Slashdot Mirror


The Real 'Stuff White People Like'

Here's an interesting and funny look at 526,000 OkCupid users, divided into groups by race and gender and all the the things each groups says it likes or is interested in. While it is far from being definitive, the groupings give a glimpse of what makes each culture unique. According to the results, white men like nothing better than Tom Clancy, Van Halen, and golfing.

286 comments

  1. sigh by Dyinobal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Idle today (or yesterday and today depending on your time zone) has been awful. I mean I get it's idle but come on.

    1. Re:sigh by the_womble · · Score: 1

      They seem to be very fond of OK Cupid stories. Ads for lonely geeks?

    2. Re:sigh by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd fix the option to remove Idle from the front page. I've had it disabled for the longest time, and still this trash shows up on the front page anyways.

    3. Re:sigh by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Geeks know to use plentyoffish if they date online. Oh, and Photoshop/GIMP.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. Inherent skew by MintOreo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Being the kinds of people who participate in online dating, particularly with one named 'OkCupid'; a group I don't feel is enough to represent any ethnicity/gender with acceptable accurately.

    1. Re:Inherent skew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say this is especially true of OkCupid which seems to have the largest base of unattractive people out of all the dating sites.

      Seriously, I would guess 90% of the people on OkCupid are obese. It's skewed much more than any other site I have looked at.

  3. Nascar??? by bobstreo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I looked at the lists I'm sure all involved will be offended.

    1. Re:Nascar??? by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      yea, prolly so

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    2. Re:Nascar??? by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that Indian Atheists would be quite happy with the findings...

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    3. Re:Nascar??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I specialy like to wach them RACE cars asplode.

    4. Re:Nascar??? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      As an Anishinaabe (Ojibwe to the Americans) and an Ignostic I gotta ask if you mean Indian in the sense of First Nation or Indian as in from the sub-continent?

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    5. Re:Nascar??? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You sir, fail at statistics. They got those words and weightings from actual profiles. They might not have weighted it correctly, but they didn't just make it up.

    6. Re:Nascar??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Anishinaabe (Ojibwe to the Americans) and an Ignostic I gotta ask if you mean Indian in the sense of First Nation or Indian as in from the sub-continent?

      I wish people will call 'Red Indians' as 'Native Americans' rather than 'Indians' when they is no apparent relation between these two groups culturally and ethnically except for some dumb-ass explorer mistook 'Native Americans' for 'Indians' (no offence to the explorers, we should be thankful to them. if not for them, we wouldn't have discovered America, no U.S.A, no dollar, no free market, no internet, no wars, no atom bomb... ah well !)

    7. Re:Nascar??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant woo-woo-woo-woop-wooop indians not "whot joo like a slurjpy" dot head indians. But I could be wrong.

  4. The female responses . . . by SlappyBastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've had a long-standing belief that the heavy preference for outdoorsy crap in women's profiles is their way of engineering the males they receive responses from. The basic idea is to frame yourself in an athletic manner, thereby driving off the lazy, the fat and the unambitious. In practice, I'd expect this to torpedo a lot video gamers, guys who live at home, geeks and low wage earners. In essence, it's a type of razor wire that kills off all the guys no woman wants to talk to.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:The female responses . . . by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 0, Troll

      "In essence, it's a type of razor wire that kills off all the guys no woman wants to talk to."

      You're just doing a bunch of bullshit stereotyping. In reality, most guys find girls, no matter what their interests, activities, or income.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:The female responses . . . by Nursie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it's probably also aspirational.

      Who wouldn't like to get out side more and do outdoorsy things all the time?

      But when it comes down to it, most of us can't be bothered. The women probably want someone to help them achieve that.

    3. Re:The female responses . . . by rubies · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More that our external representations of ourselves rarely match the actual. Look at the crazy pictures people put on Facebook for their profiles - 40 year olds with some photo from their mid-twenties before they got fat. Listing a bunch of interests you rarely participate in (unless bumping into your dusty huffy n the garage counts as cycling).

    4. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

      Oscar Wilde

    5. Re:The female responses . . . by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      a lot video gamers, guys who live at home, geeks and low wage earners.

      That's about everyone, since geeks make all the money these days.

    6. Re:The female responses . . . by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      outdoorsy crap in women's profiles is their way of engineering the males they receive responses from. The basic idea is to frame yourself in an athletic manner, thereby driving off the lazy, the fat and the unambitious. In practice, I'd expect this to torpedo a lot video gamers, guys who live at home, geeks

      Well, I play Tetris while water-skiing. I showed them!

    7. Re:The female responses . . . by Steauengeglase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll have to agree with that one. Some of my outdoorsey friends have had problems with women using that as a filter and then treating them like fixer-uppers. Granted they were also to blame. If she says that she enjoys fishing and camping, don't say yes when she asks you about fine dining and shopping. Just be honest.

    8. Re:The female responses . . . by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Divorce is a bitch, ain't it. Probably better off, though.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:The female responses . . . by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm, I think the outdoorsy shtick relates more to young women in rural/outlying areas. They may not really like riding ATVs, camping, fishing, and hiking, but they like guys who listen to songs about tractors and like ATVs and fishing. It could be more about who they are trying to attract than who they wish to exclude. I live on the edge of civilization, where all macho guys to the South and East wear cowboy hats (when they go to the country music dancing bar), claim to hunt and fish (though most of them have done it very few times), and espouse the virtues of pickup trucks (while they drive Chevy Cavaliers and old-ass Mercury Sables). In rural and semi-rural populations, this is somewhat the norm. If you adjusted your data to examine trends only in urban and inner-ring suburban areas, you'd see a lot less outdoorsy crap in women's profiles, with more mentions of wine, reading, baseball games, and walking in parks.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    10. Re:The female responses . . . by rubies · · Score: 2, Funny

      "This hot dog is wild!"

      Oscar Meyer

    11. Re:The female responses . . . by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Most of the most ambitious (and richest) people I know are over-weight, because they got rich by putting in long hours at the office, thereby reducing the time they have for exercise.

      On the other hand, nice hard manual labour makes people fit.

    12. Re:The female responses . . . by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Yep. Women want to bang the UPS guy, not the UPS guy's manager.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    13. Re:The female responses . . . by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Weird! All the broken-down has-beens and losers I know are over-weight, because they put in long hours at the office, thereby reducing the time they had for exercise.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    14. Re:The female responses . . . by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, executives make all the money while doing nothing useful(they spend more time trying to figure out how to enrich themselves than they do the company). Case in point, over the past 10 years executive pay has skyrocketed in the US while stocks are, at best, stagnant. This is why I always laugh whenever the Republicans complain about taxing the richest 10% is placing an unfair "burden" on the most "productive" people. Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best. Case in point, pretty much every single major bank in the US.

    15. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>I always laugh whenever the Republicans complain about taxing the richest 10%

      Idiot.

      If you make a decent wage as a software engineer, and you're married to another worker, guess what? You're in the top 10%.

      The cutoff for the top 10% of income is $110,000.

      It's ridiculous to pretend that all of these people are all executives and fat cats that don't produce. I work my ass off, as does my wife, and we would both rather prefer not losing half our income to the government.

    16. Re:The female responses . . . by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And in a twisted way, this is natural selection at work.

      --
      -David
    17. Re:The female responses . . . by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      To most software engineers who aren't living in NYC or Silly Valley $110k/year is a bit more than "a decent wage".

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    18. Re:The female responses . . . by lxs · · Score: 1

      So you prefer to lose half your income to insurance companies and lawsuits? To each their own I guess.

    19. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tonight on Dancing with Gabe Newell we have a verrry special treat for you!

    20. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best.

      It grabs hold really tight?

    21. Re:The female responses . . . by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Fuck off, Elmo"

      Oscar the Grouch

    22. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tenacious

      tenuous

    23. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>To most software engineers who aren't living in NYC or Silly Valley $110k/year is a bit more than "a decent wage".

      For people in NYC or Silicon Valley it isn't eye-raising. A friend of mine started at $80k or so a year and is in the six digits now. Hard worker. Lives in a two-bedroom apartment with his wife and kids. If Obama raises taxes on him... it won't be good for him. Might force him to quit and move elsewhere. Bad for him, bad for the US's economy as they lose taxes off his wages.

      I'm not saying $110k is average (I think it's rather obvious it's not... it's 90th percentile), but rather that the 10% cutoff is a LOT lower than people think. The notion that people in the top 10% are all fat cats lounging around benefiting from the labor of others is fucking preposterous. It's 4AM and I'm still working. Joys of running one's own corporation.

    24. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>So you prefer to lose half your income to insurance companies and lawsuits? To each their own I guess.

      I'd rather not lose half of it at all. :p

      Our 1M/2M liability insurance runs about a thousand dollars a year. Hard to say how much health insurance costs all total since it's subsidized, but before I got married it was around $300/month. Lawsuits? We do what we say we'll do, and have only gotten into litigation twice in the last decade, and won both.

      Taxes, though.... off the top of my head, it's around 15% for Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, etc., and then a top marginal tax rate of 35%, and a state tax rate of 10% or so here in California. You get to write off some taxes against the others, so it's not quite as high as it looks, but the government taking half of everything you make is a reasonable rule of thumb if you're moderately successful. And you want to increase it further? Go fuck yourself.

    25. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'd say, after reading this for quite a while, that the fact that most guys find a girl is due to the fact that women outnumber men in the 15 to 64 year old age bracket. That means that women are having to take what they can get and are forced into making choices between bad and worse, not good and better, if they want a guy. You're prime evidence of that.

    26. Re:The female responses . . . by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      You see a lot of the outdoorsy stuff in urban profiles. In the rural profiles you do see more specifics, suggesting hands-on experience. The outdoorsy trends generalize strongly.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    27. Re:The female responses . . . by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      guys who live at home

      I live at home. Where else am I supposed to live?

      I think you meant, "guys who live with their parents", but that's not why I'm replying.

      I actually met my wife on okcupid. She had outdoor stuff on her profile, and I'm a geek/nerd/whatever. I've long since stopped using okcupid, so I don't really know the status quo on the site, but I can say that my wife and I go camping whenever possible. It's nice to take a break from technology. The phones get their batteries removed and put in the glove box for emergencies. No email, no text messages, no slashdot (that's a tough one).

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    28. Re:The female responses . . . by moogaloonie · · Score: 1

      You listed mainly the typical "red state" outdoor activities. Though I'm in WV, I live in a college town and most of my female friends are left-of-center. In addition to biking, hiking, and caving (and that's just in the Summer) don't forget to include going to festivals and gatherings such as Bonaroo or Burning Man among the things people may consider outdoor activities when describing themselves. Actually, it seems the activities you listed are the interests women claim when they want men to believe they would be a fun person to hang out with. A lot of men around this state do hunt and fish or ride dirt bikes and not many women want to be thought of as someone who would get in the way of those things. If most of your real interests are things you do indoors and alone that's probably how you will spend most of your time. I'd expect a high percentage of people on /. have the personality trait that, while they would, in theory, like to do those things, many can't tear themselves away from their work-spaces for fear of wasting valuable personal time on single-tasking leisure pursuits.

    29. Re:The female responses . . . by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      It's one of the main things that made me stop looking at online dating.

      The anonymity of the internet encourages a precious kind of overly demanding behavior and balls-out lying. The same effect occurs with job ads on Craigslist. When people post something on the internet, they have no fear about being called out for saying the stupidest shit in human history.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    30. Re:The female responses . . . by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      In a much more accurate way, this is sexual selection at work.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    31. Re:The female responses . . . by ffreeloader · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, executives make all the money while doing nothing useful(they spend more time trying to figure out how to enrich themselves than they do the company). Case in point, over the past 10 years executive pay has skyrocketed in the US while stocks are, at best, stagnant. This is why I always laugh whenever the Republicans complain about taxing the richest 10% is placing an unfair "burden" on the most "productive" people. Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best. Case in point, pretty much every single major bank in the US.

      I had to laugh after reading this post. You didn't even come close to saying what you thought you did. It shows your inability to comprehend the words you use/read/write very clearly(and also those of your very liberal buddies on this site who are so quick to agree with you). You think you're being really smart, but instead you end up showing just how poorly you comprehend even what you say, let alone what someone says to you.. You complain about the Republicans, say their view of taxation is wrong, and then go on to say they are correct.

      Here's a clue. If a relationship between two things is tenacious it means that relationship is very strong, that the relationship is very hard to break.

      Here's the definition of tenacious from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

      Definition of TENACIOUS
      1
      a : not easily pulled apart : cohesive b : tending to adhere or cling especially to another substance
      2
      a : persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or desired

      The word you were looking for is tenuous. Once again from Merriam-Websters online dictionary:

      Definition of TENUOUS
      1
      : not dense : rare
      2
      : not thick : slender
      3
      a : having little substance or strength : flimsy, weak b : shaky 2a

      Maybe the reason so many of you liberals don't understand what the conservatives are saying is that your reading comprehension levels are so low.... You just don't get what they say because when the conservatives say white you think they meant black. You just proved the correctness of this assertion by thinking tenacious meant tenuous, as those two words are polar opposites in meaning. You know, like black and white.....

      No, I'm not a Republican, and, no, I don't belong to any of the Tea Parties. I'm a registered Independent who comprehends what I read, and what I write. Hell, I've written so many misunderstood sentences on this site it isn't funny. The often misunderstand sentences fit the following model: A is true, if conditions b, c, and d are met. That type of sentence is very often read on /. as "this is true", period. The lack of language comprehension skills really scares me because if the people in our society can't comprehend what they read they base all their views on incorrect assumptions, and end up with beliefs based on wrong information just as surely as night follows day and then go on to want to transform our society into something that just cannot work in the real world.... They do this with great levels of arrogance calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid, a troll, mindless, etc.... It happens every day on /..

      Now, if you're going to say that mistakenly used words don't really matter, or that it was a typo, think again. You just blew up your own argument, and if you realized it didn't think it was important enough to correct. If you blew up your argument and didn't realize it because you weren't sure of the correct wording, and didn't bother to use a dictionary or thesaurus to make sure, just how careful are you to communicate what you mean? Either excuse calls into question the quality of your reasoning ability.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    32. Re:The female responses . . . by sorak · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about OkCupid, but TFA says that the site is mostly urban areas, specifically pointing out that the people surveyed tend to live in areas where all the outdoorsy stuff on their profile is unrealistic. I suspect that this is about people trying to appear to be more interesting than they are, and trying to attract someone more interesting than themselves.

    33. Re:The female responses . . . by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cutoff for the top 10% of income is $110,000.

      The minimum income of taxpayers in the top 10% in 2007 was $102,900, for single-person households.

      http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf

      It's the last table on page 9.

      Deriving the minimum income for families requires a bit of calculation. The CBO adjusts household income by the square root of the number of people in the household. So, the minimum income of a two-person household in the top 10% in 2007 was $102,900 * 1.414 = $145,500.

      Hopefully, Slashdot readers will be able to calculate the minimum income for other family sizes. The CBO's methodology is described in more detail on the last page of the document linked above.

    34. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief I need mod points ... I am stealing that to respond to any and all Oscar Wilde quotes I ever see again ...

    35. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      As I said. Consider a married pair of Master's Degree CS majors making $80k to start in Silicon Valley - they're well within the top 10% of all earners. Out of grad school.

      Are these people fat cats that "don't deserve" the money they earned working overtime as a code monkey for the Evil Empire?

      Or are they living in a small apartment, saving all they can so that they can pay down their student loans, afford a baby, and get a house some time before they retire?

      Are these the people we want to punish for working hard? Do we want to drive them out of their jobs by taking so much of their disposable income they can no longer afford to live there?

    36. Re:The female responses . . . by NeoMorphy · · Score: 1
      If we're going to be criticizing each others statements, can we do yours as well?

      You must be a lot of fun at parties if you're that verbose about one word. Mistakes happen, someone used the the wrong word, but most knew what was intended, including yourself. Your mistake was writing a treatise about it.

      For the record I agree that the more one makes the less likely they really earned it.

      I like Einstein's view on economics, I suspect Republicans would not agree with him.

      http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

    37. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Poor couple only making $140k/year.. I make $63k, supporting a child and a wife with $60k in student loan debt that we'll likely never be able to pay off. And I'm a software engineer (and a rather good one). Not sure why I should feel sorry for your hypothetical couple.

    38. Re:The female responses . . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      OK. Now explain NASCAR and baseball!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:The female responses . . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, executives make all the money while doing nothing useful

      We generally only hear about the crappy ones or the great ones. The good ones quietly make their company successful, then move to the next when that gets old. The really bad ones make the news when the embezzlement charges are filed, and the geeks hate the great ones because they're rich fat cats who aren't paying their "fair share" in taxes (unless they're involved in *nix and/or OSS).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:The female responses . . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm very sorry I just used up my mod points. Thanks for an insightful post.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well there's that, but the flip side of it that (from talking to girls on dating sites) I find more likely is that girls say what they think guys want to hear. For instance, if you look at what people ACTUALLY do, very few women care for football - yet the overwhelming majority of girls on dating sites say they love football because they know the typical guy likes football. I've also met girls who put on dating sites that they don't want kids or are undecided about kids when they really do want them, but they know that a lot of guys don't want kids and figure they'll lie now, get married, then sucker him into having kids.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    42. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Question - you say you're 'supporting a child and wife".......is there a reason your wife can't get a job, especially if she has enough education to rack up $60k in debt (which, depending on school, could easily mean she has a bachelors and a masters)?,/p>

      You say you're not sure why you should feel sorry for his hypothetical couple - I'm definitely never sorry for a couple complaining about money when the wife refuses to work (it's a different story if there's a valid reason that she can't work).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    43. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      She's busy taking care of my son, and the amount of pay she could command right now would basically pay for day care (she has a BA in English and will have a MA next year). Besides, it's more important to us that our children be cared for and raised properly than to have a slightly larger house. But my point is that a $140k household income sounds pretty damn wealthy to me, so don't make it sound like such people are the victims here. If you have a dual income, expect dual taxes.

    44. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      First, unless your son has a disability, I call bullshit on your claimed childcare costs. Daycare for one kid does NOT cost $30k+ a year. I did a quick search and it appears that the MOST expensive ares only hit around $12k a year for daycare. Secondly, you want to vilify them for daring to WORK for money? Screw you. You openly said that it's your personal preference (is it really 'yours' or just your wifes?) is for her to stay home instead of working - so you openly admit that it's your own fault that you don't have the money to buy those things.

      It's really irritating to listen to people who refuse to put out the work to earn more vilify someone else for working and making more money.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    45. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...on this site it isn't funny. The often misunderstand sentences fit the following model...

      If you're going to be a pedantic ass about other peopls words, you should double check your own grammar.

    46. Re:The female responses . . . by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nope, up to age 25 men outnumber women, not till the 25 to 29 do we get into 99.9 males per female. Then add to that fact that 5-10% of males are gay, and your argument goes up in smoke.

    47. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love taking women to the pistol range as one of the first dates. If she doesn't know how to shoot a pistol, she really isn't into the outdoors. (Usually they either love it or hate it - very little middle ground.) Other things would be kayaking, skiing, horse-back riding, sky-diving, etc. When they would complain, I would bring up that they said they enjoyed doing outdoor activities...

      The first thing to understand about women is they often list what they "think" they want, and how they would be "ideally", rather than how they "really" are. As a man the best thing to do is throw them off balance - and keep them that way. And a lot of them have an inflated idea as to their value - some remembering how much they were in demand 10 years earlier. Well, when you're a 38 year-old woman your value is a lot less than when you were at 28...

      Too many men let the woman make decisions - women don't like that, you need to be in charge. You are the one in demand - women have a very short shelf-life, from about 18-35, whereas men are good to go into their 60's if they take care of themselves, and as you get older, your value just goes up. So enjoy life - it really is a blast...

    48. Re:The female responses . . . by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Misuse of a word has no bearing on context, when that context is otherwise clearly obvious.

      This argument for conservatism of yours is sorely lacking, and far more indicative of a lack of available argument.

      Put plainly for you, grow up and quit being a dick.

    49. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh wow, silly me, implying that two married people who make $80k per year should pay as much in taxes as two people single people who make $80k per year!

      If the US wasn't filled with people who are so obsessed with acquiring wealth at all costs, maybe we wouldn't have so much crime, violence, stupidity, etc. Guess what? YOU are responsible for raising your child. If you do poorly in that regard, YOU have failed your kid. And pawning them off on a day care at 3 months old until they start first grade, just because you want to drive a Cadillac instead of a Civic, is failure (no offense to those who have to do this, only to those that choose to do this). But if your life revolves around work and money (as it apparently does), then DON'T HAVE KIDS.

      Moreover, the point here is that we're discussing marriage in an economic contract sense. It's like incorporating. My family, as a unit, are considered an individual for tax purposes. A married dual income couple are considered one individual with a very large income. You're essentially arguing that a person who lives alone and makes $70k per year (1/2 income, 1/2 expenses, 1/2 taxes) is being taxed to death, and that's just not the case. The tax code is more complicated than this, and the married dual income couple actually comes out far ahead of two single people, but that only serves to reinforce that there's no reason to feel sorry for them.

    50. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      There has been crime since the beginning of time, yet it's always the "How dare someone have more than me!!" assholes like yourself who try to claim that people being successful causes others to commit crimes - which is utter bullshit. If you don't like the consequences of having kids, then you should've thought of that beforehand. It's not the rest of worlds fault that you chose to have kids and chose to have your wife not work and are pissy that you don't have as much money as a family where the wife works. Those were your choices. Shut the fuck up and accept the consequences of your actions. It's people like you who think you can have everything and never have to suffer negative consequences for choices that have brought society to this fucked up point.

      But if your life revolves around work and money (as it apparently does), then DON'T HAVE KIDS.

      My life revolves around enjoying myself. Having money and a successfully career are a means to enjoying myself. And no, I'm not going to throw my life away by having kids. I want to enjoy life and kids take away all of your free time and money. Once you have kids, you exist only to make money to provide for them - I have no desire to end up like that.

      Now, on to your fallacious tax argument. Two people who are married are typically making purchases (such as a home) that cost much more than someone who's single. It's actually a carryover from the whole issue of on person working while the spouse doesn't (just like you). That's the flaw in your logic - they see a married houses income - not the individual income of two people. The tax rules are the same regardless of if you're married and only one person works, married and both people work, or married and neither works. Do you really want your wife to pay $0 on her income of $0 and you pay significantly more in taxes (thus reducing your income)? That's what you're really arguing for here. Well, except I'm sure you'd want to put in a special rule to let people like you avoid the negative consequences of your choices, but that would never get made law.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    51. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      First off, you're a tard. I like having kids. In fact I like it so much that I'm willing to make less money in order to spend more time with my family, and to allow my wife to stay home with our son.

      Second, nothing you have said gives any reason why a dual income household shouldn't have to pay their fair share in taxes. If you both make $80k per year, and you don't want to be in the top 10% of earnings, then file separately. Any way you slice it, the hypothetical couple making $80k/year each are wealthy, and I'm not going to feel sorry for them for having to pay taxes.

    52. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I'm a tard for wanting to keep my money, have free time, and not be spit on, vomited on, shit on, and listen to screaming all the time? Sounds like you missed the day they taught logic in school...

      They do "pay their fair share". Shit, if they're both making $80k, they pay way more than their fair share. If you look at who pays what % of taxes, the people making over $70k a year pay an insanely high percent of all taxes paid and it only gets more unfair the more you make. Also, if you think $160k (before taxes) is "wealthy", then you need to actually leave the house sometime and experience the real world. That's 'middle-middle class'. Even someone making $300k isn't "wealthy' - just uppper middle class. It takes more money than normal working people can comprehend to be "wealthy" (and I say that as someone making $35k a year). Get over yourself, accept that you haven't worked hard enough to earn $160k a year household income, and quite demonizing people who worked harder than you. All you're doing is being immature and greedy.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    53. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing you're not a tard about is the fact that you realize you're not cut out for kids.

      It was pointed out earlier in this thread that $140k brings you into the top 10% of household incomes in the US. If you consider $160k/year to be "middle-middle class" then you have a very, very skewed view of what middle class is. I made roughly $70k per year when I was single and living in a fairly expensive place (expensive side of Portland, OR). I can't even imagine having a household income of $160k.. I wouldn't know what to do with it (well, actually I do.. I'd quit my $80k part and go back for my Ph.D). If you're making $35k/year, then by your standards, you're impoverished, and that's ludicrous. Adjusting for the cost of caring for a family, you and I probably have a similar standard of living, and I'm far from impoverished.

      Also, I'd like to point out that I wasn't complaining about my situation. I'm actually fine with it. What I'm complaining about is people complaining about the plight of the $160k income household.

    54. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      $35k isn't impoverished, but it's not much higher. If you have an average apartment, an average car payment, and your other basic bills (food, gas, utilities), you don't have much to save for the future / emergencies or to spend on fun.

      Adjusting for the cost of caring for a family, you and I probably have a similar standard of living, and I'm far from impoverished.

      Other than both having computers, basic utilities, internet, food, a vehicle, and a roof of some sort over our heads, I'm sure are living standards are nothing similar. I know plenty of people with the husband making around $60k and the wife no working plus the standard 2.5 kids and their standard of living is wayyyyyy higher than mine.

      What I'm complaining about is people complaining about the plight of the $160k income household.

      Make whatever excuses you want - you were complaining that people who make more than you aren't punished with insanely high taxes to rape them for being better off than you.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    55. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      What I'm complaining about is people complaining about the plight of the $160k income household.

      Make whatever excuses you want - you were complaining that people who make more than you aren't punished with insanely high taxes to rape them for being better off than you.

      Dude, you make more, you pay more, that's the way it works. Back in the "good 'ol days" in 50s when we had the highest standard of living in the world by far, the tax rate for the top 10% was way higher than any tax proposal currently being passed around. Living in a country like this allows people to make that kind of money. Once they make that much, it's time to give something back. Maybe it'll de-incentivize the modern 60 hour work week, and people will be willing to make a bit less to work a lot less. And then maybe we won't have such a wound up, stick up the arse society.

    56. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Son, I've lived on $11k a year through car trouble, relocation, job changes, unemployment, and significant medical problems. Through it I payed for a 4-year degree at a decent school.

      You feel defensive because deep down you know you're better off than most and you hate being reminded of it. You want to play the "I have it hard" game like everyone else and show how resourceful you are, and resent being reminded that your life treats you more gently.

      The metric is THERE already. Top 10% means top 10%. You're not some magic exemption that doesn't 'really' belong in the top 10. Your household makes vastly more than the vast majority of people. Plenty of people support families on a fifth (or less) of what you make, and no, they DON'T have a "similar standard of living."

      You are not entitled to anything. You have it good, and you are panning it. You have been given good opportunity, and you are complaining about it. You have the ability to raise kids who are grateful for what they have been given, and you are ruining it by not understanding gratitude.

    57. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Poor couple only making $140k/year.. I make $63k, supporting a child and a wife with $60k in student loan debt that we'll likely never be able to pay off. And I'm a software engineer (and a rather good one). Not sure why I should feel sorry for your hypothetical couple.

      If you had a wife making the same amount as you, that's a $126k salary. Guess what, you're top 85%. After accounting for the increased cost of living and rent in the Bay Area, you're probably making more than our "hypothetical" couple.

      Since you must have a lot more spare cash floating around than our couple, perhaps you'd like to pony up an extra $10k a year in taxes? I mean, fair is fair, right?

    58. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I don't see how $63k is more than $126k, even adjusting for the cost of rent in the bay area. And yes, if my wife made as much as I do, we'd be wealthy, and should pay more in taxes because of that. What's your point? We need more tax revenue to pay for roads, schoos, police, and our enormous debt. Who should we tax to get it? You'd have to raise taxes mych more on the poor to get the same amount as a small increase for the rich. And the rich can afford it. It only makes sense.

    59. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>And yes, if my wife made as much as I do, we'd be wealthy, and should pay more in taxes because of that.

      After paying for childcare and the increased taxes, you wouldn't make much more than what do you now. (If you don't see how taxes are a disincentive to work, your own family is the perfect example.)

      If they raised taxes on the "rich", you'd be worse off than you are now, if your wife was also working.

      >>You'd have to raise taxes mych more on the poor to get the same amount as a small increase for the rich.

      Nope. Run the numbers some time. There's a lot more poor people. There's a reason a flat tax makes a lot of sense.

    60. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best.[/quote]

      tenacious? lol. tenuous perhaps?

    61. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said you should feel sorry for anyone.

      On the other hand, why should I feel sorry for you - or more to the point, why should I support tax breaks and handouts for you? You choose to get married. You choose to have a kid. Now you complain that they're expensive? Fuck you! I bought a nice car. OMFG It's so expensive! I need a tax break! That's no different than what you're saying.

      Your choices - your responsibility. The student loan thing you get a pass on because that was to better yourself, but the wife and kid are your own fault and you shouldn't complain about them.

    62. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure child care is not $63k/year. Also, the graduated tax means that everything i would make up to the end of my tax bracket is taxed at my current rate. ALSO, because social security taxes are not taxed above $106,800, that would offset the minor increase in tax bracket.

      On to your second point of deincentivising work.. I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to work less. There's more workers in this country than there are jobs, and if those of us that have jobs didn't work 60 hours a week, there would be plenty of jobs to go around. And if companies could no longer get away with abusing salaried employees, we'd have less stress, less heart attacks, and a generally healthier society. Money is not the only metric of success, and I wish more people understood that in this country.

    63. Re:The female responses . . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Troll

      You failed basic math, didn't you? Even if everyone pays 10%, the more you make the more you pay. With the bogus system we have, the more you make,the higher percent you pay and you pay massively in actual dollars.

      Please, I'd love to hear your logic as to why some people are allowed to keep 90% of their income and others are so evil that they're only allowed to keep 60% of what they worked for.

      Once they make that much, it's time to give something back.

      No. Again, that's you being a greedy little shit and thinking that you have a right to someone else's money.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    64. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Jesus, what is with the fucking retards today? I wasn't complaining, nor was I saying I should get a tax break. I was saying that the hypothetical couple, despite what they might do for a living or the fact that they both work, are well into the top 10% of wage earners, and should be treated accordingly. Yes, that means more taxes. And yes, if I made that much, I would still advocate for more taxes. In fact, not that long ago my wife and I totaled around $95k/year before our child was born. The taxes, much to the contrary of all these BS Republican claims, were not crushing us, destroying our livlihoods, or otherwise creating an unnecessary burden. I don't get the kind of mentality that can only sympathize with the people who make a LOT of money about not having enough money.

    65. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      No, you're obviously the one that failed math. If not, you'd know that it would take a 10% increase in taxes for you (with your claimed $35k per year.. which I highly doubt, given your level of greed), as compared to a 1% increase in taxes for someone making $350k per year, to make the same amount of tax revenue. So here's the dilemma -- we need to raise taxes to pay for shit. Who pays it? Apparently you think the poor should pay it, since they have SO MUCH extra money sitting around. I say the rich should pay it, since they CAN. Also, if you weren't such a fucking twit you'd know that you don't have to pay social security tax on earnings over $106,800, so that's actually a 12.4% tax cut for people making over that amount. Having to pay a bit more in federal taxes is not much to ask, especially since the graduated tax brackets ensure that they only get taxed heavily on the portion of their earnings that are within that tax bracket (so they still get taxed at ~25% for the portion of their income belove $80k or so).

      But if you want a good reason why people aren't entitled to make more after a certain point, here's one -- rich people don't contribute to the economy. That's right, they save/invest/gamble their money. Middle class and poor people, on the other hand, spend the majority of their money buying goods and services that allow businesses to thrive. The more you make, the more you hoard. The more you hoard, the less that flows through the economy. It's simply bad economics to let people get too rich. And spare me your treatise on trickle-down economics. The only ones that believe that crap are you, your friends, and Bush Jr. (Bush Sr. even pointed out that it was BS). Ronnie Ray Gun believed it too, but he's dead, and he was full of shit even when he was alive.

    66. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you also take into account that 5-10% of females are gay, then your argument is pretty weak (ignoring the obvious math error). Just sayin'.

    67. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Of course child care is not $63k. But you're forgetting that the government will take roughly half your income at that point, and childcare at good preschools in the Bay Area exceeds $20k/year.

      While I completely agree overwork is a serious problem, if you're looking at it from the point of view of the gov't trying to maximize tax revenue, this is an easy example of how high tax rates can decrease income.

    68. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      The effective tax rate for our hypothetical couple making $160k per year is 21.41%. That's well below 50%. If you're having problems with the tax rate or cost of living in a particular place, move somewhere cheaper; my wife and I lived in an expensive part of the country, but when she got pregnant we made the decision to move to a place with a lower cost of living. If you're living in the Bay Area, that's a voluntary expense. Yes, it's where Google is, but you don't have to work for them to have a high-paying job. I would be willing to entertain the idea of federal tax rates being adjusted for cost of living in particular areas, though, as that would be more fair.

      Also, making it harder to earn ridiculous amounts of money does something neat with the economy -- it keeps money flowing. Wealthier people tend to hoard money, whereas the less wealthy tend to spend more of what they make (generally because they have to in order to survive). This means that more goods and services are exchanged, and less capital is locked away where it doesn't benefit society as a whole. Not to mention that any money that's spent gets taxed a second time, through sales tax. Thus the government is getting more out of the less wealthy than just income tax. From a pragmatic standpoint it just makes more sense to tax the wealthy more.

    69. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The effective tax rate for our hypothetical couple making $160k per year is 21.41%.

      We're not looking at total tax rate, but rather the marginal tax rate as you move from $60k to $120k, which is going to be around 27%. This doesn't include state income tax (9.3% here in CA), and I believe social security and medicare is at 7.5%. So you're going to be losing 44% of your take-home pay from your second job. Nearly half your take-home pay gone.

      You have to pay for child-care using post-tax dollars.

      I'm not saying you won't come out ahead with a second earner in the family (that's why families work two jobs), but that the way our marginal tax system is set up it encourages people to not work, which hurts our economy as well as lowering tax revenues for the government. Since you were talking about money acceleration, consider that you'll no longer having a second earner paying taxes, buying childcare (which then gets taxed), and likely spending the additional money, which then also gets taxed and respent. Ignoring human factors, it is best for the economy for the entire population being productive.

    70. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry, forgot about CA SDI, which is another tax. And maybe unemployment, too.

      The point is, if you consider social security and medicare a tax (which they are, really), or just look at what the government takes out of your take home pay, losing half is a pretty good rule of thumb.

    71. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      But you should be looking at the effective tax rate. Because of the way the graduated tax system works, it's impossible to pay the full marginal rate in a tax bracket (unless you're in the first bracket). Thus, if you calculate how much of the $160k is paid at each bracket, the total federal tax rate is 21.41%. Then account for the fact that SSN isn't taken out over $106,800, and you're coming out ahead. This calculates the total federal taxes, including SSN and Medicare, to come out to $42,000, assuming the couple has no deductions (which they almost certainly would, lowering their taxes further). That's less than 21%. Add that 9.3% for state taxes, and you're still hovering around 30%. And again, that's assuming they have no children, no house, and donate nothing to charity. If they have a house payment with $1500 interest per month (easy to do in SF), then they would get their marginal tax rate times that money back, so that would reduce their taxes by 0.28 * 12 * 1500 = 5040, which reduces their total taxes by about 3%, bringing them in at a cool 27%.

    72. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>But you should be looking at the effective tax rate

      No, the effective tax rate is inappropriate. If you make $60k a year and you're considering having your wife work for another $60k a year, that's a marginal gain, so you have to do the math on the marginal taxes you'll pay to determine if its worth it. It might not be. After child care and taxes, she'll be working full time ostensibly at ~30$/hour for only ~$10k cash in the bank at the end of the day.

    73. Re:The female responses . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Your fallacy here is that you're assuming that extra income should be tax free, and also that you're counting child care as a tax, and not an expense (and a tax-deductable expense at that). You're also not cutting off the SSN tax at $106,800, which adds a few grand back into your pocket. And the child care, which, if we assume $20k for that and a marginal tax rate of 28%, nets you a little over $5k in tax refunds. Now it is true that the second job is taxed roughly 13% higher than the first, but that's not really a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you're getting diminishing returns, but that's why the marriage clause was put in place -- to account for single-income families. The marriage clause was not designed with dual incomes in mind. And the low taxes at the bottom were designed to give everyone a "free pass" on the basic essentials of life. Yes, it sucks to make $120k and only keep $80k, but it sucks a lot more to make $25k and only keep $20k of it. If you really feel the wealthy are getting the short end of the stick in life, you've forgotten (or never learned) what it's like to be poor (and just for the record, I'm not poor at the moment, just middle class).

    74. Re:The female responses . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, I'd love to hear your logic as to why some people are allowed to keep 90% of their income and others are so evil that they're only allowed to keep 60% of what they worked for.

      I'd love to hear your logic as to why some people have a much lower income than others despite working harder.

    75. Re:The female responses . . . by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Your fallacy here is that you're assuming that extra income should be tax free, and also that you're counting child care as a tax

      No, I don't think they should be tax free. But the current system is broken. Losing half your income on a marginal gain is a pretty severe disincentive to work.

      I'm not counting child care as a tax. If you count child care, you're probably lose over three quarters of your nominal wages.

      >>If you really feel the wealthy are getting the short end of the stick in life

      I'm not saying that. My point, again, is that "taxing the rich" by targeting the top 10% of income earners is a lie, insofar as the connotations of "rich" go. To me, it's simple - if you can't afford to buy a house where you live, you're not rich. The OP was unfairly categorizing all of the people in the top 10% bracket as being worthless slugs, when I think he was really talking about people in the top fraction of the top 1%.

    76. Re:The female responses . . . by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      except purely "gay" women are rare, instead non-heterosexual women usually being bisexual

  5. Re:white men? by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 4, Funny

    How dare you think that as a Canadian I don't like Van Halen!

    Now, where'd I put that mullet...

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  6. Science != Statistics by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

    Just saying.

    1. Re:Science != Statistics by iammani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually Subset(Science)=Subset(Statistics). Would you also like some venn diagrams with that?

    2. Re:Science != Statistics by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      For bonus points, please include "math" in the diagram.

      (Unfortunately, there's no clear consensus on that one. It's interesting to look at where stats is at various universities--- sometimes it's in "math" or "applied math", other times it's in a separate dept all on its own.)

    3. Re:Science != Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you also like some venn diagrams with that?

      Oh yes please! ASCII art rocks!

    4. Re:Science != Statistics by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      Oh fine. But back on context, I disagree that the statistics listed here has anything to do with science.

    5. Re:Science != Statistics by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Usually Venn diagrams use just circles (or other convex round shapes which are topologically equivalent to a circle), not rocks.
      However, a rock drawn in ASCII art would certainly be interesting.

      SCNR

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Science != Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applied math?

      Isn't htat when you ignore the advanced math completely and limit yourself to division because all the models you know don't apply to whatever you have to do?

  7. Anybody for a small wager? by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bet if the site allowed you to keep part of your profile private, with access reserved only for your buddies, a certain multi-ethnic theme would emerge. A predilection for BJ's would cross all cultural barriers and leap to number one on the list of things most guys like.

    High fives all 'round. Woot, woot!

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. as a white person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope we make contact with aliens soon so we can stop worrying about the color of the humans and start worrying about humans in general.

    1. Re:as a white person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some sort of Hobbesian?

    2. Re:as a white person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did we digress to talking LOTR?

      Oh, wait...never mind.

    3. Re:as a white person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more of a Calvinist.

    4. Re:as a white person... by lxs · · Score: 1

      Speciesist!

      Grey pride galaxy wide!

    5. Re:as a white person... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the aliens won't be racist too?

      Some people like white horses, personally I prefer brown or brown/black. Some people like German Sherpherds, others like pitbulls.

    6. Re:as a white person... by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Some people have a problem with race. They think, "I know, I'll use space aliens". Now they have two problems.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  9. Re:white men? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's not fair. It's hard to tell Canadians from really boring white people.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  10. Assumed homogeneity by devleopard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stereotyping is never good, but it has a higher degree of confidence based on the divergence of individual characteristics, as well as population. (For example, you say "all 17 year old black males like rap music", but you're actually looking at more than one characteristic - there typically is less divergence among economic status, geographic distance from peers, etc.. to put it bluntly, they tend to be poor and live close together)

    Among white males, this tends to be less true wider array of economic functioning (higher % of upper middle class), geographic distribution (with few exceptions, white males can *socially* live wherever they want, if they can afford it), etc. So there's no *typical* white male.

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    1. Re:Assumed homogeneity by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The typical white male on a dating website likes Tom Fucking Clancy because he knows the ladies dig guys who read fatass books.

      The ladies on the other hand, can discriminate Tom Fucking Clancy from Toni Fucking Morrison, so they're not impressed, and all the Tom Fucking Clancy lovers stay in web dating purgatory.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:Assumed homogeneity by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Well hey, if you RTFA you might also see that Heinlein is in the middle of interests as well for white males.

      Granted I realize you RTFA already.

    3. Re:Assumed homogeneity by oljanx · · Score: 1

      If I follow you correctly -- your assumption is that due to their economic status black males tend to live in larger and less diverse groups than white males. And as a result they are more likely to have similar interests. Ok that makes sense. And unfortunately you are correct that statistically, white males generally find themselves in better financial situations, which does give them more flexibility when deciding where they want to live. But, last time I checked, upper middle class white males (and/or females) don't often locate themselves in culturally diverse areas. They tend to stick with their flock, just like everyone else. It's human nature. As a result the geographic distribution factor is probably not as significant as you might think.

    4. Re:Assumed homogeneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there's no *typical* white male.

      I'm a typical white male, and find your stereotyping egregious.

    5. Re:Assumed homogeneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ask our beloved president, there IS a typical white person, and the typical white person is scared of black people.

    6. Re:Assumed homogeneity by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      with few exceptions, white males can *socially* live wherever they want, if they can afford it

      I don't think those exceptions are so few. I'd say about 40% of Chicago is "socially" off-limits to white guys, and I imagine the same is true in Detroit, DC, New York, and LA. In a lot of neighborhoods in Chicago, a white dude can find himself in serious trouble simply because of his lack of melanin. Unless you look like a cop, which is why I've grown a sweet Ditka mustache and wear mirrored Ray-Bans.

    7. Re:Assumed homogeneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much approve of your sig.

  11. Since when is "white" a culture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can divide this up by white/black/asian/indian/etc, but they aren't dividing it up by culture. Quite often whites in America have very little in common... just like Taiwanese and Koreans have very little in common (aside from being 'asian')... or Tanzanians and Russians... T^T

    1. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yup, just like how the blacks from Kenya, Europe, and America have very different cultures and thus an outlook on life. And yes, I've heard this personally from them in the workplace (casual talk, no heated debate).

      This study has it ass-backwards. If you're looking to categorize, do it by culture NOT race. To conduct a study like this is based on a false premise to begin with.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by lee1026 · · Score: 1

      If race didn't exist, a study like this wouldn't be able to get results. The fact that they were able to get results suggests that some things correlate with the categorizations that they have chosen.

    3. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      This study has it ass-backwards. If you're looking to categorize, do it by culture NOT race. To conduct a study like this is based on a false premise to begin with.

      I'm not familar with OK Cupid myself but have some experience with dating sites a few years ago.

      Race is a question which always get asked on a dating profile but I've never seen "culture" asked, sometimes nationality but thats definately not the same thing

      I think that he was simply using what was available, not what was necessarily the best dividers.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    4. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US. Or at least subcultures where not every skin color is proportionally represented. Not every person with black or white skin identifies with those subcultures, but they will have a big impact on these kind of statistics.

      There is of course also a geek/engineering culture. From these OKCupid statistics, you can tell that a significant number of Asians and Indians (don't they also come from Asia?) identify with geeky/engineering themes, whereas among whites and blacks they get completely drowned in the much larger numbers of jocks/hiphoppers/etc. Is that because Asians and Indians are genetically that much more disposed towards engineering? Or could it be that they come from a culture that values engineering more? Or maybe Indians and Asians with valuable engineering skills are more likely to migrate to the US than their non-engineer relatives.

      There's really a lot more culture than race involved in these lists.

    5. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I'm going to define a category consisting of all high-school dropouts in the US, plus lee1026. I expect I would be able to find that many unflattering traits are overrepresented in this group, so obviously the category is meaningful.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    6. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US.

      I thought this was already apparent by the likes of Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, and Barack Obama electing to call themselves 'black'. They're mixed race, all of them. But they don't claim their racial label, only their cultural one.

    7. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      For Obama that cultural choice is definitely weird. He was brought up by his white family, and was not related to any African Americans.

      (Note: "was". Now he's obviously related to his kids.)

    8. Re:Since when is "white" a culture? by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

      What makes this study fascinating is that the data support the notion that "white" in fact is a culture. That is, there are statistically significant correlations to this attribute.

      Clearly, this is not the culture of populations as we usually understand it. I expect there would be an inverse correlation between "Jewish" and "bacon", for example, which would tend to disappear when this group is classified under white/black/asian/indian/etc.

      But still, some of the correlations which do pop out are surprising and funny. To recognize them is to celebrate who we are as a species, in all our weirdness and diversity, and even in our stereotypes of ourselves and each other. I can handle that. Just remember that our interactions with each other are as one individual with another, and that each individual is unique, not the embodiment of a stereotype. I'm sure that my black Jewish gay Republican friends would agree.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
  12. have you ever seen a black or Hispanic guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hum along to a song by Huey Lewis and the News?

    Me neither.

  13. Race? by agm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    White is not a race and neither is black.
    Just saying.

    1. Re:Race? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      White is not a race and neither is black.

      Does Caucasian and Negroid make you feel better?

      But then again, genetically speaking Latino, Middle Eastern and Indian aren't races (being Caucasian, Caucasian and Asian respectively).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Race? by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As someone who took a semester of Sociology 101 years ago, I am here to snobbishly inform you that race is a social construction and that you can divvy it up however you wish.

      (Actually, as I vaguely recall reading---I took more than just the 101 course---there's a wealth of fascinating legal history about the construction of race in this country other than the typical White/Black/Native American issues, mainly due to naturalization law. I think I remember something about Indians arguing that they were white once science caught on to the genesis, but were ruled nonwhite because they had darker skin. And a Japanese guy who argued that he was white because he had light skin, but was ruled nonwhite because...I forget. Slanty eyes, maybe.)

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    3. Re:Race? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      As someone who took a semester of Sociology 101 years ago, I am here to snobbishly inform you that race is a social construction and that you can divvy it up however you wish.

      Actually, I was going for +1 pedantic hyperbole, using a pedantic example of the GGP's post to disprove the GGP's post and point out how futile it is to place "not a race" constructs around these issues, as you have pointed out.

      But seeing as we are talking about sciences.... Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races, Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence. For example hair samples can be used to determine race. Of course with the amount of interbreeding between these races today, it's getting harder to determine.

      I know, I know, silence physicists.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Race? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence.

      You went to high school in the 19th century?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Race? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You went to high school in the 19th century?

      No, I went to school where they still teach you actual science and critical thinking.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races"

      What happened to the human race?

    7. Re:Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who took an entire degree in Mathematical Statistics, I am here to snobbishly inform you that Sociology 101 is full of crap.

      Races are fuzzy sets, and the fact that you can classify the population in other ways does not make them nonexistant. In fact, you can divide *any* set into subsets in any way you please. The distinction between "planet" and "star" is iffy (where they meet). Does that mean it is invalid?

      (I would agree that the American concept of "black", with the "one drop rule" and all, is mostly useless. But even then you can draw some valid statistical conclusions.)

    8. Re:Race? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      But seeing as we are talking about sciences.... Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races, Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence.

      You went to high school a really long time ago then, or you got your education from some really misinformed people. If you want to divide humanity into races based on genetics, you end up with either two races (those who left Africa, and everybody else), or dozens. The differences between Africans are far, far greater than those between Europeans and Asians, for example.

      Basing it on a single cosmetic feature like skin color (which is subject to strong evolutionary pressure, which means it can change pretty quickly in a population), is very unscientific. Do you want to lump Australian aboriginals in with sub-Saharan Africans?

    9. Re:Race? by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I don't see how being able to determine race by examining hair samples differs significantly from being able to determine race from, you know, just looking at someone. Or being able to determine racial characteristics from DNA. It's sort of obvious that there are a variety of ways to distinguish racial groups---we, unlike Stephen Colbert, can tell. That sort of misses the point of the sociological statement. Whatever that is. Also, I'm not a big fan of that particular XKCD, mainly because he forgot to put the philosopher 20 billion pixels to the right.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    10. Re:Race? by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They told you that too, did they? Apparently you think that if it's non-PC, it must be true and intellectually brave to believe.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    11. Re:Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As someone who took a semester of Sociology 101 years ago

      Being that old I'm impressed you can say anything but "get off my lawn"!

    12. Re:Race? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Really? So you mean that all of those race-specific physical characteristics don't exist and 'the evil white man' forced them on the world? That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    13. Re:Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to this and this?

      > I think I remember something about Indians arguing that they were white once science caught on to the genesis

      Also, most Indians are "Aryans" whatever the hell that means. (Btw, "Aryan" is a word derived from Sanskrit) Also, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) (see above) it was decided that "White people" is a subset of "Caucasian". So being a "Caucasian" doesn't make you "White". So my understanding of how that's defined is basically, "it's a group of people that {you} can't be a part of because the group consists of people that have {x}" for various values of "you" where "x" is any property not found in that particular value of "you".

      I mean, given the current understanding of "White" - a Caucasian with light skin - where does George Hamilton fit in? Is he still "white"? If he is, is that because his ancestry is European? If so, if a dark skinned boy is born in Europe to people that had immigrated to Europe in the last, say, 100 years, what then? Still no? So being European has nothing to do with it. But then there's the curious case of George (not "Curious George", mind you). I bet he's still white - since he was born "white". Guess what, most Indian babies are born pink. They acquire pigmentation later much like George. So the definition is down to "born light-skinned, no involuntary pigmentation added later" - I think that's the best definition that I can come up with the doesn't violate the general understanding. Except, of course, the Albinos....

      My take on it is if there were no "non-whites" we'd still come up with "Us and them" within the "whites". It's human nature to create a "them" for there to be an "us".

      Pink Floyd's "Us and Them" - "And who knows which is which and who is who"

    14. Re:Race? by agm · · Score: 1

      White is not a race and neither is black.

      Does Caucasian and Negroid make you feel better?

      Yes - that is better. The terms "black" and "white" are loaded with baggage and just scream out "racist" at anyone that uses them. What's wrong with caucasian?

    15. Re:Race? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No, I went to school where they still teach you actual science and critical thinking.

      Not if they taught you the "three races" idea, you didn't.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    16. Re:Race? by Deffiz · · Score: 1
      As a biologist, I can inform you that the only reason that "race" doesn't exist is because it is a misnomer. The correct term is "subspecies", but that sounds really politically incorrect. From Wikipedia:

      Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of a peptide from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species. If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species. If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content. Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

  14. religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the evidence (not proof) provided in the final two figures that atheists really are smarter than religious people, with Christians coming in dead last. I love it!

    1. Re:religion by digitig · · Score: 1

      Or evidence that the Christians are considerate of the wide spread of readership their profile will get, and deliberately write at a simple level to accommodate that readership, whereas the atheists just want to show off and don't care about their readers.

      Seems to me that what you have there is data, not evidence.

      For what it's worth, I have a profile on OK Cupid, and deliberately kept the language and writing style simple. But I have "solipsist" in the "religion" box on my profile, and we didn't get included in the survey.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Seems to me that what you have there is data, not evidence.'

      And what scientific-statistical paradigm do you subscribe to where data are not interpreted as evidence supporting rejection of a null hypothesis?

      I'm very curious that if data do not count as evidence, then what does?

      Read "The Nature of Statistical Evidence" by Bill Thompson for some insights.

    3. Re:religion by digitig · · Score: 1

      The data does not decide between the two hypotheses so far proposed, so it's not evidence in favour of either one one over the other.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does little to explain though whether being Christian makes someone dumber or whether being dumber makes someone Christian.

      Latinos and blacks, for example, are going to predominantly identify themselves as Christian. Asians are going to predominantly identify themselves as Buddhist. Asians are known to score better on tests than either Latinos or blacks. Are their higher scores really caused by the fact that they're Buddhist?

      It's as worthless to try to equate intelligence with religion as it is to equate intelligence with race.

  15. Hmmm, they somehow missed by SlimXero · · Score: 2, Funny

    How 99.9% of women between the ages of 15-40 list themselves as bisexual. Odd.

    1. Re:Hmmm, they somehow missed by PyroMosh · · Score: 2, Informative

      They didn't miss it. They covered it in a different analysis.

      REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender.

      12% of women under 35 on OkCupid (and the internet in general, I'd wager) self-identify as bi. However, as you can see above, only about 1 in 4 of those women is actually into both guys and girls at the same time. I know this will come as a big letdown to the straight male browsing population: three-fourths of your fantasies are, in fact, fantasies of a fantasy. Like bi men, most bi women are, for whatever reason, not observably bi. The primacy of America's most popular threesome, two dudes and an Xbox, is safe.

      The full analysis is here (scroll down a bit):

      http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/

    2. Re:Hmmm, they somehow missed by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that they might be sexually interested in both genders, but only interested in actually dating the opposite gender. Not actually that uncommon, or hard to understand.

  16. Re:white men? by nschubach · · Score: 1

    Canadian also somehow climbed up the slang rankings for an opposing race when you don't want to say the other slang words for them.

    "Damn, those Canadians can't _____!"

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  17. Above everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    White people love reading lists about what white people like.

    1. Re:Above everything else... by mjwx · · Score: 5, Funny

      White people love reading lists about what white people like.

      Actually I like reading lists about what Asian women like,

      From today I'm a simple person and mechanical engineer who enjoys noodles, cricket and basketball.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Above everything else... by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Actually I like reading lists about what Asian women like,
      From today I'm a simple person and mechanical engineer who enjoys noodles, cricket and basketball.

      You're assuming asian women are necessarily after asians.
      Where I live there are many people os japanese ancestry (pre WWII immigration), and I've heard from different women of that group that they did not want anything with ethnic japanese men. And I saw many times such women with white men. - It seems that it works the same for ethnic japanese men.
      No idea why is that so.

    3. Re:Above everything else... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You're assuming asian women are necessarily after asians.

      You're also assuming I'm Asian.

      Where I live it's not unusual to see mixed race couples, in fact it's almost the norm.

      No idea why is that so.

      Grass is greener, what to escape some kind of cultural issues, get away from the family. Could be many reasons but for the most part mixed race couples have the same motivation as non-mixed couples, love and money.

      I see a lot of mixed race people these days, not just with mixed race white/Asian people but with a lot of mixed race Asians. You'll find a lot of Thai/Korean, Japanese/Thai, Japanese/Chinese people as well as Philipino/American, Malay/English and so forth. There is significantly less stigma in both Asian and Western societies against having a mixed race baby, especially with many Asians wanting to be whiter (in many Asian cultures, brown skin means you work in the sun all day, white skin means you are wealthy enough to stay indoors). I think in modern western societies we place less emphasis on our racial identity and more on our national identity (I'm American/English/German and so forth).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Above everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's assuming you are a white guy with yellow-fever.

    5. Re:Above everything else... by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 1

      Cricket and baseball?
      I'm guessing that the OK Cupid categories are crudely lumping together the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakastan, Sri Lanka) with totally unrelated ethnic communities from countries occupied by the U.S. at the end of WW2 (Japan)

    6. Re:Above everything else... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Cricket and baseball?

      Actually I said basketball, baseball wasn't even mentioned under Asian in the article.

      Also they counted India as separate from Asia, I'm not sure about the rest of the sub continent (pakistani, sri lankan) but I suspect the whole thing is based on racial groups based in western countries.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Above everything else... by chrb · · Score: 1

      From today I'm a simple person and mechanical engineer who enjoys noodles, cricket and basketball.

      And swingers. Don't forget the swingers.

    8. Re:Above everything else... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      No, white nerds love reading lists about... No, wait that sentence is complete.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    9. Re:Above everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From today I'm a simple person and mechanical engineer who enjoys noodles, cricket and basketball.

      oh! sorry to disappoint you, but cricket will work with only South-Asians, specifically sub-continet. as Russell Peters funnily says, when people say Asians, they think only chinese where as we too are Asians and so too are Russians, kazhaks, well you get the picture....

      -- South Asian
      (I have a feeling that you all figured it out already..)

    10. Re:Above everything else... by neurally_hyperactive · · Score: 1

      From today I'm a simple person and mechanical engineer who enjoys noodles, cricket and basketball.

      sorry mate! Cricket will work with only people from sub-continent. its funny how geographical association doesn't necessarily give away ethnicity... using Russell Peters observation 'when ever people say Asians, they automatically think chinese' and when people say Indian, they get confused between Native American and South-Asian ( well thats a whole different story!!!). -- South Asian (you already guessed it, right?)

    11. Re:Above everything else... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Funny

      The surprising thing for me is that apparently I *am* asian.

      OK, I'll go scurry off and read Freakonomics now..

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Above everything else... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Cricket will work with only people from sub-continent

      I hear they're pretty popular in Thailand too.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Above everything else... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      sorry mate! Cricket will work with only people from sub-continent. its funny how geographical association doesn't necessarily give away ethnicity.

      It was a joke mate,

      Anyone using this study for actual profiling needs their head examined, from the other-side of a jar of formaldehyde. I know enough Asian women (both in Asia and the west) to know half the list is bollocks. Besides, I suspect the list is from prominently English speaking nations, so we'd be talking about western Asians (England and Australia included, where Cricket is popular).

      Western guys wanting to meet Asian women in Asia dont use OKCupid, DateInAsia is more popular.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  18. What white people really like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Would be to not read stupid articles like this one.

  19. Idiot Online Dating Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Seriously, what kind of losers join online dating sites? I'm no jock, in fact in my teenage years, I was the painfully shy stereotypical Star Trek nerd. I actually hid in my room when people come visit. My parents also nicknamed me the "Wet Blanket" because of my typically nerdish cynical view of life . Finally, I realized that going on this way will not only label me as a loser forever, but also an "evolutionary loser" since I will never pass down my genes. I took a deep breath, joined a hiking club, found that I was good at it, also found out that I was a natural leader and good at public speaking, impressed a girl,who later became my girlfriend, who later became my wife. All you reading this and are thinking of joining online dating sites better rethink your lives or you end up being life long losers living alone with 100 cats. Instead, go join a real-life club or organization where you meet people face to face. There are thousands of sports clubs, volunteering organizations, hobby groups, social clubs etc. that are a million times more useful and satisfying than reading some stranger's made-up online profile.

    1. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by similar_name · · Score: 1

      I just like having sex with random strangers. Bars, online, clubs (like the ones you mention), they are all good. Promiscuous men are the real evolutionary winners. How many kids can you have with one woman. 15, maybe 20 tops. A real evolutionary winner can do that weekly. :p

    2. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Except that nowadays most women will use contraceptives. Especially those available for promiscuous men.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not an either/or thing. You can join a dating site and go out and meet people. Having hobbies and meeting people is healthy even if you already have a relationship. Joining a hiking club with the explicit expectation to pick up a girl there is not such a good idea. It might happen, but it's not what hiking clubs are for (unlike dating sites).

      I go out and meet people, my wife goes out and meets people, yet we met on a dating site. My brother goes out and meets people but is still single. Dating sites definitely fill a useful role, and according to various surveys, they do often lead to healthy and stable relationships. Don't expect them to be a substitute for having a life, because they're not. But that doesn't mean they add nothing of value.

    4. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idiot.... You're bragging about fathering maybe 15 or 20 idiots from bimbo mothers a week?

      Sounds to me like you're out to destroy the human race, not help it succeed.

    5. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by JMan1 · · Score: 1

      Well don't you enjoy feeling smug and superior? I joined an online dating site, met the woman who is now my wife, and together we acquired two cats. There's nothing wrong with online dating -- it's much more direct than joining random clubs to try to meet someone and there's nothing inherently superior about a relationship that started in a hiking club compared to one that started online. We know several other married couples who met online and all are happy and stable relationships.

    6. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I don't like sports clubs or volunteering, and my hobby revolves around a particular small group offering no dating opportunities. I don't meet a lot of new people anymore. Internet dating provided me an easy way to get a pool of people I knew were looking, and gave me quick access to check if we seemed compatible before I bothered talking. I got a lot of duds, just like you would hitting up women in bars, but ultimately I found someone I'm very happy with. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but it works very well for some people.

    7. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Evolution doesn't care about the human race, or how smart it is. It only cares about those who breed the most. If being intelligent isn't adaptive and gives a survival boost, or increasing the odds of reproduction, or the survivability of the resulting children, then it will not be selected for. If being a promiscuous moron is best fit for the environment, then being a promiscuous moron is indeed good for humanity (in a sense).

      Evolution doesn't give a rats ass.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    8. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't "promiscuous men" redundant. Seems like fidelity is inversely proportional to a man's sexual options. I, myself, can't get the Warden to approve any time in the yard.

    9. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Informative.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Idiot Online Dating Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! So then I want to be a poor, stupid, catholic with no real earning potential.
      Then I will be a real evolutionary winner.

  20. Sick of threesome requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a dating site. If a woman lists herself as bisexual, all she'll get are propositions for threesomes.

  21. Low wages? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Geeks make low wages? I thought they decent amount of money.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  22. 100 Cats? by VirginMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I think 100 is a bit excessive, but how about 1 or 2? I used to live with 2 cats but now only have one and think it is wonderful but what really makes my life enjoyable is the 40k comic books that I own. And no, I don't see anything wrong with being a nerd! I feel that I have been a happier person than most other people and my "secret" is to simply do what *I* enjoy and not giving a damn whether other people do the same thing and/or approve of it or not!

    --
    When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    1. Re:100 Cats? by sourcerror · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your nickname tells it all ...

    2. Re:100 Cats? by g00ey · · Score: 1

      I agree with that. I'm actually tired of the whole geek stereotype (even though I do like joking about it). I sometimes hear people saying; "I don't want to do this or that because it is too geeky or that is gay ..." and I don't understand it! If there is something that you are genuinely interested in, then GO FOR IT and don't listen to what the society tells us. It' OK to joke about your interests showing that you don't take yourself too seriously but never apologize for them. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about something.

      What is wrong, however is if your interests turns into an abuse that affects your social life and so on, but that is different story and has in my opinion little to do with the negative stereotypes associated with them.

    3. Re:100 Cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting something key about the "I don't want to do this because..." problem. When people make decisions, we usually decide whether or not to do something, then we come up with the reasons supporting our choice. It's really really hard for us to consciously make a decision about something, and then stick with that choice. And we are REALLY good at coming up with excuses for why we didn't follow through.

      The funny thing is, it takes practice to get good at consciously making choices, but first you have to make the decision to start making decisions.

    4. Re:100 Cats? by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      You sir, need mod points. It took me over a quarter century to figure that out.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    5. Re:100 Cats? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      What is wrong, however is if your interests turns into an abuse that affects your social life and so on

      Here's where you get into difficult territory though. Realistically, there is a stigma attached to "geekdom". The instant you embrace it at any level, it will have at least SOME effect on your social life. There will be some people who will shun you. It WILL have some effect on the number of dating opportunities that are available to you.

      The reality is that you really can't have that stipulation at all, as ANY level of this is going to "affect your social life". The only thing to determine is what the appropriate balance between the two is, and IMHO, no one is fit to make that call except for yourself, which basically throws out the whole idea of limitation in the first place.

      That's even aside from geographical differences. The geekiest people in the world can still seek out other geeks if you're in large cities where you're more likely to find others sharing your interests, and you can still maintain a very sizable circle of friends with fellow geeks. On the flip side, someone who would bee seen as very mildly geek might be a social outcast in the middle of a rural town area the primary interests are NASCAR and soap operas. Should the geek born into the city get to be geekier than the geek born in the rural area merely due to luck?

      The last paragraph is actually applicable to me greatly. I occasionally watch sci-fi, and I am into computers. I don't have a GPL-style neckbeard, I don't play any table-top games, and I don't dress geeky - jeans and polo or a nice t-shirt, etc. Heck given my rural upbringing I even hunt and fish a lot. Got my own bass boat and a pickup truck. In most parts of the world, I wouldn't even be considered a geek - in context a lot of people would consider me more of a redneck than a geek. Here, in the middle of nowhere in SC, I've been called a "nerd" just for having a college degree . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  23. Re:white men? by skine · · Score: 1

    Goddamn Canucks!

  24. 1990 called by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they want their jobs market back.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:1990 called by antdude · · Score: 1

      When they are employed, man. I know some employed ones who make decent amount. They have video game consoles, big screen TV/televisions, fancy computers, nice home theaters, etc.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:1990 called by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      When they are employed, man.

      When I'm working I make lots of money and pay lots of taxes.

      Right now, I'm the government's bitch and I'll speak nicely of them if I want my unemployment benefits that I need while they strangle me with bureaucracy and I learn new skillz so that I can go back to making lots of money and paying lots of taxes.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    3. Re:1990 called by antdude · · Score: 1

      Everyone has to pay a lot of taxes. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:1990 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the late 1990s where the cash from bad government decisions created a 'stock bubble'?

      When I started this in the EARLY 90s I never expected to make over 50k a year. Even that was to be after 15-20 years in. That was the average stats. I knew what I was getting into even back then.

      Then the bubble kicked in and suddenly I was making 3x what I was a couple years before. I knew something was abnormal. 30 years of average salary stats do not suddenly change.

      This unfortunately created a whole generation of programmers and IT people who overvalue what they are worth. I do not begrudge people who get a high salary. Good for them. But I do question the business that gives it to them many times.

      Instead of buying tons of flashy cars and toys I took my money and squirreled it away on debt and sound stock buys. I bought a house I knew I could afford long term. Oh it was tempting to jump in and 'do what everyone else' was doing. Now ladies and gentleman it is time to pay the check. As I saw the markets going up and up. What I learned in the simple economics classes I took 'what goes up will come down and hard'. I am debt free (bought my house outright), and even have a nice little nest egg. I still have to be careful with it and make sure my spend is not bigger than my out and magically debt evaporates as I have the extra to pay it.

      People think 'oh your a computer programmer you must make a lot'. It was not even true in the 80s. It was true for a few 'hot shots' but for the 99% case it was not really true until about 1998.

      What we are seeing now is a return to norm. It may even over react. As the market has a lot to make up for years of overspend. The days of having 3 interviews and 4 offers to hire are over. It is back to 50 resume sends, 3 interviews and maybe 0-2 job offers if you fit the position.

    5. Re:1990 called by operagost · · Score: 1

      Actually, 47 percent of households pay NO income tax. In fact, many of these get a credit back. That being said, we have double and triple-dipping in the form of state and local income tax, sales tax, excise fees, property tax, head taxes, etc. So, I guess you're right after all.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:1990 called by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, taxes suck. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  25. lies in the summary... by Kristopeit,+M.+D. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the groupings give a glimpse of what makes each culture unique

    NOT TRUE. the groupings give a glimpse of what makes members each culture who would sign up for a dating website named "okcupid" unique.

    1. Re:lies in the summary... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      That counts as the single most conveniently ignored fact for Christian and the rest of the Okcupid team.

      They can be great for laughs, and I've laughed at them... but I've also seen indications that they aren't just joking, and probably think they know a lot more from their half-baked statistics than they do.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  26. Off topic, sorry by rve · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For some reason the forum in the idle section seems to be broken in any browser I've tried. When I click to view a post, all the other posts in the topic disappear. Is there a way to turn this off?

    1. Re:Off topic, sorry by Keill · · Score: 1

      I've been having the same problem on slashdot for a while now, and it's really annoying :( I only want to view the post I selected on that page - not select it in isolation :-/ Feels like it's double-clicking instead of single-clicking or something similar? (Using firefox 3.6.8 (about to upgrade to 3.6.9) on win-xp SP3).

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    2. Re:Off topic, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remove the leading "idle." after http:// in the URL and reload.

    3. Re:Off topic, sorry by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      I've had the same issue so thanks for the work-around. On the other hand, it does confirm that it's the slashcode for the idle section that's broken and not a problem with our browser(s)

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  27. Hmmmph! by rueger · · Score: 1

    On behalf of all white guys who don't golf, don't read Tom Clancy, and don't worship Van Halen, I offer up Cee Lo Green.

  28. Uh oh... by mrgiles · · Score: 1

    All these years I thought I was white, yet I stopped reading Tom Clancy in my teens, I don't listen to Van Halen, and have never payed a game of golf in my life. (I assume that mini-golf doesn't count) I need to sit down, my entire world-view of myself just came crashing down!

    1. Re:Uh oh... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Minigolf counts!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    2. Re:Uh oh... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      You are whiter than I am then. I've heard of the name Tom Clancy but didn't know he is/was(?) an author, never heard of Van Hallen, and never played a game of mini-golf in my life (I assume that crazy golf doesn't count).

  29. Re:white men? by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

    Behind you

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
  30. Soul food? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    WTF is soul food? Never even heard of that.
    Maybe instead of eating the meat of animals, they are eating their souls? :-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Soul food? by Cassander · · Score: 1

      "Soul Food" is the politically correct label for African-American food. Think fried chicken & waffles, collard greens, okra, grits, chitluns... Basically southern food that was traditionally popular with the less economically-advantaged people in the south.

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
  31. Uhhh... by tool462 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the results white men like nothing better than Tom Clancy, Van Halen, and golfing.

    I'm pretty sure this should be categorized under "The Wrong Kind of White People".

    1. Re:Uhhh... by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking the lists should be called "reasons why people of different cultures remain single".

      Unfortunately, I'm wrong.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    2. Re:Uhhh... by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      According to the results white men like nothing better than Tom Clancy, Van Halen, and golfing.

      I'm pretty sure this should be categorized under "The Wrong Kind of White People".

      Nah, it's just things that middle-aged white men like.

      Now get off my lawn, sonny!

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    3. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a white male and OkCupid member I'd like to say that
      a) I like Van Halen
      b) I live Tom Clancy novels (not the movies)
      c) I DO NOT Golf. Never saw the point. If you just want to get away from your wife, do anything she doesn't like - bowling, hiking, camping, computer games, whatever.

    4. Re:Uhhh... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      As a white male and OkCupid member I'd like to say that b) I live Tom Clancy novels (not the movies)

      I'd think Jack Ryan would at least post as Anonymous Hero.

    5. Re:Uhhh... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      So, liking Tom Clancy (a great author who's loved by men, women, and people of all races), Van Halen (eh, they're alright i guess, but they have fans of all genders and races), and golf (again, fans of all genders and races) makes them 'wrong'? What's your idea of the 'right' white person? Someone with spinners on their car blasting Ja Rule?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Uhhh... by tool462 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuff_White_People_Like
      Relevant quote:

      jokingly refers to other classes and subcultures of white people as "the wrong kind of white people"

    7. Re:Uhhh... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this should be categorized under "The Wrong Kind of White People".

      That's half-right. David Lee Roth or, um.... oh, right, Sammy Hagar?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  32. Like many nerds, you are over analysing by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Such stuff is an ADVERTISEMENT. The woman is trying to sell herself, so she lists stuff that she thinks make her attractive to others.

    Normal people don't spend all their time thinking everything through as if it is a move in a chess game.

    Think of it as going to an exotic location on holiday just to bake in the sun. You want to world to see you as an exciting person who has seen the world, when all you really want to do is not do anything at all.

    Really, the reason nerds often do bad with women is because they overthink it all. STOP. If women were complicated, jocks wouldn't be able to deal with them.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such stuff is an ADVERTISEMENT. The woman is trying to sell herself, so she lists stuff that she thinks make her attractive to others.

      Sounds about right. The whole "active, sportsy, outdoorish" activities are a way to imply they are fit and good looking; or at least want you to think so. Personal ads have sort of a special code like job ads or work evaluations.

      We all know that video games, watching movies, reading, etc. are stigmatised hobbies that have a lot of negative associations with them. Everybody pads his/her profile with stuff to make them look better and omits the more socially frowned upon hobbies.

    2. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, when you're on a dating site, it's very much worth it to repel the people you're not interested in. If you seem attractive to everybody, you'll be approached by everybody, and you're in for a lot of work trying to figure out who might possibly like the real you. Instead, be honest about your bad side, and you might find someone who doesn't mind that bad side.

      Of course it's also good to be aware of your bad aspects and work on them. Nothing wrong with liking comic books (to take just one example), as long as it doesn't completely dominate your profile.

    3. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      A strategy doesn't have to be thought through to be a strategy. It just has to be applicable.

      It is possible to overthink women and be successful with them. You just have to be comfortable knowingly getting them drunk.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    4. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by SlappyBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, from the female end, simply posting a dating profile means being flooded. The male of our species isn't discriminating or subtle or easily discouraged. Especially online.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    5. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I guess that means that for women it's even more important to emphasize aspects that might repel the flood of indiscriminating men.

      Or, if they're unrepellable, just ignore them and actively go looking for interesting men. Approach those that are honest about negative aspects that you can live with (or even like).

    6. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The woman is trying to sell herself, so she lists stuff that she thinks make her attractive to others. And yet NONE of them list the skill "Able to tuck both ankles behind my ears!" Go figure...

      Really, the reason nerds often do bad with women is because they overthink it all. STOP. If women were complicated, jocks wouldn't be able to deal with them. Truer words were never spoken. All women are attracted to the bulge in a mans pants -- his wallet!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Like many nerds, you are over analysing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ORLY? I thought the reason I do so bad with women is because I am fat, pale and awkward. I drink a 2 liter of coke a day which makes my halo trigger finger twitch faster than a hummingbird with parkinsons and fuels my ever deepening anxiety problems. Of course, I can't really speak for us as a group. Since the advent of work from home, pay at the pump and automated checkout, I haven't had to interact with a real person since 1998. Pretty sure you're all just a figment of my imagination.

  33. I'm 1of72 virgins to greet Suicidal Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the corpse-exploding suicide bombers are on their way to rush into Heaven, I'm 1 of 72 virgin neckbeards that will smite them back down to Hell by Thor's Hammer.

    Odinai will be pleased.

    1. Re:I'm 1of72 virgins to greet Suicidal Terrorists by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      I said 72 Virginians would be waiting. What did you think I said?

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    2. Re:I'm 1of72 virgins to greet Suicidal Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concord Virginians? My favorite swine.

    3. Re:I'm 1of72 virgins to greet Suicidal Terrorists by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Sorry, then you're no Virgin Mary, you're Valkyre.

  34. Women selling theirselves NAO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like another COP that I've heard before that likes to accuse somoene of doing something illegal just to hand-out tickets that give bonuses to the judge's retirement fund and sucessful prosecution (was a recent court-case). If that were the case, then all these websites would be shut down for all manners of pederasty, stalking, and prostitution.

    I continually am told that people my age are a lost cause and a lost generation that will not inherit the lifestyle of my parents. This, and I don't have any friends my age because I am just a completely different man that I prefer to study and converse with someone well into their 70's and 80's. I think there is much more at stake: the parents failed with their failed children, because it's out of our hands: the world pacified everyone for the non-domesticated religious wackos to grow around them as-is the case in Europe and East-coast America today.

  35. Well.... by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    I do like me some Van Halen, but golf?! I'd rather carve out my eyes with a rusty nail that play that 'sport'

  36. Re:white men? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

    How dare you think that as a Canadian I don't like Van Halen!

    That wasn't an extremely polite way of saying that... admit it, you're not actually Canadian, are you? You're from New York! Nice try, NY, but -real- Canadians would apologize for being Canadian and liking Van Halen, and then would invite AC to have a beer.

  37. YOU ALL ARE WRONG. Race is caste, not Melanin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at race as a measure of your melanin in your skin then you will fail.

    As well, it's pronounced Holy Cau-Cacian (not little-cock Asian)

    White and Black is the same melanin-anomaly from mutated genetics, because skin is supposed to be able to heal itself as well as absorb light, yet you see that Blacks are actually the same anomaly as reverse Albinism. The more people breed into distant branches of genetics then this over-tampers the genetics responsible for melanin.

    Just an example of this is to study when some people on India mated to druids from Europe to create the Kelt named Japheth the son of Noah known in the collective Holy Bible that founded Norway; The Kelts that migrated to the north region of the Mediterranean sea then mated with Abramids that were resonsible for most of the latination branches that slowly migrated were somewhat isolated forever from the others due to differences.

    Shemites are Arabs that have more asian-blood in them than Abrahamic.

    What none comprehend is that much of Africa had "light-skinned" people on the continent from the beginning before the genetics began to foul-up. It was long practice that anyone different was sent to "fairer" climates through trading routes, and so you see why the more Hamitic Celts migrated to around Spain and then landed on Ireland.

    None realize that most of Africa is in-fact dark-skinned Asian, like Shemite but none no the difference because they they're looking at skin as race rather than body physiology.

    1. Re:YOU ALL ARE WRONG. Race is caste, not Melanin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this I don't even

  38. GOOGLE-ANALYTICS pays most of these Free sites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GOOGLE-ANALYTICS I know, because I've seen some of the monthly-checks webmasters receive, for selling their data to Google.

    I once used some of these Social websites for socializing, then I realized the "Dating" aspect is what attracts all the 'tards and felons that you just don't know who you are talking to.

    Anon is like Allah/Loki in that regard; the profiles or person you think you are conversing to could be just a series of photographs from years ago that they use to troll you into revealing your photographs so their cycle continues to steal your identity to troll more photographs from someone else.

    It smells like CIA all over the place.

  39. Re:white men? by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Why is this modded troll? This article is entirely about Americans (and not just white ones). It's worth pointing out that this analysis says nothing about people from other countries.

  40. Parroting liberal talking points is insightful? by quibbler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is "insightful"? Slashdot is sliding, fast. Mods, this is flamebait. Get a clue.

  41. Interesting that "White People" like red socks and by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Interesting that "White People" like red socks and NASCAR. There couldn't be a little bias here possibly, or would I really find that Italians, Norwegians, Russians, Africans and Bosnians really do have this type of interest.

  42. You Americans have beer down there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all this time, I thought your beer flowed plentiful on every street corner as natural springs like it says here in this American tourist guidbook.

    And to think I spent all this time bottling water I thought would be safter to drink, when I could just get off the bus and reach down into the gutter to try some of that flowing American beer.

  43. That ignore a simple fact by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Lying.
    "I like cycling a lot."
    "me too!".

    So if the woman is not really cycling but used it as a filter , she is back to point zero.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:That ignore a simple fact by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      Has the risk of a counter-play against a lie ever discouraged any human being from saying a lie?

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  44. Ever hear of conditional probability? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    Parent post has it half right... What they mean by "white men" is "OkCupid users who identify themselves as white men."

    There's also a few other sizable demographics that might be interesting, such as "People who identify themselves as white men and who don't do any sort of online dating."

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  45. Re:DING DING DING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah. it was just a trick to find the the most batshit insane conservative here.

    All the other conservatives ignored his post. You didn't.

    Guess what you are!

  46. Another Okcupid slashvertisement by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    Does slashdot have a stake in OKC or what?

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:Another Okcupid slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OK Cupid blog does some really fascinating research on the data they have. Sure you may not think much of OK Cupid, dating sites, or even the people who sign up for dating sites, but even if you don't, they have a large data set, and very interesting patterns form, some of which really show our animal natures. Read through their blog, it is very cool stuff. I am not at all in-tune with sociological research, but this is the most interesting stuff I have read on the topic, and it borders on serious academic research.

  47. If I only had mod-points... by DeionXxX · · Score: 1

    You win sir.

  48. better name 'USA white idiots'-list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    utter complete BS list..

  49. Re:white men? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    To learn telling the difference you can start here.

  50. Re:white men? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    admit it, you're not actually Canadian, are you? You're from New York!

    You'll have to forgive us Americans for wanting to pretend we're Canadian.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  51. Wrong! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    According to the results white men like nothing better than Tom Clancy, Van Halen, and golfing.

    I'm 5 minutes in the sun away from people telling me they "loved me in the movie Powder", and I still don't like any of those.

  52. But false advertising hardly seems the answer by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But false advertising hardly seems to be a way to start a relationship you'll actually enjoy.

    For a start there's the aspect that you're essentially starting your relationship with a lie. It's not a way to say "let's trust each other" in the long run. Once you're aware that she lied her ass off to land what she thinks is a prize male, what else is she lying about? It's not even a way to boost confidence, as basically if she was after a generic prize male and not after someone actually matching or anything, you're nothing more than a fungible commodity.

    But that's not even the most important part.

    The more perverse part is that it's selecting someone whose personality is pretty much guaranteed to not match hers. A guy who's actually into camping and going fishing and traveling to exotic locations, is going to want to actually do that. That's what he's interested in, and that's what makes him happy. But if she really hates those, only put those in to seem more attractive, and is actually into watching soap operas and shopping... that's not going to be all that good a match, is it? At some point down the line it's either going to mean a lot of being alone on weekends for her and whining about how men are so insensitive as to go fishing and leave her alone, while the guy is still doing his activity solo in spite of having been mistakenly thinking that he found a girl to accompany him. Or it's going to mean her freezing her ass off in a tent on some mountain and hating every minute of it, just because she lied about it before. Or various other variants of essentially not being particularly happy with what the other's actual interests are.

    On a site designed for matching interests, why not, you know, actually try to actually match interests?

    If your interests are shopping for clothes, why not put that down and maybe find a guy who's also into shopping for clothes? Granted, he'll probably be gay, but still... ;) Or at least someone who knows up front what he's getting into, and is prepared to resign to that fate.

    Essentially, I'm reminded of The Beauty And The Beast. It's apparently actually a story which can cause women to stay in an abusive relationship, because they learned that eventually they'll change the beast. (At least according to one study.) Or even essentially look for the most fashionable beast on the block, because, hey, you can change him later. Except the beast never changes, and nagging him will just get you to see a bit more of the beast part. Usually coming at high speed at you.

    In this case she's choosing to attract the kind of person which is pretty much guaranteed not to actually like the real her. It's just fishing for a different kind of beast. And if anyone is thinking that either beast will change, they're still going to have a funny surprise down the road.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      While you were typing all that, I just lied my way into dates with three banging hot chicks who are into long walks and pilates-skydiving or whatever the hell it was that I ticked. Now, which of us has fitted genes, Poindexter?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I don't know that you have to view it that harshly. When combined with the white men's words, it seems like people are trying to pick the aspects of themselves that would most appeal to the opposite sex.

      Men are trying to pick things that make them sound cool and masculine. Hard rock, outdoor activities, fixing stuff. That doesn't mean they don't like those things, but I'm going to bet that it hides a fair number of guys who also like a few girly artists or who enjoy racing, but probably spend as much time playing video games.

      Similarly, with the girls, many probably do enjoy hiking and campfires - most girls I've met do like these things. They just don't do them every weekend. But it sounds a lot better in a profile than "well most weekends I go shopping and then hang around the house and watch movies."

      I guess I'm saying, you can take it as lying and misrepresenting, or you can take it as filtering the truth about someone and only showing what they think will be he most interesting parts.

      For example, if I wanted to make myself sound cool and manly, I could honestly say that I love camping, I race cars, I compete in pistol shooting competitions, I have build houses, I play guitar, and I play football. These are all true things about myself. I could also say that I work as a software engineer, bake bread and cakes for fun, enjoy musical theatre, love video games and DND, and build my own PC's. These descriptions are both completely factual - what this study is showing as much as anything is which one people will think will be more attractive to the other sex.

    3. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      You can call it whatever you like, but "filtering" truth into something mostly false is still a lie by any other name.

      And my objection to starting a relationship with lies is basically the same, even changing "lie" to "filtering truth to something more acceptable." We just established we're two people who'll "filter the truth to something more acceptable" when it suits out purposes. Maybe I'll filter the truth just a bit when I say I was in a meeting with mid-level management, when I was actually banging a chick who's a manager at McDonald's. I'm not doing something as ugly as "lying", I'm just filtering truth to make it more acceptable to the wife, see? And maybe she'll just embelish a little when she says she was working out late at the gym with her fitness instructor. Riding him counts as a work out, right?

      But as I was saying, even that's not what I find the silliest. It's still subverting the whole idea of actually matching interests.

      You can have something which on paper looks like a match made in heaven:

      He: likes camping, lifting weights, dancing

      She: likes camping, fitness, dancing

      And in reality be more like two different sets of something completely different. He loves SF movies and hates chick flicks, she wants to see every soap opera ever made and thinks Star Trek is teh yuck. His idea of a happy weekend is end-to-end raiding Icecrown Citadel, hers is trying to nag him to help move the furniture around. (A surprisingly popular passtime with women, it turns out.) Etc.

      They could probably agree that they could kinda tolerate going hiking together once, but let's plan that for next year.

      Wouldn't it be more productive to just look for a match for the actual interests in the first place?

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    4. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by dbet · · Score: 1

      They're not false advertising. The okcupid trends article simply picked up phrases that were in the profile. There's a difference between "I go camping all the time" and "I wish I did more camping", but both show up with "camping" in the profile. A lot of women may talk about nature and horseback riding even if they don't do it all the time (and according to TFA, this is the case).

    5. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by spads · · Score: 1

      Yes, but men have innate sympathy and gullibility toward the female (similar to the mate of the black widow spider), so frequently the lie will work. Women definitely seem to (naturally?) select for the stupid ones.

      --
      Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
    6. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I did all that in the time he took to type "fungible."

    7. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it all depends on degree. I guess its the difference between "spin" and "lying." There's a big difference between saying "I like hiking" when you don't get out as often as you want and saying "I was at work" when you were banging the secretary. Saying "I live for hiking" would be a similar level of lie.

      If you limit people to what they actually spend *most* of their time doing, you're looking at a bunch of profiles saying "I sit in a cube for 8 hours and then wash a bunch of TV shows I don't really care, eat too much for dinner, and go to sleep."

      You're acting as though the profile is going to set your relationship in stone. In reality, it's listing a set of things that

      a) You think define you well enough to provide a useful match starting point. and
      b) Are attractive enough to someone else that they'll get to know you better.

    8. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by azmodean+1 · · Score: 1

      The thing that this thread seems to be ignoring is that BOTH sides are lying, and BOTH sides expect the other side to lie.

      The thing is, this is not a side effect of online dating, this is the same as regular dating!

      Your typical person (male or female) presents a generic, uninteresting set of interests tailored to appeal to the opposite sex, and only slowly as a relationship progresses do they drop the pretenses and reveal their real interests. That is assuming that they really want a long-term relationship. In that case the have to "play the game" long enough to get into a relationship, then they can start being genuine.

      The reason for this is all the people who aren't interested in long-term relationships, and whose primary interest is the process of dating itself. The actual interests these people have is immaterial, because the activity that they are really interested in is... DATING. The whole process is a game, and the rules of the game dictate that you fit a certain mold pretty precisely based on sex/age/race/etc.

      If you really just want to meet someone you are really compatable with, you either need to "play the game" and try to find someone else who is doing the same thing AND who shares your interests (remember, they aren't allowed to tell you about those interests initially), or you can try to avoid the whole dating scene and find someone with matching interests through some other venue, such as by pursuing the more social aspects of your interests and attempting to meet someone who shares them.

      The whole thing about women saying they are interested in outdoorsy stuff when they really aren't is just a side effect of those activities being "in" right now, so it becomes extremely difficult to find people who actually have those interests via regular dating (including dating sites).

      Note I'm not looking down on anyone for this, if my life were a bit different it seems like it would be a fascinating pastime. The deception only becomes a problem if both of the participants aren't on the same page about it.

      Given the above, if you go into a normal dating scene expecting people to be genuine with you from the outset, there are definitely going to be problems.

    9. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      But false advertising hardly seems to be a way to start a relationship you'll actually enjoy. Two words: padded bras.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:But false advertising hardly seems the answer by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      I hate it as much as you do, but this view is, it turns out, naive. It's kind of like the Prisoners' Dilemma with a hundred thousand participants. There's no question that many, many more successful and happy relationships would turn out for everybody if everybody was completely, bluntly honest; but that system collapses as soon as any notable percentage of people choose to "enhance" their profile a bit.

      The end result is the same as in many walks of life -- you have to play the game by the rules, or you're not playing the game at all. Women -expect- men to pad their profiles. If you work in IT or talk about enjoying reading or working with computers, they're already going to infer all the sci-fi and gaming and whatnot. If you waste profile space on that stuff they're going to assume that you don't have anything interesting going on, and move on.

      Or, put another way, you don't waste time advertising stuff that's not interesting. Everyone knows that McDonald's is bad for you. They don't advertise it, though. And while geek hobbies aren't "bad" in the sense of a Big Mac's nutritional info, society has laid the law down and called them unsellable. Even geeky girls who are exclusively interested in hardcore raiders aren't going to be impressed with a profile that lists only that, precisely because it means the man isn't playing the game, so there must be a red flag. (Moreover, women who value traits suppressed by society, regardless of their domain -- geek or otherwise -- are in tremendous demand and seldom appear on these sites, as they have the same kind of "niche value" as some of the more questionable authors who still see publication when writing for large franchises.)

      There is a moral line you don't have to cross, but you have to be prepared to sell yourself. If you want a girl who wants to be attractive to you, you have to want to be attractive to her. (If you don't want a girl who wants to be attractive to you, then you are looking for tolerance and not interest, and are not going to achieve a healthy relationship.) If you're not willing to put your best qualities forward, you're not putting in the effort on the girl's behalf, and in the context of massive social phenomena, society gets to decide what "best qualities" are, even if they are relevant to neither of the interested parties.

  53. Excellent plan by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    EOM

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  54. OMG I'm NOT White! by Stele · · Score: 1

    According to the results white men like nothing better than Tom Clancy, Van Halen, and golfing.

    You mean I'm not really white! My parents got some 'esplainin' to do!

    1. Re:OMG I'm NOT White! by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Someone elsewhere observed the OKCupid missed the real opportunity here: instead of grouping likes by race, they could create newer, more accurate races by grouping likes. Then a race war to end all race wars would start, with Tom Clancy fans holding the east coast, Soul Food lovers basing in the South and pushing west, while Nickelback fans surge out of Michigan.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  55. Wait a minute! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Might they also take into consideration the 1000 white males they considered for this, were all within the same age range of 30 to 35....maybe if they hooked up a few 50+ and 20 and under crowds in there, might make it a bit more relevant

  56. Religion by Geek_Cop · · Score: 1

    Perhaps there are more dumb Christians than anybody else, weighing on the results? Or are there really that many dumb, white, bible thumping rednecks?

  57. Race vs Ethnicity vs Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Race, ethnicity, and culture are distinct. I am a White male of European ancestry living the Hawaiian Pidgin culture in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood in the U.S. mainland.

  58. This Is Off Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The slider that lets you hide/reveal hidden or abbreviated comments seems to be broken in idle.slashdot.com

    Someone please inform the important people if they don't know already.

  59. middle eastern men by sorak · · Score: 1

    Middle eastern men like Nickleback? So that explains their continued popularity.

  60. As "Losing" Goes, it was Damm Good by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    Hiking clubs? Tell us you're having a laugh. I see hiking clubs walking past (in the UK) and I'd say their average age was 65. Males outnumber females 2:1. I am in a photographic club, another non-geek activity (having an art side) and the demograph is similar. Maybe a knitting club would be different (at least the ratio), but I never joined one.

    I met my wife in a dating club. I met far more girls in that club than I would ever have done outside, in what you call "real life". In my "real life" I never seemed to meet any although there was nothing wrong with my looks or build.

    It's like trying to throw a double-six with dice : the more throws you make the more likely you are to get it.

    How you meet someone doesn't matter, it's what develops afterwards. On the first dates with girls through the club, we usually moved on from the club itself as a topic of conversation within the first 10 minutes.

    And, contrary to some ideas here, and my initial worry, I met some hot stuff. My first steady GF from the club had recently been a Bunny Girl at the London Playboy Club; disbelieve that if you want (but she wasn't as good as you might be thinking). Another was near ringer for Fairuza Balk (as in The Craft) but with a better complexion and a smaller mouth - the prettiest girl I have ever seen although the personality lagged behind. Two others were nymphos, but I won't go into that.

    You say we should meet people "face-to-face". You've lost me there; that is the very point of a dating club.

    I got to know all sorts over several years. During that time I saw the most "real life" and had the most face-to-face encounters in my life.

  61. white women and "Red Sox"? by gemtech · · Score: 1

    This had to be based on the East Coast of the US. And white men and golf: I'll never understand the attaction, a lot of white males must be terribly bored in order to waste an entire morning/afternoon (or both) chasing around a little white ball. Yes, I am a white male with an actual life to live.

    --
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
  62. What the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't news for nerds, and it's in fucking idle. Why is it showing up in my main RSS feed?

    I swear I'm THIS CLOSE ---->----- to leaving Slashdot forever.

    1. Re:What the fuck by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry your eyeballs were tainted and you were forced to click and read and post.

      Also, what's with the "internet entitlement complex"? A website showing an article you aren't interested in causes very little real inconvenience to anyone.

  63. "Golfing" is NOT a word by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but "golfing" is not a word. One plays golf. One does NOT go "golfing." Dammit.

  64. 0 out of 3 ain't bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the fact I'm not an OKCupid user, I don't like any of those things - possibly, either I'm not a man or I'm not white. I'm gonna go with not white, given the general intercultural promiscuity of our forefathers. Here's to Yellow Fever!

  65. Boating and horses by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that in the women's list boating ranks above horses, while in my own experience it is exactly the other way round. My cynical guess is that anyone who can afford a boat (as Lipton said, it's like tearing up banknotes under a cold shower) is seen by a lot of women as a good prospect. People who can afford boats can afford horses, but a lot of people who like horses don't have so much money (perhaps through a belief that one horse can be reliably predicted to run faster than another.)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  66. All I did was ROFL as I saw the tag by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Ain't talking 'bout love.

    Yeah, my love is rotten to the core.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  67. Re:white men? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    It's hard to tell Canadians from really boring white people.

    C'mon now - if there's a guy with a Maple Leafs jersey on and he's holding a Molson - you've got pretty good odds there.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  68. Re:white men? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    C'mon now - if there's a guy with a Maple Leafs jersey on and he's holding a Molson - you've got pretty good odds there.

    Oh, those guys are anything but boring. They're friggin' hilarious. Almost as strange as the ones from Saskatchewan wearing watermelon helmets.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  69. "my toes" by caibbor · · Score: 1

    men list things such as guitars, nascar, tom clancy, harleys...
    women like things like "I'm blond," mascara, diet coke, flip-flops, and "my toes"

    call me a misogynist, but...

    no, never-mind.

  70. Wait... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I don't like Tom Clancy, Van Halen, or golf... (looks at arm) Hey, I never noticed that pigment before!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.