FitChick Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Interesting article I found. Much of it is common sense. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Interesting read. I'd never meet a stranger at my home for the first time, no matter what, but Hubby and I were both hyper-honest when we met online and did communicate for several weeks before meeting. Link to post Share on other sites
LZ2000 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey FC, thanks for posting this article. A short but wonderful read. Link to post Share on other sites
Jane2011 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think online's as good a place as any to meet. Years ago, when I did it for the first time, a friend of mine totally made fun of me for it, only to do it herself heavily just a few years later when it became less taboo and 'nerd-associated'. I know of a couple who met on MySpace in late 2005 and are married with a kid now. Also, I'd never meet a stranger for the first time in his home, either, although I have gone over to a guy's house pretty quickly after meeting him in public the first time. Guess there's always a risk... Link to post Share on other sites
AIDsFan1488 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Yo fit chick y u talkin' bout mad random shyt when u look maddd good in booty shorts. Oh mah god you can make a brutha sweat mami . Gimme yo digits ima holla at chu latta Link to post Share on other sites
gibson Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Based on the experiences of those of my friends (who are really solid guys), co-workers and the people on LS... I think people who online date are nuts! They met crazy people, commitment Phoebes, married people, people in relationships, rebounders, people that just got dumped, people looking for FWB, socially awkward, flat out lied about who they were or what they looked like, etc. Between my friends and co-workers, only one married somebody they met through OLD and I wouldn't wish that women on my worst enemy. She gained 100+ pounds after they got married, will not work and is the most jealous and insecure women in the world. My advice get out there! Play sports, charity work, volunteer, take a class, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Makes some sense, but not nearly a large enough sample size. Would like to see one done with at least 5000 couples. Link to post Share on other sites
mostlyclueless Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Please don't talk about sample sizes unless you know what that means. Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I think people who online date are nuts! They met crazy people, commitment Phoebes, married people, people in relationships, rebounders, people that just got dumped, people looking for FWB, socially awkward, flat out lied about who they were or what they looked like, etc. She gained 100+ pounds after they got married, will not work and is the most jealous and insecure women in the world. We all know that NONE of this EVER happens in real life. Edited March 29, 2012 by FitChick Link to post Share on other sites
mostlyclueless Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 In order to need 5,000 couples with a standard alpha-level of 0.05 and beta-level of 0.80, you would be looking at an effect size of d = 0.08. Meaning that the factor you were looking at caused a change of 8% of one standard deviation, or that the two groups you were comparing had a 93.6% overlap. Sample size determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Statistical power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Please don't talk about sample sizes unless you know what that means. OK, I'll bite, what exactly are you talking about? I'm talking about statistical samples used in the process of measuring a population, either towards descriptive or predictive purpose. The larger the sample size, the generally more descriptive of the population or predictive of trends. Not carpet samples or those smoky link samples they give out at the grocery store mind you. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantis Toboggan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 We all know that NONE of this EVER happens in real life. Haha. I was thinking the same thing. People are people. No matter where you find them. Link to post Share on other sites
mostlyclueless Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 See my explanation above. You do not understand inferential parametric statistics. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 See my explanation above. You do not understand inferential parametric statistics. That is true, but I do have a basic layman's grasp of general statistics and a somewhat more advanced grasp of financial statistics enough to know that if you are seeking accurately descriptive or especially predictively useful measures, you need more than 90 couples to say anything at all worthwhile about general OLD trends. Regress that, pedant. Link to post Share on other sites
mostlyclueless Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You absolutely do not need more than 90 people to make statistical inferences. Your sample size depends almost 100% on your effect size (I say almost because you can choose to set a different alpha-level, but never would). If you have an effect that is so small that you need a sample size larger than 90 to detect it, your effect is basically nonexistent and not worth exploring. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Perhaps the S&P folks will listen to you one day and streamline that index from 500 down to 2 stocks. I like the sound of that, the S&P 2 or the Russell 10, much more compact. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
mostlyclueless Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Women love men who can't learn from their mistakes and admit when they're wrong. I wonder why you're single! Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I'm single because I dumped my feminist bitch of a GF nearly a year ago, and have been enjoying solitude with the occasional NSA since. I have no desire whatsoever for a relationship at this point, but your overtures are most flattering and appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites
amog4l Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i would rather meet someone in person than to meet people online. hate to say it, but maybe because im vain like that? or the fact that I can close people easier when I see them? Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Coincidentally, today I was going through my Spam email folder and found an email from a dating website I used to belong to. It had a success story that echoed this article about a woman in the UK who met a guy in Australia. They emailed and talked on Skype over a period of months, then he finally came to her house to meet and they took a cruise to the Caribbean. Interestingly, it turned out that they had several friends in common from thirty years ago. She will be moving to Oz soon. So this stuff happens, folks. Link to post Share on other sites
CarrieT Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I've dated from sites and I've dated from just meeting people. Honestly, I like the sites because it gets to the meat of what and who people are faster and that worked for me. Granted, it is all relative but I believe as age descends, many of us "oldies" have to rely on sites to weed out and filter to find those with similar interests. Going old school - similar interests and hobbies - doesn't work as well post 40 when mortgages and children get in the way. I am currently in a relationship with a guy I met online and we couldn't be happier - and we both agree there was no way we would have ever met through regular channels, despite our vast similar interests. Link to post Share on other sites
Oxy Moronovich Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 That article was presented by match.com, a dating site. So the article has an obvious agenda to make dating sites appealing. Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 That article was presented by match.com, a dating site. So the article has an obvious agenda to make dating sites appealing. The purpose of the article was "... to find out what couples who met online and stayed together had in common, and what made them different from those who eventually split up." It doesn't guarantee happiness if you join a dating website but gives you ways to make the odds work in your favor, since so many do the opposite and then complain they have no luck online. Link to post Share on other sites
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 In order to need 5,000 couples with a standard alpha-level of 0.05 and beta-level of 0.80, you would be looking at an effect size of d = 0.08. Meaning that the factor you were looking at caused a change of 8% of one standard deviation, or that the two groups you were comparing had a 93.6% overlap. Lord have mercy! You are quite an eclectic new member! Threesomes, getting ready to have a baby, and a master of statistics! All in one girl! Link to post Share on other sites
paloma22 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 My advice get out there! Play sports, charity work, volunteer, take a class, etc. lol. totally agree. going on first OLD meet up next week. I think its going to be an experience to say the least. Low expectations ! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts