>tfw you truly realize for the first time that women are actually

File: 1460311729130.jpg (56KB, 720x478px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x478px

>>35259570
My dad taught me that when I was like 6 years old. The research I've done firsthand in the intervening years has just further proven his hypothesis.

>>35259570
desu I've been thinking that about most robots for a while now.
>Mostly NEETs
>Mostly live with their parents
>Can understand when people make different decisions to them
>Have practically 0 social skills

I'm sure there's more, but the similarities between robots and children is uncanny.

>>35259779
You're just an idiot. The term manchild is thrown around here a lot.

>>35259818
That's mean. Add that to the list:
>Aggressive and ill tempered when they don't get their own way

File: IMG_1293.jpg (100KB, 599x510px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 599x510px

>>35259570
They stop mentally progressing in their teenage years. My mom is almost 50 and is still as immature and naive about life as any middle school girl I've encountered.

They literally can't even any other perspective on life besides their own and will not permit any contradicting information past their brain filters. If by chance something does make it through and their feefees get hurt you'll never hear the end of it.

>>35259901
>They literally can't even any other perspective on life besides their own and will not permit any contradicting information past their brain filters. If by chance something does make it through and their feefees get hurt you'll never hear the end of it.

Again, how is any of that different to /r9k/?

File: IMG_1493.jpg (50KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x300px

>>35259945
The stupidity of so robots here doesn't even scratch the surface of the depth women will reach.

And many robots are truthers, ready to accept information as long as it rings true. Even if a point is blatantly fact a woman will still deny it and replace it with her own.

>>35259570
I think that It was Aristotle who came to same conclusion.

>>35260107
>ready to accept information as long as it rings true

No. For example whenever you tell them that the median number of sexual partners for women 20-30 is 4, I've never seen a robot accept that. They always run on some tangent of how you can't possibly trust any survey of women because, despite the fact society encourages sluttiness, women don't want to seem slutty and so lie about it.

Likewise with dicks size, when you point out that the average guy is about 13cm and so the likelihood of a woman ever having taken anything larger than 7" is incredibly small. They again refuse to believe it, instead they subsitute their own reality where every guy getting regular sex is some 6'3", ripped, Adonis that's hung like a porn star.

The level of delusion around these parts is just insane, no matter what evidence you present, it won't matter because "I KNOW what I believe is correct, all women are lying, vapid, whores", or so it seems to me, and I constantly try and engage with robots on these issues, somewhat convinced that these deep held beliefs are contributing to their poor mental state. Robots aren't looking for truth, at least not the majority, they're looking to be told "it's okay, it's everyone else that's the problem".

>>35260287
>women only like Chads/tall guys/assholes
>anon: not true, here's plenty of examples
>REEE those don't count I'm right!

>>35259834
>incapable of processing information outside of your fantasy world
>conceited and non-argumentative when confronted
>unable to form opinions outside of memes and generalizations
>retarded
What are you, a woman? :^)

>>35260287
Jesus, the truth stings...

>>35260205
Wasn't it Schopenhauer?

>>35260287
No offence, but did you not describe a lying vapid whore? like 4 partners and 7 inches?

>>35260287
and heres our first toastie roastie :)

>>35260510
This and that's on average

File: Women sexual partners.png (405KB, 1888x754px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1888x754px

>>35260287
>No. For example whenever you tell them that the median number of sexual partners for women 20-30 is 4, I've never seen a robot accept that. They always run on some tangent of how you can't possibly trust any survey of women because, despite the fact society encourages sluttiness, women don't want to seem slutty and so lie about it.

Heh

>>35260593
>Pipeline still gives average of about 4

>>35260619

4.4 anon, I think a good general rule is to take whatever number she gives you and to double it.

>>35260682
It only looked at 96 men and 105 women, which means that there are only about 30 in each condition, which isn't great. How ever, if you look at the presented Cohen eta's they all corrispond to small effects. So the difference between the data (i.e. the difference in the male and female samples) isn't significant.

>>35260910

Signifance is a subjective measure especially in psychology it's not physics and quantative methods of analysis are over reated, it doesn't change that the number of sexual partners women have is greater than the number of sexual partners men have in this study, it also doesn't change the fact women lie about the number of sexual partners they have. The participant sample is low in each condition but logically it makes sense. Women have more power in reproduction than men do, women are the selectors and with birth control there is little risk to sex for women now. It makes sense the average woman would have a higher sexual count than men because they can get sex more easily. Not everything is about the math.

>>35261463
>Signifance is a subjective measure

Which is why objective tests were developed. In this case we see that there is no significant difference between the two groups, or in other words, the difference between the two groups is nothing but statistical noise.

>it doesn't change that the number of sexual partners women have is greater than the number of sexual partners men have in this study

That is quite literally the opposite of what it's showing.

>Not everything is about the math.

Except when we're talking about statistics, in which case it's exactly about the maths.

>>35261508
>Which is why objective tests were developed. In this case we see that there is no significant difference between the two groups, or in other words, the difference between the two groups is nothing but statistical noise.

Significance is a subjective measure, come on man you know there's no objective tests in fucking psychology. You're not dealing with physical measurable objects you're dealing with abstracts. Statstics is not perfect and it's hardly applicable to most schools of psychology it's just an attempt by professors and researchers who have physics envy and who get upset at conferences when everyone else tells them psychology isn't a science to make it look scientific. Most of the math in psychology is bullshit. Conceptual analysis is more important.

>That is quite literally the opposite of what it's showing.

That is quite literally what they said and what I highlighted and pointed out


>Except when we're talking about statistics, in which case it's exactly about the maths.

This is psychology not statistics, I have a huge problem with stats in psychology I think it's butchered the fucking field.

>>35259570
Don't insult lolis like that. They will always be more intelligent than grown women.

>>35261564
>Significance is a subjective measure, come on man you know there's no objective tests in fucking psychology.

I don't know how else to say this anon, they got some data, ran a few tests on the data, then reported those values. Those values showed that the difference in the average is likely to be noise and not an actual difference.

>That is quite literally what they said and what I highlighted and pointed out

I'm sorry but that's just wrong. The difference is noise, I honestly don't know how else to explain this to you.

>This is psychology not statistics

You know an average is a statistic, right? So should we ignore that statistic as well? I'm guessing not, your argument here is "Number A looks larger than Number B, therefore A is larger than B", which if this was pure mathematics wouldn't be so bad, but it isn't. We need a way of deciding if A really is larger than B or if it's just down to our sample being bias (or even something else). Your position is untenable, and I can't believe you're actually holding it.

>>35261564

And what the fuck are you talking about I just looked at it again the significance was .001 between the men and women in the bogus pipleine condition between the mens 4.0 and the womens 4.4 that is significant fuck off man.

>>35261716
>And what the fuck are you talking about I just looked at it again the significance was .001

Holy shit anon, that's eta^2. The smaller the value the smaller the effect. Did you even read the paper?
>According to Cohen (1988), an eta^2 Of .01 indicates a small effect corresponding to .2 of a standard deviation, an eta^2 Of .059 indicates a moderate effect corresponding to .5 of a standard deviation, and an eta^2 Of .138 reflects a large effect corresponding to .8 of a standard deviation.

>>35261703
>I don't know how else to say this anon, they got some data, ran a few tests on the data, then reported those values. Those values showed that the difference in the average is likely to be noise and not an actual difference.
>I'm sorry but that's just wrong. The difference is noise, I honestly don't know how else to explain this to you.

It's not noise it's .001

>You know an average is a statistic, right? So should we ignore that statistic as well?

Yes averages are bullshit too, the most common number is the most important number averages are over rated and inaccurate because outliers fuck them up too much.

>"Number A looks larger than Number B, therefore A is larger than B", which if this was pure mathematics wouldn't be so bad, but it isn't. We need a way of deciding if A really is larger than B or if it's just down to our sample being bias (or even something else). Your position is untenable, and I can't believe you're actually holding it.

Yes it is my position if a woman fucks 5 men and the man fucks 4 women then the woman fucked more people than the man. Yes it could be biased but that's where conceptual analysis comes in, it makes logical sense women have a higher number of sexual partners. The math isn't everything I know you're saying that extraneous variables or random chance could make this sample bullshit but I don't believe that to be the case. In the past 40% of men reproduced and 80% of women reproduced that means that throughout human history 60% of men who ever lived had zero sexual partners while 80% of women had at least one.

That's from roy baumeisters paper is there anything good about men. This gives evidence to the fact women on average will have more partners than men if 60% of men in the past had zero partners then it lends from credibility to what I'm saying

File: 1488555340688.jpg (55KB, 473x314px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 473x314px

So long story short, women are animals in people form

>>35261834
>It's not noise it's .001
See >>35261770

>Yes averages are bullshit too...because outliers fuck them up too much.

Fuck me anon, learn some basic stats first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance

Also if averages are such bullshit then why should I trust that study? I'm going to instead claim that all the participants in them were actually virgins except for one or two turbo-rosties, and that's skewed the mean from 0 to 4.

> In the past 40% of men reproduced and 80% of women

You know that was a brief period about 8000 years ago right? Besides what are you doing quoting all these statistics, from a psychologist as well? I thought you thought they were all bullshit and stats used in psychology more so. Looks more like a case of "everything that disagrees with me is bullshit. Everything that agrees with me is 100% unassailable truth"

>That's from roy baumeisters paper is there anything good about men.

It's a book anon, nothing but pop-sci.

>>35261770

No man, what are you talking about are you even reading the part I'm talking about >>35260593

This is the part I'm mentioning they did an ANOVA on the number of sexual partners they said it was not signficant but in the bogus pipline condition the signifance was .001 and the data strongly favored the predicted pattern.

Unless I'm totally wrong the standard for a signficant effect in an ANOVA is .05

>>35261964
You've got a basic misunderstanding here, one that I've pointed out to you. that eta value (that's the funny looking number next to the "=0.001" part). That's called an eta^2 value, if it's small, the effect size is small, you know like what they said in that paper you linked to. Which I now understand you didn't read.

>Unless I'm totally wrong the standard for a signficant effect in an ANOVA is .05

You're completely wrong, you're thinking of a p-test. In which case being less than 0.05 is often taken as meaning significant (but not always, it depends on a few other factors).

>>35261954
>Also if averages are such bullshit then why should I trust that study? I'm going to instead claim that all the participants in them were actually virgins except for one or two turbo-rosties, and that's skewed the mean from 0 to 4.

That would be a better argument than the one you're currently making and it still wouldn't change the fact that women on average lie about the number of partners they have to make it seem less. And it still wouldn't change the fact you have to hook a bitch up to a fake lie detector to make her tell the truth.

>You know that was a brief period about 8000 years ago right? Besides what are you doing quoting all these statistics, from a psychologist as well? I thought you thought they were all bullshit and stats used in psychology more so. Looks more like a case of "everything that disagrees with me is bullshit. Everything that agrees with me is 100% unassailable truth"

Source on the 8000 years ago. Yeah statistics in psychology is bullshit in most cases. Conceptual analysis is more important.

>It's a book anon, nothing but pop-sci.

Doesn't mean it's wrong

>>35259570
That can't be right. Why would a children beg for my cum?

>>35262024

I read the paper forgive me for not remembering everything they wrote in their results section when I made that picture 4 months ago.

I still stand by my argument I'm not convinced women have less partners than men and it still doesn't change the fact women lie about the actual number.

>>35259570
>tfw I'm a child in an adult body (male)

>>35262089
Then you're exactly the type I described further up the thread. Thanks for proving my point.

>>35261834
>In the past 40% of men reproduced and 80% of women reproduced that means that throughout human history 60% of men who ever lived had zero sexual partners while 80% of women had at least one.
You do realize it's possible to have sex without a child being conceived, right?

I'm pretty sure even 8000 years ago, people were smart enough to at least take some precautions sometimes to avoid pregnancy. Plus if a woman has sex with multiple guys, multiple guys have had sex, but she can only possibly get pregnant from one of them.

File: IMG_0558.png (1MB, 982x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 982x720px

I'm arab so this is about as shocking as "THE SKY IS BLUE!"

>>35262115

I don't give a fuck, I was wrong about the math I thought because they were doing an ANOVA it was a p-test. I haven't read the paper in 4 months and I haven't done statistics since 2015. I still haven't changed my mind on anything.

>I'm pretty sure even 8000 years ago, people were smart enough to at least take some precautions sometimes to avoid pregnancy.

Maybe

>Plus if a woman has sex with multiple guys, multiple guys have had sex, but she can only possibly get pregnant from one of them.

Yes but that one single woman has had sex with more men than each of those men have had with a woman. She fucked 15 guys they only fucked 1 woman.

>>35262326
>I was wrong about the math

And the conclusions you could draw from the data. You were right about one thing though, I was surprised about how many lied on the "exposure" condition, i wonder if this has changed in the intervening 14 years.

File: mwf not so positive.jpg (62KB, 623x713px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 623x713px

>>35259570
>mfw I realized for the first time that women are actually children in adult bodies

>>35262376
>And the conclusions you could draw from the data.

Yes, but you could literally just mention outliers as proof as I wrong on that.

> I was surprised about how many lied on the "exposure" condition, i wonder if this has changed in the intervening 14 years.

I doubt it

>>35262447
>but you could literally just mention outliers as proof as I wrong on that.

No. But I'm not surprised you think that at this point.

>>35262510

Yes one outlier could have fucked those averages

File: image.jpg (32KB, 485x434px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 485x434px

>>35259570
>mfw I realized this for the first time

File: janusz-korwin-mikke.jpg (50KB, 900x594px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 900x594px

>>35259570
>mfw upon realising time that women are actually children in adult bodies...
>...and men must therefore take responsibility for their actions...
>but not allowed to enact any social or legal checks and balances to women's abhorrent behaviour.

>>35262775
That's not even our main point of contention. Fuck me anon, and you claim to have studied stats as recently as 2015?

>>35263479

That's what I was arguing I don't know what the fuck you were on about