Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think these calculators are very accurate because they assume all the variables are independent from one another. All it does it multiply the percentages together which lowers the numbers. And it doesn’t take into account location

Probably, but bear it mind is also leaves off a whole host of desirable "non-negotiable" traits.

Yeah, they leave off things like education, criminal record, hard drug use, etc.

The one I've used has education. Criminal record and hard drug use aren't really applicable to a 55 year old making $200k.

Ummmmm.....who is gonna tell her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think these calculators are very accurate because they assume all the variables are independent from one another. All it does it multiply the percentages together which lowers the numbers. And it doesn’t take into account location

Probably, but bear it mind is also leaves off a whole host of desirable "non-negotiable" traits.

Yeah, they leave off things like education, criminal record, hard drug use, etc.

The one I've used has education. Criminal record and hard drug use aren't really applicable to a 55 year old making $200k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think these calculators are very accurate because they assume all the variables are independent from one another. All it does it multiply the percentages together which lowers the numbers. And it doesn’t take into account location

Probably, but bear it mind is also leaves off a whole host of desirable "non-negotiable" traits.

Yeah, they leave off things like education, criminal record, hard drug use, etc.

This is some crazy Orwellian ish

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think these calculators are very accurate because they assume all the variables are independent from one another. All it does it multiply the percentages together which lowers the numbers. And it doesn’t take into account location

Probably, but bear it mind is also leaves off a whole host of desirable "non-negotiable" traits.

I don’t think these calculators are very accurate because they assume all the variables are independent from one another. All it does it multiply the percentages together which lowers the numbers. And it doesn’t take into account location

Add bachelor's degree in there.

I am never divorcing. DH better not cheat!

Anonymous wrote:What demo percentile does everyone fall into?

I am 0.040%, ladies. If you want me, you don't belong on this planet. Come hither.

Anonymous wrote:What demo percentile does everyone fall into?

I am 0.040%, ladies. If you want me, you don't belong on this planet. Come hither.

I show up with a similar number.

What demo percentile does everyone fall into?

I am 0.040%, ladies. If you want me, you don't belong on this planet. Come hither.

These calculators don’t include geographic area which radically changes things.

My cousin has a decent job (not super high earning but stable and decent), is nice, is well groomed and pretty, and college educated. She’s mid 30s.

But she’s only restricted herself to white men over 6’1” because they have to be at least 4 inches taller than her.

Assortative mating has never been stronger in history. It was your bad for not choosing a spouse while you were still in the environment where everybody is on an even playing field. You thought you had all the time in the world, didn’t you?

This is DC, one of the richest, healthiest places in the U.S. Probably 40% of men here make $100k and aren't obese. Whether they are short or bald is another story. Then drop that down to 25%

A bunch of posters have misinterpreted the Delusion/Reality dating calculators. They get depressed that only 2% of people meet minimal standards. Let me illustrate finding a white partner 30-39.

Unmarried 40% (men) 42% (women)
5'9"+ not obese 14% (men)
not overweight 8% (women)
Makes $100K+ 1.9% (men)
Makes $50K+ 2.1% (women)

I didn't even bother requiring no kids, because most people in their late 30's have kids.

Restricting height and weight eliminates two-thirds of available partners. On the other hand, if you are in-shape, then you are in the upper third of partners yourself. So, this is choosy, but not unreasonable. The income filters ($100K/$50K) cut down another three-fourths of people. D.C. is a high-income area, so you can probably increase those income numbers, but it still shows a big impact.

In sum, it is not so bad. A picky person might limit their partners to 2% of all white people in the age range, but that is 5% of unmarried white people in that age range. Furthermore, if you are fit and affluent, then these same people will be looking for you. It is more reasonable to seek a partner in the upper 2% if you are also in the upper 2%. You need to compare both calculators.

igotstandardsbro.com
realitycalc.com