Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Himeo, at least, seems to mostly just be confused and frustrated, and he thinks he's found the "magic key".

Antarius and Dumar? Total sociopaths. If they haven't raped and/or killed a woman yet, they will someday.
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Antarius_sl said:
Don't need to rape women, hold frame and don't give in to them and they WANT to have sex with you.
Click to expand...
Oh, maybe for now. But some night your "game" won't quite work, maybe you're having an off night, and the fucking plate won't do what you want.

Bam, she's in a dumpster and you're on the 11 o' clock news.
 
Gryphe

Gryphe

Golden Knight of the Realm
63
9
Himeo_sl said:
Couple questions for you about the math behind rsquared and all that shit.

You're saying that the measurable effect of the sample was small? Like, not significant?

But it was there, right. Tiny, annoying, like that piece of popcorn stuck in your mouth. It's there, the effect is small.

Have you considered it being a small effect is a good thing? If it was more significant, let's say, would there be some big fucking problems in society?

Another thing, the effect is supposed to be a preference. IE, a woman might prefer a rich dude but settle for something else.

So you're saying your statistics prove gold diggers are a myth?

Click to expand...
I'm saying that when the effect size of a model is small, that model is a poor descriptor of the data.

Also, I'm notprovidingany statistics here. I'm simply interpreting their analysis. And that interpretation is that their "gold digger" model of women's behavior is a piss poor descriptor/predictor of happiness in marriages. Could other "gold digger" models provide a better description? I don't know. Neither do you.
 
Skanda

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Also, you seem to be getting worked up. That's beta behaviour, man
Click to expand...
This entire thread is just them totally exposing their massive levels of beta. Just watching them for page after page coming back and continuing to try and justify themselves proves they'll never have what it takes to be a real alpha.
 
Gryphe

Gryphe

Golden Knight of the Realm
63
9
Antarius_sl said:
No, it's not like that at all... that means they can make a chart... put a line on it and 8% of the time the data points are going to exactly be on the line.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what it means. You can have a high R-squared value where none of the data points touch the trend line. Who taught you this garbage?

regression - Is $R^2$ useful or dangerous? - Cross Validated

the number one comment with 128 upvotes right now is a good explanation.

Anything above .05 in sociology is considered "plausable" for the hypothosis, lower than that and it's considered "random noise"
Click to expand...
Do you know what the word plausible means? It sure as shit doesn't mean probable.

Woman makes less than man, 12% divorce rate. Woman makes more than man, 18% divorce rate. Is it DIRECTLY caused by that,or by some other outside factor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe an outside factor that accounts for more than 8% of the variation in the data. I hope you don't think that the phrase "accounts for 8% of the variation" means you can just add 8% to the divorce rate.

With a .08 R-squared factor, which is again, pretty large when predicting human behavior (we're unpredictable mutherfuckers),
Click to expand...
No, it's not "pretty large". Jacob Cohen, one of the great behavioral statisticians of the past 50 years gives the following guidelines for R-squared values involving human behavior:
Small effect = 0.1
Medium effect = 0.3
Large effect = 0.5

they're able to safely say, yes, it is much more likely for a woman to be unhappy, for the man to be unhappy, and it will cause more divorces... but it is not the only cause for divorce and not all people in that scenario will have a divorce.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "much more" here? The whole point here is that their "gold digger" model is not very descriptive.

In other words, there's more to the story and trying to pigeon-hole women into the Red Pill's narrow description is silly and not backed up by the data.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
I dibt even notice that in Antarius' post. Calls 0.08 high R^2 value for human behavior because hans are unpredictable, except women, they all act the same.
 
Gryphe

Gryphe

Golden Knight of the Realm
63
9
Antarius_sl said:
To all white knights: please post one scientific study that proves that women aren't what we say they are. That women are not driven by their biological needs for both security to raise offspring and a desire to fuck the most attractive men.

Please post one study that shows that women do not care about the income their mates make. Please post one study that shows that women are more loyal or honest than men. Please post one study that shows that women aren't 3 times more likely to have an std like herpes (which transfers skin to skin) because they all like fucking "the same guy". That single mothers aren't single because they are fucking bad boy losers, but instead things "just didn't work out"

In short: Please show me one study that shows women are as good as you think they are. Because in the meantime, I'm going to continue treating them all like sluts, and enjoying the benefits.

If you can't show me a single scientific study. Please give me one piece of anecdotal evidence, show me one "good man" that left his wife or girlfriend to raise his child without his involvement, explain to me how 70% of women raising children are in this scenario. I don't imagine it was any of you white knights, even though it's the majority, because you aren't the one fucking most 18-26 year olds, because they don't want to be protected, they want to be fucked by the most "fit" man available.
Click to expand...
Here's a study of plate behavior.

Models of convection-driven tectonic plates: a comparison of methods and results

Is that what you mean?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Gryphe_sl said:
No, that's not what it means. You can have a high R-squared value where none of the data points touch the trend line. Who taught you this garbage?



Do you know what the word plausible means? It sure as shit doesn't mean probable.



Yeah, maybe an outside factor that accounts for more than 8% of the variation in the data. I hope you don't think that the phrase "accounts for 8% of the variation" means you can just add 8% to the divorce rate.



No, it's not "pretty large". Jacob Cohen, one of the great behavioral statisticians of the past 50 years gives the following guidelines for R-squared values involving human behavior:
Small effect = 0.1
Medium effect = 0.3
Large effect = 0.5



What do you mean by "much more" here? The whole point here is that their "gold digger" model is not very descriptive.

In other words, there's more to the story and trying to pigeon-hole women into the Red Pill's narrow description is silly and not backed up by the data.
Click to expand...
Good post, this will be ignored by the retard brigade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.