The problem with those "calculators" is that these are not independent variables.
Taller people do tend to be smarter and more successful. You can't just multiply a bunch of codependent probabilities, get a small number, and say, "that's basically impossible!" because then you end up with situations like my (large) extended family where nearly all of the men meet those criteria, defying all "odds".
That said, unless you somehow have a comprehensive, government-funded study into delusional female dating standards that will hurt their precious fee-fees, this is the best we got.
That OkCupid study was just a viral version of one that has been repeated in Psychology many times in the past. We went over it during my undergrad well over a decade ago and before OkCupid started doing its famous blogposts.
Its been consistent every time. Men create a pretty normal bell curve of attractiveness, women create a lopsided monstrosity where basically every man is a 3/10.
A fun factoid I remember from one of those studies is they did another version both with and without a person's job/income under the picture. Men barely changed their numbers (and only did so for "slutty" type jobs) while women did what you'd expect and started fluffing richer or fancier jobbed men up.
The problem with those "calculators" is that these are not independent variables.
Taller people do tend to be smarter and more successful. You can't just multiply a bunch of codependent probabilities, get a small number, and say, "that's basically impossible!" because then you end up with situations like my (large) extended family where nearly all of the men meet those criteria, defying all "odds".
The creator of the calculator goes over that, yeah. The OKCupid study where women rated 80% of men as "below average" wasn't entirely scientific, either.
That said, unless you somehow have a comprehensive, government-funded study into delusional female dating standards that will hurt their precious fee-fees, this is the best we got.
That OkCupid study was just a viral version of one that has been repeated in Psychology many times in the past. We went over it during my undergrad well over a decade ago and before OkCupid started doing its famous blogposts.
Its been consistent every time. Men create a pretty normal bell curve of attractiveness, women create a lopsided monstrosity where basically every man is a 3/10.
A fun factoid I remember from one of those studies is they did another version both with and without a person's job/income under the picture. Men barely changed their numbers (and only did so for "slutty" type jobs) while women did what you'd expect and started fluffing richer or fancier jobbed men up.
I prefer to figure shit out without statistics. Those can be manipulated and falsified. The impressions of my actual senses are real.
If statistics contradict apparent reality, they're probably misused or wrong. Not the other way around.