Why we shouldn't rely on CalcSD too much in determining probabilities. An analogy

  • Thread starter Thread starter /u/Fair-Initiative-2949
  • Start date Start date
U

/u/Fair-Initiative-2949

Guest
I know the zeitgeist is to preach on CalcSD probabilities to determine where you stand or chances that a partner has really encountered a "monster", but the numbers have always seem skewed to me or at least hard to conceptualize.

Many people on here post "no way she had an ex with an 8+ NBP" but this had me thinking about height as an analogy...

Let's use best friends and their heights as examples. Take a number of friends that correlates to the number of partners a girl in question might've had. We will say 10.

Now take your 10 best friends throughout life and see who was the tallest and also the average height.

I had a good friend that was 6'8" which has to be at least as rare as 8+ NBP. and 5 of the other 9 were at least 6'3". The really tall friend was so tall that you never got used to how tall he was. I would tell people who hadn't met him how tall he was before he came into a group setting, and they would still be shocked in person meeting him even with the warning haha. I played basketball and some of my friends were through that, but I never seeked out tall friends. And my tallest friend and average of friends' heights are multiple deviations above western height averages. But people wouldn't doubt me if I told them this info.

Now apply that this analogy to yourself and let me know what you think and the results. Rather than being like "bro, no way her ex was that big. CalcSD says it's 1/150,000" just translate the size rarity into height. Some people will just have more interaction towards the extremes.

submitted by /u/Fair-Initiative-2949
[link] [comments]

View Full Post
 


Join 𝕋𝕄𝕋 on Telegram
Channel PREVIEW:
Back
Top