Comments by "Holger P." (@holger_p) on "Why Men Get So Few Matches on Dating Apps" video.

@Toto-cm5ux No, or at least not here. It's your job to proof it wrong, if you have doubts. This is how science works. Nobody said "trust me". They said " I have made an educated guess". There is nothing more insecure than this. I think any information to rerun a simulation yourself was given in the video. The author has to provide a way to reproduce his results, and this is the case. To explain the simulation results itself you would need 50 pages of paper, cause you have to substitute the computer. If you ask for a formula on "how to compute an average", this is your responsibility to find it yourself, this is not elementary school here. Same applies to "how do I run a simulation". What's so difficult to understand here ? They are describing 1000 people very exactly. And then they are going to observe, what they are doing, by counting who is doing what. It's counting. Nothing but counting. It's so simple, that's why nobody talks about it.
7
@Toto-cm5ux Yes, and all numbers and assumptions were presented. Like men swipe more easily, Women are more picky and have higher request for attracation. It's a huge set of very simple rules. What gives the "surprising" effect, the kind of unexplainable part, is what happens if your 20 given little rules all work together. Simulation is to handle complexity. The first two simulations in the video, you can still follow in mind I hope. This is predictable, this could still be covered with formulas. As more sophisticated you make your model, as less you know the results in advance. Formulas would be like "1% of men do this, 1.5% of men do that", and they meet women who are likely to match men, attraction level 9 or 10, which only 1% of the first named 1% group of men is in this attraction level, so 0.01% get a match. It's like enumerating 1000 single cases. (which is not very much, but may be good enough for an estimate).
5
@Toto-cm5ux "normal" people would discuss the made assumptions, and not look for something like typing or programming errors. See it like the weather forecast. You can believe it, you can verify it with reality the next day, but you cannot reproduce the forecast. Verification is called calibration, cause everybody knows in advance, assumptions were wrong and need to be adapted. It was explicitly said in the video "assumptions are far from reality". If you know the output, you can guess the input, of a black math box machinery. This is what simulation does. The output was known in advance, we search for the input. And since not any given formula has an inverse function, this cannot be done with formulas. As long as you can transform y=f(x) into x=f(y) you can use formulas, if not, you have to simulate. But even with formulas, having 1000 cases of them , is only to be done with software.
5
@angeldaviani8678 It is. It just depends what country you are in.
3
Well, go ahead and make it. But you need a question to explain, in first place. I guess you had to elaborate more an "attractive men are picky and are more likely to pick other attrictive men", as less attractive as less picky, to find a description. But you would have no confirmation data.
2
@GeoffroyLemonde "a lot" is a meaningless measure. If it's 5%, it's an accepted bias. Since we were searching for reasons, why men are picked less often, and you come up with ideas, why men are picked more often, this is completly irrelevant to the scientific question. The results are not the absolute numbers, it's the Understanding, due to this or that effect, numbers go up or down.
2
@Toto-cm5ux exactly. When I tell you ' pick 5 cherries' this is not a formula, but it's instructions that can be coded. And if you want to pass the information, what the code does, you are back to the human words ' pick 5 cherries'. Coding is just like translating english to french and not limited to formulas.
2
The thing is, with the experience of one person, you are not able to confirm or unconfirm a statistic about mankind. You can confirm, you find yourself in the sample and one set of attributes fits on you.
1
@RafiBarides cammokyle comment was more about, ONS, than about dollars. Gay people get if for free, while straight people don't. Women are more reserved (unless you pay). Gay folks do this maybe, If they want somebody 40years younger or so...
1
@Toto-cm5ux This is a simulation. There is no formula. If you don't believe it, only thing you can do, is simulating yourself. It's a bit like you ask, why is ChatGPT answering, as it answers. It's unexplainable. Simulation could still be explained, but that's quiet exhaustive. Actually you had to simulate it on paper.
1