TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

24

Being ethnic is as bad as being 5'4'' according to studies. (Racepill Part 1) (self.BlackPillScience)

submitted by Bronzehawkattack

Data Set #1

Data Set #2

In the first data set you see variable coefficient for women's race preferences in the red box.

In the second set, you see coefficents for women's preference for men height

As you can notice, regardless of male height, race variables always have a bigger coefficient (meaning it has more impact than height regardless of how short or tall) http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/guenter.hitsch/papers/Mate-Preferences.pdf

Graph #1

Graph #2

Graph #3

As you can see, 65-70% of white women and a big chunk of women of your own race write you off from the get go if you are not white. When you look at how short is undateable for women, its ranging between 5'2''-5'5'' depending on women height answering the question.

Based on studies, if you are average height ethnic you are as worse off as a 5'3'' white person everything else being equal.

That's why I always say race is almost as important as face. and that's real. Proven right by studies.

(Credit to 13k on incels.me for these, just porting these over from there)


[–]SubsaharanAmericanshitty h-index[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

I cover the Hitsch 2010 in some detail (last link in sidebar -- in the old reddit style, haven't figured out the new style yet). Even created a google docs spreadsheet with the model's marginal effects.

Regarding the interpretation though: always look at the 95% confidence intervals. None of the absolute height marginal effects were statistically significant (the 95% CI all included 0), which is why Hitsch et al interpreted absolute height as not showing an effect for that model (not sure what to think of this tbh -- seems counterintuitive given online dating standards generally -- but hey, that's what the data & their model showed). They did find an effect when they looked for if a relative difference in height matter. On that note, some of the ethnicity pref CI's indicated no statistical diff as well*.

Graph 1 & 3 are from Feliciano's work (also in side bar). Graph 2 I haven't covered though -- a citation for the source of that figure would be desirable.

I'm probably too lax with reposts, but w/e, figure someone may find some educational value in this reply

Edit: to clarify, the non-sig racial prefs were mostly due to sample size issues

Edit 2: decided to go ahead and see what Height/Race tradeoff looks like based on marginal effects. So I took the marginal effects table, removed all the categories except the intercept/baseline estimate (0.155), male looks, height and race; then I got rid of the non-statistically-significant stuff then sorted by highest to lowest marginal effect:

Variable category Female Browser attribute Male attribute of interest vs Baseline Male attribute Female Browser Estimate 95% CI Lower Limit 95% CI Upper Limit
All Median for gender-specific attributes; attribute-identical for everything else Median for gender-specific attributes; attribute-identical for everything else None 0.155
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 96–100 0-10 0.163 0.14 0.187
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 81–90 0-10 0.079 0.065 0.095
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 91–95 0-10 0.075 0.059 0.092
Height difference Gender-specific Median 5+ inches taller Same as Browser 0.071 0.055 0.088
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 71–80 0-10 0.07 0.057 0.085
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 61–70 0-10 0.053 0.041 0.066
Height difference Gender-specific Median 2–5 inches taller Same as Browser 0.05 0.039 0.062
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 51–60 0-10 0.046 0.035 0.059
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 31–40 0-10 0.029 0.018 0.04
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 41–50 0-10 0.027 0.016 0.038
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 21–30 0-10 0.021 0.012 0.032
Looks rating (percentile) Gender-specific Median 11–20 0-10 0.015 0.005 0.025
Height difference Gender-specific Median 2–5 inches shorter Same as Browser -0.04 -0.047 -0.031
Race White Other Same as Browser -0.057 -0.069 -0.043
Race White Hispanic Same as Browser -0.06 -0.074 -0.043
Race Hispanic White Same as Browser -0.068 -0.098 -0.024
Height difference Gender-specific Median 5+ inches shorter Same as Browser -0.074 -0.081 -0.049
Race White Black Same as Browser -0.075 -0.091 -0.056
Race White Asian Same as Browser -0.118 -0.131 -0.097
Race Black White Same as Browser -0.125 -0.141 -0.09
Race Black Hispanic Same as Browser -0.13 -0.15 -0.023

The answer to the question at the heart of this thread is at the bottom of the table. On average, being a black male hurts your chances of getting a first contact e-mail from a white woman worse than being a white male 5 inches shorter than the woman (remember we have to use the relative covariates since the absolutes were found not to be significant in this data set / model). But the Asian male penalty is substantially more severe. Being a white male to a black female is similarly as severe as the Asian male penalty to white women. And the last row with the Black-Hispanic differential is questionable AF and likely due to sample size (check out how wide that confidence interval is!)

Gotta keep in mind these are first contact e-mail rates though. Lin and Lundquist (2013) showed you need reply rates for the full picture, which wasn't captured in Hitsch's analyses. For instance, Lin and Lundquist data showed similar patterns for first contact, with black women sending an initial contact to black men the most -- but they were most responsive to white men.

(also may want to double check my table for data entry errors -- lmk if any are present.. turns out my google sheets version is all types of fucked up lmao)

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Combine 5'4" and ethnic and its a death sentence.

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It never began for you.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm shorter.

[–]genericpajeet0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

so much for being """"Brahman""""

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a subhuman dalit. Brahmin deep state is a reference to how our leaders keep blaming brahmins for everything, including our subhuman dna.

[–]TotesMessenger4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

 If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Michael Jackson was on to something all along.

[–]tejano_2100 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

Did you read the summary/conclusion? Because that’s not what it said at all. As for attractiveness;

“In particular, women have a stronger prefer- ence for income relative to physical attributes, such as facial attractiveness, height, or body mass index. These results are consistent with predictions from evolutionary psychology (Buss 1989, Buss and Schmitt 1993) and the competing social structure theory (Eagly and Wood 1999).”

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? The data clearly shows that race played an even bigger role than height. Whether the data was significant enough to be noted is another thing alltogether, but my conclusion wasn't one that was wrong.

[–]tejano_210-1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

It showed that women and men tend to gravitate towards similar race, which is just a fact. And your repeated stance clearly shows you didn’t read the conclusions to the study.

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

On average ethnic roasties are far more likely to gravitate to white men than white women are to any group of ethnic, that's just a fact corroborated by the other graphs I posted.

It's unbalanced, therefore making height less important than race.

[–]tejano_210-1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

That’s not what the study concluded either. It said men and women are more likely to date preference to their own race. Your statement is refuted by the very study you posted.

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Ugh, fine let me stop being a lazy-ass for a second and actually try and get my point across.

I should have provided sources to the other graph that I included in this study, (That was a separate study) as well as included my other sources that led me to this conclusion, that's my bad.

Here's the link to Graph #3's source

I put together a table set of the average exclusion rates for each race based on male and female from said graph and this is what it came out to;

Race Male Female
Whites 31% 36%
Blacks 67.5% 71.25%
Latinos 57.25% 36.25%
Asians 78.25% 47.25%

Yes, on average each race of women and men gravitated towards their own race (Except for Asian women, who actually showed a STRONG bias towards white men over their own race, this is backed up by other statistics too.) but the preference for other races were not proportionate. White women ended up being the most selective and certain ethnicities were excluded universally more than others.

On OKCupid white men had a better response rate among all races than ethnic men.

Source

Note how white men got a positive score from everyone except for black women whom they got a neutral rating from, even white women didn't get positive scores across the board.

Source

Note how once again, white men had a very high probability of getting replies compared to other races, specifically this time from ethnic women more than white women, but even then they still were the only ones white women showed interest in.

Source

This, when corroborated with the OP which tackled both height and race, should show you what I intended to explain with this thread.

[–]tejano_210-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

So I ignored everything from OKC since none of that has any validity in science and isn’t tied to any sort of study.

Even the abstract you provided a link for denied your claim (except for the preference from Asian women), but that doesn’t mean minorities as a whole exclude their own.

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

No the abstract did not deny my own claim, it said that Asian, East Indians and Middle Eastern men are more excluded than other men, and it also states that Asian men and Black women for some reason are more excluded than their gender opposites, which all backs up my claims. Quote whichever part you think contradicts my claim though.

The OKC data is simply that, data. I see no reason not to take that into account along with everything else. The last source I provided wasn't OKCupid btw.

[–]tejano_2100 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

If it’s data without analysis then it’s useless. And I don’t see you as someone qualified to analyze population data.

That doesn’t back up you claims at all. It just states that they’re not as preferred. Your title is that being ethnic is “as bad” as being short. You’ve in no way proved them to be the same.

[–]Bronzehawkattack[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

It just states that they’re not as preferred. Your title is that being ethnic is “as bad” as being short. You’ve in no way proved them to be the same.

"They're just not as preferred". So they're less desired? Which is my point.

I'm not going through the data stats of height vs race, I don't care enough to make that point. I'm just glad you admit that point that ethnics are less desired than whites.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter