself
you read my post and totally missunderstood it, my problem is the fact that you're looking at it as an economy, as demand and supply, and the truth is that capitalism works totally different to human relationships, and that it's impossible to really look at it that way.
You cant make any calculation because the concept is complex, you cant take any results because you don't really have any basis to do it and you dont know everyone in that stadistic. Capitalism doesn't even work that well for the economy, dont try applying it to social relationships
You cant make any calculation because the concept is complex, you cant take any results because you don't really have any basis to do it and you dont know everyone in that stadistic. Capitalism doesn't even work that well for the economy, dont try applying it to social relationships
True. Economists are about as good as weather forecasters, which are about as good as flipping a coin.Patatitta wrote:
You cant make any calculation because the concept is complex, you cant take any results because you don't really have any basis to do it and you dont know everyone in that stadistic. Capitalism doesn't even work that well for the economy, dont try applying it to social relationships
Chaotic systems are not predictable, social relationships are not predictable
Jangsoodlor
Seen this thread quite a while ago but didn't have time to made a quality response until now
Also, economic in real life have some weird caveats as well. Like those of luxury products. By simply slapping an Italian-sounding name to a brand, you can crank up the price and there still be demand for it! Which is not how "supply-demand" as we know it works. And as many have pointed out, feelings are subjective.
You have assumed that there's ratio of 1 man : 1 woman in the "dating market". But since we don't know how many homosexuals, asexuals, and the polyamorists relative to biologically "male" and "female" population (or whatever SJWs out there wants to called them I don't care). Let's say, hypothetically, out of 100 men, there're 10 homos, 1 asexual and 5 polyamorists. And (also hypothetically) for every 100 women, there're 20 homos, 2 asexual and no polyamorits. What we have left is 84 men : 78 women. Which is about 0.93 : 100. Which have a wide-ranging effects later on. Since now you have 7 out of 100 men who will be single no matter how (unless some women are willing to cheat on their partners since, by your rules, polygamy is a no-no). Your assumption may be accurate tho since mine's also don't have evidence to proof.ANGELF708 wrote:
et's first assume that for simplicities sake, there are only 100 women and 99 other men, so that the split is 50%. Let's also cut homosexuals, asexuals, and the polyamorists out of the picture. Let's also assume in the beginning that every woman is looking for a relationship as well as every man.
ANGELF708 wrote:
According to Forbes magazine, 80% of Americans have experienced emotional abuse. It goes on to mention that women in particular are vulnerable. The statics broken down show that 84% of women and 75% of men are affected by emotional abuse.
You're implying that 10% of the entire U.S. population get into a relationship, wheter toxic or not, and then break up, within a span of one year. Which can be either True or False.ANGELF708 wrote:
To simplify let's just assume that it takes 1 year to get out of a toxic relationship. While this would be way easier to calculate if we had numbers based on age, we can still work with this. Assuming we have all been in the dating pool for ten years, 84% women have been in a toxic relationship, then we can figure out backwards how many men are toxic. Since there is 100 men in total, then we can take 84 men, and divide by 10 (assuming that they get in a relationship every year, which seems realistic considering my own experience) then we get 8.4 men, which we can round down to 8 men. Doing the same with women we find that only 8 of those women are toxic as well. Which means that if this model is accurate, toxic people aren't common, but are completely rampant.
ANGELF708 wrote:
Using this information we can now categorize on both sides. Starting with women, If we round to skew the results in our favor, then:
39 women are "needy" (willing to pay more in emotional and labor costs to have a boyfriend)
46 (including or base 8 toxic women from before) cost more than they are worth and therefore are undesirable.
the remaining 15 women are unaffected because they never dated a toxic man.
With men there are:
30 needy men
38 undesirable men (including our base 8 toxic men from before)
39 unaffected.
Removing the undesirables leaves us with 61 cost effective men and 54 cost effective women. Now if we pair together the needys, since they are the most cost-effective and are more likely to pair off quickly we are left with 9 needy women. Giving us 39 cost effective men and 24 cost effective women. Then if we assume that half of those women date undesirables since they will still date those that are not cost effective we are left with 5 rounding up. In total we are left with 39 cost-effective men and 20 cost effective women.
What's the reasonings behind theses numbers? Assuming all your assumptions above is accurate, you'll have 92% of both sexes who aren't toxic. Then how do you made 92 and 8 into 39, 46, 15 and 30, 38, 39 respectively? Since there's LITERALLY NOTHING TO BACK IT UP. whether hypotheses, assumptions or methods of calculation.ANGELF708 wrote:
This leaves men, even the cost-effective ones, at an inherit disadvantage across the board.
By the methods that your conclusions are derived from (none), I would not say that this is not a "model" at all.ANGELF708 wrote:
This is obviously a highly imperfect model
Also, economic in real life have some weird caveats as well. Like those of luxury products. By simply slapping an Italian-sounding name to a brand, you can crank up the price and there still be demand for it! Which is not how "supply-demand" as we know it works. And as many have pointed out, feelings are subjective.
if you know that you cant look at it with those terms why do you still going?
you cant pull stadistics from air, all of this is clearly wrong and means nothing, I don't even know what point do you want to make or why does this thread exist
you cant pull stadistics from air, all of this is clearly wrong and means nothing, I don't even know what point do you want to make or why does this thread exist
Topic Starter
idk what else to tell you man. I made it for funzies and thought the community could have some fun with it, or atleast poke fun at the idea of me trying to mathematically get a girlfriend. Classic Osu! Player beta male. Surely it's obvious I have a lot of unused time on my hands.Patatitta wrote:
if you know that you cant look at it with those terms why do you still going?
you cant pull stadistics from air, all of this is clearly wrong and means nothing, I don't even know what point do you want to make or why does this thread exist
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
idk, the thread was 3 day inactive and you were the one to bump it right nowAnaxii wrote:
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
We can just lock the thread right now so that nobody can bump itPatatitta wrote:
idk, the thread was 3 day inactive and you were the one to bump it right nowAnaxii wrote:
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
idk, but for the future, please dont bump a thread saying why did this get attention, like it makes no senseAnaxii wrote:
We can just lock the thread right now so that nobody can bump itPatatitta wrote:
idk, the thread was 3 day inactive and you were the one to bump it right nowAnaxii wrote:
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
Jangsoodlor
Haha, I think Anaxii meant this as a jokeJangsoodlor wrote:
mods pls silence this guyAnaxii wrote:
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
IT. WAS. A. JOKE.Fxjlk wrote:
Haha, I think Anaxii meant this as a jokeJangsoodlor wrote:
mods pls silence this guyAnaxii wrote:
I have no idea why this thread has so much attention
you and I bothAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
we are the same person 😔✊m i g i wrote:
you and I bothAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
If you have nothing more to say about the topic and want to chat instead, use the chat function instead.
they're just post-farmingLyawi wrote:
If you have nothing more to say about the topic and want to chat instead, use the chat function instead.
same here 😔✊Anaxii wrote:
we are the same person 😔✊m i g i wrote:
you and I bothAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...
imagine not being able to read lmao 😔✊[-Omni-] wrote:
same here 😔✊Anaxii wrote:
we are the same person 😔✊m i g i wrote:
you and I bothAnaxii wrote:
i wish i could read all of that, but i literally can't omg...