Posted by embedding-shape 2 days ago
It's likely significantly over predicting how common $100k yearly income is among the 20-35 year old "dating pool". Though probably balanced out some by being 10 year old data by now.
Back in 2014 the share of household incomes earning more than 99,999 was 34.5 in 2024 it was 42.8
For the Average Man, gaining an inch of height is worth losing roughly $25k in annual salary. Meanwhile, an inch of pecker is roughly offset by reducing annual salary by $128k.
> In a gaggle of 100 suitors, it's actually unlikely that a single one will meet all three criteria. Perfection. We now have a truly unreasonable set of standards by which to choose our dating partner.
Is it actually truly unreasonable?
Who has not seen 4000 males? Sure, you might not be able to name 4000 but that's not the criteria. You only need to learn about 1000 of them because visually you can tell the remaining 3000 are too short. And of those 1000 you only need to learn a little to tell if they're going to earn over 100k (i.e. what career path and where they rank in their cohorts).
That Blended Exclusivity Score is really a minimum so of the 170 remaining people at least 17 qualify. You don't even have to sleep with the remaining unqualified ones, make sure the lights are on and just leave if it's too short.
> A 6" wiener is even rarer than being 6' tall. The average erect penis length is 5.166" with a std dev of 0.654".
One of the many gems from Silicon Valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY
This thread is just life imitating art.
And then it's really if an angle allowed by Base to Floor (B2F) and Length (L) is compatible with an angle allowed by the other participant's B2F and L.
A single woman trying to derive pleasure from a single man has a totally different set of criteria she needs to qualify.
There’s so much psychological baggage here that I’d be really suspicious of any stats. The Kinsey Report famously found that gay men were almost half an inch bigger than straight men, and for a while that lead to a lot of speculation around sexuality being driven by maternal hormonal differences, but I think these days it’s pretty much accepted that it was probably just selection bias (that bit of the study was optional).
I will say that I've seen multiple definitions of the 666 rule where the last 6 represents either penis length or a 6-pack. From personal experience, I will say that maintaining a 6 pack makes you much more desirable in the eyes of women than, uh, the other option.
I'm also not much of a dater, but my friends always freak out at me when I tell them I've never been on a dating app. They seem to think I'd do well. ...Maybe this is my sign that I should try a dating app?
So it probably is a good proxy measure for quite a few desirable character traits, such as diligence and discipline.
That said, individual chemistry is highly variable so these particular criteria are just a proxy and negotiable. Don’t take stated criteria at face value. My now wife’s type was chubby 6-foot plus midwestern future lawyers. But then she met a 5-9 Bangladeshi in law school and got baby fever and that was that. My personal view of it is God has a plan for all of us, but if you’re an atheist you can see it as the chemistry of biological compatibility being highly complex and individualized.
What is atheist about your comment? Nothing I can see. God has a plan for us does not contradict the evolutionary factors.
In the extreme case of using many independent traits, I think one might find that most of the population is in an exclusive minority :)
[0] Use logs. If there are n extra traits that aren’t in the original three, a random person scores some expected log exclusivity points for each extra trait. (Exactly 1 point, in fact, if you use natural logs and negate the result to get positive points.) Multiply that expectation by the number of traits and the average person scores n points. e^-n is very exclusive for even moderate n!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-h...
Maybe that's what the rule tells you. Ladies love the north Europeans.
You're gonna need to be even bigger in the netherlands, both in height and salary to impress a dutch woman if you're dutch already.
In south east asia you may get away with less height and money.
And if you're planning to move to the US, then its still irrelevant, because what matters is how much you make in US compared to the cost of living of the US.
Nobody would trade making 40k net in Italy for making 80k net in US, you're actually poorer (and not just financially).
All measures are relative. Absolute wages have stopped being impressive as the world got richer in the last decades and standards of living improved.
If you're a decent software engineer, living in North Elbonia, making $20,000 / year, that's just enough to cover mortgage on a $100,000 house and live. In 30 years you've got a house and that's it.
Or you could move to the Silicon Valley and make $400,000 / year and that's just enough to cover mortgage on a $2,000,000 house and live. In 30 years you've got a house and that's it.
But when you sell your house, move back to North Elbonia, and buy a house there, you've got $1,900,000 banked. I'd take that deal.
The 6/6/6 dimensions seem to capture very little about what's actually important for the success of a long-term relationship. I guess that's fine, it's presumably a game for 20-year-olds.
Northern Europe is a region and while there can be various definitions the most common ones do not include Benelux countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe