I’d always believed that porn stars were pretty much unflappable, and up for virtually anything. So, I was quite surprised to see some research over at The Deets, which proved me completely wrong.

Using a porn talent agency’s website, and a ‘cool’ interface that allowed users to filter the actresses, based on what sex acts they’d be willing to perform in a film, Ed Kohler discovered that no girl does absolutely everything. And, while many adult performers are prepared to do a wide variety of different scenes, many others will shy away from things like double anal or interracial scenes, and most surprisingly, actual acting.

You can examine his data for yourself below, and see how many of the over the 900 actresses in the system are willing to give a blowjob or a handjob, and how many are wiling to swallow? But what about the 26 actresses that won’t do solo scenes, surely appearing on film naked is a basic requirement of being a porn star?

Also, out of the standard repertoire of porn scenes, you can now find out which acts are most commonplace (Solo scenes), and which are harder to come by (Double anal). Some of the findings might surprise you: for example ‘Girl/Girl’ outranks ‘Girl/Boy’ – So, does this mean we finally have proof that it’s more difficult finding sex, being a guy.

Share & Bookmark this article:

Posted by Jonathan as Analysis, Sociology at 3:58 PM EDT

No Comments »

One point that appears to be universally agreed upon when it comes to seduction is that a certain degree of confidence is required in order to meet and get to know strangers.

However, there does not seem to be consensus on how much confidence one should have, to be an effective seducer. Many people suggest that confidence is everything, and therefore one should not simply be confident, but one should actually be cocky. Others would suggest that just enough confidence is needed to put oneself in a situation where strategies and tactics can take over. Corporate Seductionists would no doubt claim that you need an actor’s ability to conceal his or her nervousness, since they want to sell scripts, that they claim will help you meet the person of your dreams.

If we are to carry out any sort of investigation, we are immediately presented with a number of problems, for example, when a person suffering from low self-esteem says they feel confident, there is a good chance that this level of confidence is different from when a professional skydiver says that they feel confident. Then, there is the Nature vs. Nurture issue: Can people change from shy to confident (or vice-versa) and if so, are people generally born shy and learn to have confidence, or do people that are confident from birth learn to be shy?

Evolutionary theorists claim that in the Animal kingdom, males are “aggressive sexual advertisers”, whilst females are more sexually discerning. This suggests that males would be very confident, whilst females would tend to be be shy. However, media reports often complain about “Ladette” culture, claiming that modern women are sexually aggressive, which contrasts strongly with the Evolutionary theory approach. Moreover, it has latterly been proposed that men are genetically shy, although the evidence to support this theory has not been forthcoming. Additionally, English language experts have reported fears that nursery rhymes will be lost in the future, apparently because modern media-influenced parents are too self-conscious to sing to their children. If there is any truth to this story, then it would suggest that both men and women in general become less confident over time.

Now, although we cannot answer all these questions directly, we do know that shyness and confidence represent polar ends of a continuum, and thus we can ask about changes over time, if we make the assumption that the skill level of a seducer correlates with relative efficacy of that seducer; we will be able to examine changes over time between a seducer’s self-reported confidence levels, and then compare these changes (or lack thereof) with randomness. - All supposing that we can gather a large enough data set.

Seduction Labs, as a non-commercial, non-partisan seduction focused website was ideally placed to study this phenomenon, since it does not encourage idolization, does not specifically advocate any particular seduction panjandrum’s methodology, and is not affiliated with any of the seduction boys clubs. The readership demographic should therefore consist of a more balanced cross section of people having an interest in seduction.

Regular readers will have noticed that there has been a survey at the top of the website for the past few months, which you’ve been encouraged to participate in (If you took the time to take part, then thank you very much for your help).

At the date of writing this article, there were a total of 483 respondents, 17 of which claimed not to be interested in seduction and 14 more who were unable to find an option listed which adequately described their situation, these groups were immediately eliminated because we are interested in studying Seducers; although the low total percentage of results removed suggests that most people were at least reasonably satisfied that the options supplied in the survey somewhat described their position. Next, 10 people described themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Transgender Seductionists, a figure that was deemed to be somewhat lower than current reported estimates of the gay population. Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Seductionists were therefore thought to have been underrepresented in the sample; this however could be simply due to the demographic of people visiting the website, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people choosing not to take part or possibly selecting the ‘none of the above’ option (if they were unhappy to be labelled in this way); this group was also were eliminated, leaving a total of 442 participants. Here is a summary table of the results:

This breaks down as follows:

22.6% of participants are female
77.3% of participants are male

36.6% of participants are more skilled
63.3% of participants are less skilled

48.0% of participants are confident at present
52.1% of participants are shy at present

27.0% of participants were confident in the past
73.1% of participants were shy in the past

Since these statistics are all unconnected, they say more about the readership of the Seduction Labs website than anything about shyness or confidence. It was therefore necessary to conduct a more detailed analysis of the results. For this, chi-squared analysis was used.

Looking at the numbers using chi-squared analysis, we see χ²=35.83 (9, p<0.00004) of which the largest contributors were:

F(m),C->C - 19 observed vs. 8.67 expected
M(m),C->S - 20 observed vs. 11.73 expected
M(l),S->S - 116 observed vs. 96.35 expected
F(m),S->S - 14 observed vs. 22.24 expected
M(m),S->S - 31 observed vs. 44.47 expected
M(l),C->C - 27 observed vs. 37.59 expected
M(l),C->S - 18 observed vs. 25.41 expected

This tells us that relative to the other categories, there were higher than expected numbers of experienced, consistently confident female seducers in the sample. Further, there was also a higher than expected number of experienced male seducers who had been confident in the past, but who are now shy, as well as higher than expected numbers of less experienced males who had remained consistently shy.

Meanwhile, there were lower than expected numbers of experienced female seducers, who had consistently remained shy, and lower than expected numbers of experienced male seducers who had consistently remained shy as well as lower than expected numbers of consistently confident but less experienced males, and lower than expected numbers of less experienced males, who had gone from confident to shy.

Of course, these findings could be skewed by the fact that we are comparing men and women together, when it’s quite likely that men and women would use different seduction techniques. In order to look for significance more closely in the numbers, we need to split it in to male and female data.

Looking at female seducers first, the lower numbers of female participants meant that χ²=6.78 (3, p<0.079) which was almost statistically significant, but not quite. Although it might be worth noting that the largest contributors to chi-squared were F(l)C->C and F(m)C->C, however a larger sample would be needed to confirm any inference.

Turning to male seducers, χ²=17.30 (3, p<0.001) which was statistically significant. Here the largest contributors to chi-squared were M(m)S->S (31 observed vs. 46.42 expected) and M(m)C->S (20 observed vs. 12.00 expected), indicating that more experienced seducers have a tendency to have been less consistently shy, or started confident and later became more shy.

Next, in order to examine the data at a higher level of sophistication, the figures were broken down further, this time into a number of 2 X 2 contingency tables. These were to compare less experienced females, more experienced females, less experienced males and more experienced males. Here, only the table for less experienced males was statistically significant χ²=6.85 (1, p<0.009) and, the largest contributors here were C->C (27 observed vs. 19.23 expected) and C->S (18 observed vs. 25.77 expected), indicating that less experienced seducers have a tendency to be more consistently confident, or less likely to transition from being confident to becoming shyer.

So, what does this tell us?

Most obviously, the results do show that men and women have different levels of confidence, based on the degree of seduction experience that they have attained.

For females, the results are not completely clear, although the indications seem to be that less experienced women tend to start confidently, and remain confident as they gain experience; there is also the fact that lower than expected numbers of shy women were found in the survey. This effect may be because many magazines aimed at women often feature articles about how to seduce men (although it will often be termed differently in the article). And, as seducers, females are usually more passive, relying on beauty, fashion and attraction to lure a man, and then subsequently making an accept/reject decision, based on his overtures towards her. At this level, relative confidence levels would not need to be especially high.

The typical comment given by women, when asked, will be “It’s a man’s job to approach a woman”. Although if media reports are correct, post feminism, some women might be prepared to be more sexually aggressive, and possibly be prepared to approach a man with a view to seduction; although I would expect this to be less common than the previously mentioned attraction strategy. However, it should be noted that further data would be needed in order to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

For males, the larger sample size means that the results are more statistically significant. Here, it would seem that less experienced males initially adopt one of two strategies; the major strategy being to start confident and stay confident, with the minor strategy being to start confidently, and become less confident over time.

This finding counters any idea that all males start out as either shy or confident individuals, who then converge to some optimal confidence level; and makes sense since publicly available novice seduction information stereotypically tends to follow the Evolutionary psychology model, which suggests that males only need to have confidence in order to improve their seduction success.

We are however more interested in the transition between less experience and more experience. So, examining more experienced seducers, the general tendency is to not remain consistently shy, or to move from confidence to shyness, which would tend to suggest that confident, less-experienced male seducers often have a penchant to be over-confident, and thus gaining experience helps them to adjust their attitude over time.

This may possibly suggest that inexperienced over-confident individuals have a tendency to rush into situations where they were unprepared, thereby ending up looking slightly foolish. Or, they may choose inopportune times to come up to women, and as a result find that they are interrupting important conversations; or fail to observe a nearby partner who might interpret the interruption as a hostile act. Alternatively, signs of over-confidence could simply be being interpreted as arrogance, by the women they were meeting.

Unfortunately, since we cannot establish a baseline confidence/shyness level, this study is unable to reveal whether confident male seducers generally become anywhere near as shy as male seducers who stayed shy after gaining experience, or whether confident male seducers become only slightly less confident, while consistently shy, but experienced, males retain a markedly lower level of confidence. It may be that persistently shy males avoid more stressful situations that more confident individuals would relish, and instead opt for personal ads, phone dating or internet based solutions, which may not require especially high levels of confidence, although this scenario seems rather unlikely.

The concluding remarks must therefore be that in order to be an effective seducer, one does not need to have extraordinarily high levels of confidence, further, very high levels of confidence seem not to be a good trait. It would therefore seem that organisations or people solely advocating that seducers become more confident are misleading their clients.

In conclusion, it seems that a small increase in confidence is necessary for some less experienced males, whilst inexperienced males who already feel very confident, would be better advised to consider tempering their confidence levels, in order to become more effective seducers.

Share & Bookmark this article:

Posted by Jonathan as Analysis, Psychology at 5:53 PM EST

No Comments »

I read recently that Kirsten Haglund has become the 83rd Miss America (Congratulations Kirsten). This fact lead me to discover more information about the Miss America contest, and I was therefore surprised to find that it has an 87 year history, with anthropometric data archived for most years of its existence. A data set such as that would thus allow me to run some statistical tests, and conduct a couple of experiments:

The first being a parallel to the main idea behind this website; namely that seduction methods change over time, and so, as a consequence, what might work at one time or in one situation may not necessarily work in the same way at a different time, or in a different situation. The type of seducee you could meet may conceivably depend upon the body type currently in fashion.

Students of seduction will be aware that the Chevalier de Seingalt, back in 16th century, would present flowers to a lady as a token of his affection; whereas if a gentleman were to attempt a similar gesture in modern times, the lady, unfortunately, would almost invariably construe it to be an attempt to apologise for some (as yet unknown) misdeed; because what was once a romantic expression of interest has now been debased so many times by incompetent, unromantic men trying desperately to regain the favour of a woman, after they had previously managed to embarrass themselves in some way.

The second idea is to test the radical feminist notion that the media has surreptitiously foisted an unrealistic idea of feminine beauty upon the public at large, and somehow forced people to favour an impractical idea of what the ideal female body should look like. As a quick example, a search of the interweb reveals comments relating to the Miss America organisation such as “The perfect body is 5’2” and 95 pounds,” although no reasoning or supporting evidence is given to support those assertions, which I note also clash with socio-biological ideas such as the belief that men are generally attracted to women displaying signs of health (long legs, hourglass figure, large breasts etc.) An examination of the extant information surrounding the history of the Miss America pageant should confirm or refute this contention.

I have also seen it mentioned that artists such as Pieter Pauwel Rubens painted larger women during his lifetime (1577-1640), with the assertion that in those times, only the rich and powerful (i.e. those able to commission a portrait) could afford to become fat, so this was considered a sign of beauty, whereas in modern times the proliferation of cheap fat laden, sugary, starchy foods, combined with the mainly sedentary lifestyles of the lower classes means that it is poorer people who become fat, whilst the better off can afford gym memberships and personal trainers. It’s possible there may be a grain of truth in this information, since it sounds superficially credible, but then there is nothing stopping a poor person from exercising without owning membership to a gym or having a personal trainer, and relatively little preventing them from eating a nutritious balanced diet. Additionally, modern painters such as Lucian Freud (1922- ) still appear to specialise in painting overweight people, so the ‘Rubens’ theory could be spurious.

Data was collected relatively easily for the years 1921-1986, however, from 1987 the Miss America organisation seems to have bowed to pressure from Feminazis, and ceased collecting contestant measurement data. Some information for more recent years was available after trawling through archived news stories, that reported previous Miss America results, and some dimensions were calculated from clues given in mentions of weight loss/gain, or clothing sizes etc. Either way, the post 1986 information is spotty at best, and should be viewed with caution.

From the information found, it was usually possible to calculate Waist/hip ratio (WHR), and Body Mass Index score (BMI). An attempt was made to calculate percentage body fat (YMCA method), but this proved to be less reliable than BMI score, and neck or wrist measurements were not available to recalculate, using more accurate methods.

From the information gathered, the following summary data was obtained:

For those who are interested in trivia, the following information was extracted from the compiled data.

• Youngest Miss America – 15
  Marian Bergeron (1933)

• Oldest Miss Americas – 25
  Colleen Hutchins (1952)
  Debra Maffett (1983)
  Marjorie Vincent (1991)
  Deidre Downs (2005)

• Smallest Waist/Hip ratio - 0.611
  Jacquelyn Mayer (1963)

• Largest Waist/Hip ratio – 0.781
  Margaret Gorman (1921)

• Tallest - 1.80m
  Katherine Shindle (1998)

• Shortest - 1.55m
  Margaret Gorman (1921)

• Lightest - 45.36Kg
  Suzette Charles (1984)

• Heaviest - 65.77Kg
  Katherine Shindle (1998)

• Highest BMI - 22.3
  Fay Lanphier (1925)

• Lowest BMI - 16.8
  Susan Akin (1986)

Using the compiled data set, the median Miss America is 20 years old, 35-24-35.5, 1.7m tall and weighs 53.43Kg. Whilst the modal Miss America is 21 years old, 35-24-36, 1.7m tall and weighs 53.43Kg. Since the mean, median and mode are all very similar values, coupled with a low standard deviation, this would initially suggest that there is some sort of template that the Miss America judges are aiming to apply, however, looking further down the summary table, the ‘r’ values tell a somewhat different story.

Firstly, we see that average age has increased by about 69% since the inception of the competition, whilst average WHR and BMI have decreased by about 40 and 50 percent, respectively. This would seem to be mainly due to the decrease in waist measurement, and possibly because of a slight increase in hip measurement over the same time period. To a lesser extent, bust and height measurements had also increased, whilst weight decreased.

This data clearly dispels the 5’2” and 95 lbs idea of beauty mentioned above. Not one of the girls was found to be 95 lbs or less, and the vast majority of Miss America winners were over 5’2” tall. The data however deserves further more detailed investigation, in view of the ‘r’ values mentioned above. So, the information was converted into graphical trends, as shown below:

Age
The trend of age currently follows a linear course, although I would expect that to show signs of levelling off in future years. The steep angle of the trend line could be because some of the early winners were very young, and in more recent times it would not be considered politically correct to physically admire girls under 18 years old.

Bust
Bust size is interesting; this measurement seems to have increased rapidly, peaking between the late 1960s and early 1970s and is now in a downward trend, defying both current popular ideas that a beautiful woman should have large breasts, and media reports that breast enlargement has become more popular in recent years.

Waist
Waist size appears to approximately mirror bust size; falling to a low in the late 1960s, and now rising. This could be a trend away from the hourglass figure idea of beauty.

Hips
The hip graph on its own is relatively unremarkable; similarly to the age graph, it shows a linear increase in hip size over the years, albeit relatively small increases, year by year.

Waist/Hip Ratio
Traditionally, a WHR of 0.700 has been proclaimed as an ideal of beauty, and up until the 1930s most of the winners had a WHR of 0.700 or greater. Post 1930, nearly all the Miss America winners had a WHR less than 0.700, with the majority of measurements congregating around the 0.667 mark. This may however be a limitation of the 0.700 WHR ideal, which might not have been intended to be such an exacting ratio. 0.700 sounds rather arbitrary, and in any case, most values would round to 0.7 if we shortened the number of decimal places at which it was stated. There are eleven measurements between 1955 and 1986 that seem particularly low, although it appears that in more recent times, this trend has adjusted itself. Unfortunately the lack of post 1986 data forestalls the confirmation of a new trend.

Height
Height shows a linear increase in size over the years; similarly to hip size it is also a fairly small increase per year. I have seen other studies of the general population that attributed an increase in height to better nutrition in recent years.

Weight
Weight seems to have fluctuated around the 55Kg level; there are a number of lower than average readings between 1970 and 1990, but the trend has reverted to the levels of earlier years more recently. Unfortunately, the Miss America organisations decision not to retain data post 1986 means it is difficult to say for sure whether of not this continues to be the case.

Body Mass Index
Doctors advise that a BMI score of 18.5 – 24.9 is considered normal. And, none of the Miss Americas measured could be classed as overweight. In fact, most were at the lower end of the normal range, though there seems to be a cluster during the 1970’s and 1980’s that were classed as underweight. The data that is available for more recent years seems to suggest that the decrease in Miss Americas BMI over the years may be a trend that overshot.

Judging from the above graphs and data, it does appear that there were a number of Miss Americas that were significantly below the population average measurements, mostly during the 1980s. However, the small amount of data I have been able to gather for post 1986 Miss Americas suggests that either the Miss America organisation has changed its judging criteria since that time, or the below mean measurements were the result of a trend overshooting, and then correcting. Obviously future Miss Americas cannot diminish away to nothing, but unfortunately for the Miss America organisation, in refusing to keep post 1986 data, it would seem to have shot itself in the foot, and left its self open to critical claims that it promotes an unhealthy body image.

I was unable to find authoritative body measurement data for the average American woman at short notice, but I was able to gather mean data for 16-24 year old women, compiled as part of a 2006 NHS Health Survey, in the United Kingdom. Obviously, there may be slight differences since this data is for UK women, and not Americans, it also covers a narrower age range than the range of Miss America winners given above. Thus, in 2006 the mean 16-24 year old woman in the UK was 1.64m tall, weighed 64.56Kg and had a BMI of 24.1. Further, according to 2005 data, the mean WHR was 0.776. All measurements which are significantly different from the majority of Miss America title holders.

As a measure of health, the average Miss America and the mean 16-24 year old woman generally seem to be in good health. BMI scores are mostly in the normal range, with few exceptions. Although if height can be treated as a measure of health, the Average Miss America would seem slightly more healthy than the mean 16-24 year old woman.

As a measure of beauty, the average Miss America has a WHR closer to 0.7 than that of the mean 16-24 year old woman.

This just leaves the fact that the average Miss America weighs about 11Kg less than the women sampled in the NHS health survey. The only explanation for this would seem to be that Miss America contestants were encouraged to lose weight before the pageant. This begs the questions, is the weight loss healthy? And why are slimmer than average women considered more attractive than normal? In the case of the first question, the answer must be, so long as the woman stays within normal BMI limits. In the case of the second question, the answer may have something to do with previously made claims that the media portrays images of low weight, slim girls to the population, although without more information, this effect is difficult to validate. On the one hand, lower weight Miss Americas seem to predate the current size zero debate, but on the other hand, to hold the Miss America organisation responsible for promoting severely underweight models throughout the media seems to be a gross over-reaction, because the majority of past winners were within normal parameters.

Returning to the matter of cycles and trends, we have clearly demonstrated, via the graphs produced (above), that body sizes and shapes that are classed as attractive most definitely change over long periods of time. I would therefore speculate that a few years into the future, the type of women which men find attractive may have changed, yet again.

Share & Bookmark this article:

Posted by Jonathan as Analysis, Sociology at 4:28 PM EST

No Comments »

Last year, a friend informed me that he had obtained some degree of success in meeting members of the opposite sex, using an internet ‘dating’ site. I therefore resolved that this might be an avenue worth pursuing, since the idea of having matches selected, and presented to me, in the comfort of my home, seemed rather appealing.

He had cautioned me that many of the members were rather too desirous to enter into matrimony, or to obtain children, but that this did not represent the bulk of the membership, and that there were a number of extremely nice people to be found.

I was rather shocked by the excessive subscription fees that these sites charge, and the devious way that they’re hidden in the small print, clarifying that it’s only free to sign up, but anything else needs a subscription. This is clearly something that only benefits the site owners, building a user base, and is quite irritating to the users of the service, especially as the sites rely on the members to do all the searching and contacting. So, what does one get over and above simply going to a bar or some other social function, and meeting people there? It seems to be a case of - the price of a few drinks, versus several hundred pounds in membership fees - and then still having to put in effort to meet people. If I was minded to spend that sort of money, I’m sure it would be better invested buying membership of some exclusive nightclub, or similar venue.

However, various people had pointed me to a certain fish related internet site, pointing out that the service claimed to be free. And, although the service doesn’t charge your credit card, it’s actually covered in AdTurds, rather poorly laid out and remarkably slow, so I can’t really say that was a particularly fun experience.

I suspect that the word ‘free’ tends to attract every man and his dog. So, unfortunately, the service seems to be little more than a web based version of soc.singles instead of being a place to meet people for romance. During my time there, someone had planned to organise a party for members (which, all criticism aside, seemed like an excellent idea) unfortunately, they picked a bar chain with a reputation for poorly behaved customers, in rather a dodgy area of London. I pointed this much out to the organiser, who seemed rather more interested in making a reputation for themselves with their ‘fan base’, than accepting help from outsiders.

The result was that one of the attendees ended up getting attacked by someone (who, I should add, was unconnected with either the event or the website). I then made the mistake of reminded the people concerned that they could have done better, and even made some suggestions of better quality places, in less rough areas.

The reward for my effort was that my account disappeared without explanation, and after creating another, so that I could enquire as to what had happened to the first account, that account mysteriously vanished too, and the same result with a third account. I later discovered that the ‘party organiser’ had spent a long while brown-nosing one of the high ups in the management structure, and could thus recommend who they felt was desirable to have on the service (or not).

I am therefore unconvinced that internet dating has any advantage over meeting people in the real world. The main fault as far as I can see is that when one is presented with a bunch of statistics and a list of interests, there is no room for any personal flair, and so the whole effect becomes rather like looking at someone’s curriculum vitae.

Anyone that has experience hiring people will know that very often people are nothing like their CV’s. Some people exaggerate or lie about their experiences and qualifications, while some people just don’t present themselves as well as they could on paper, but in real life they really stand out. Hence in relationship terms, the internet dating sites are completely unable to match real life experience.

Anyway, of more interest to me was the fact that after signing up with the paid-for site, they insisted upon sending me much of their client base’s anthropometric data; presumably to try to lure me to pay their excessive fees.

Now, many people had told me anecdotally, that men tended to be rather more flexible in their criteria for finding a match on internet dating sites, whereas women tended to establish absolute limits. Thus, a man would consider meeting a woman a little older, younger, taller or shorter etc. than he’d specified if he felt she had other redeeming characteristics, whereas a woman would tend take the view that once the criteria are set, they can’t be changed for any reason.

With this information in mind, I was able to tabulate the data sent to me, compute some values, compare aspects of the information with data from a health study, and thus establish whether or not (on balance) the information people had submitted to the website was accurate. The summary results make interesting reading.

As you can see from the table above, every woman wanted a man at least one year older than herself, and there were considerable differences amongst all the other sought after variables. Especially interesting is the range of height variances, clearly some women weren’t fussy about height, but a significant proportion wanted a man at least a few cm taller than themselves.

Continuing, I was able to use data from an NHS health survey (found here) to compare with my results, and establish whether women tended to be accurate about the information they submitted about them selves. The NHS survey gave mean heights for 16-24 year old women as 163.1cm, and 25-34 year old women as 162.8cm. Since these results are very close, and the 16-24 year olds were on average taller than the 25-34 year olds, I felt that the data would not be skewed, if I took the average value for my comparison.

Data from my summary results shows a mean height of 166.15cm and a modal height of 170.00cm, which both seem significantly taller than the NHS data, but it might be possible that my sample size wasn’t big enough. Luckily, the NHS data included Standard error data, so I was able to conduct a t-test with my data (t = 20.98).

Based on my sample size, the results, using the information I tallied have a <1% chance of occurring at random, so women submitting height data to the internet dating site were either measuring their height with their shoes on, or simply exaggerating. Unfortunately, no data on weight was sent to me, so I was unable to conduct further analysis to see if there was a tendency towards over-quoting of height and under-quoting of weight, as one might expect to find if people were attempting to give a statistically better impression of their

The analysis and testing I was able to conduct with this data was limited, but I can see potential with a much larger and expanded dataset to determine the optimum age range that people of various ages should be trying to meet in order to maximize their chances of arranging some romantic activity. Furthermore, additional data would be extremely useful to test the theory that people have a tendency to submit flattering data to the internet dating websites; and the extent to which they over or under exaggerate.

Should anybody reading this have access to such data (made anonymous, of course) then I should be delighted to hear from you.

Share & Bookmark this article:

Posted by Jonathan as Analysis, Reviews at 11:05 PM EDT

1 Comment »