I like strong and independent women!

[Trophonius]

Actually your study has objective value zero. And it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the companies or individuals who own online dating sites, somehow, surreptitiously funded the studies which were categorized as research.

The study was performed using virtually anonymous data evaluated through mathematical tools used in any statistical research, thus it is as objective as any research that is published through peer-to-peer review. Simply stating your opinion, "it has objective value zero", doesn't do much difference. It is objective, far more than the personal experiences of any particular individual.

Oh my, an academic magazine so it must be true, all hail the science of academia as the only valid truth in the world?

It certainly doesn't mean it must be true, if that were the case, it wouldn't be science. Still, it is always more valid than personal experiences.

Mia from autism forums, has lots of experience with dating rather than the questionable science of social interaction based on messaging on online dating forums. And in fact, most people will go to other people for information about dating rather than a dating app study.

Mia from autism forums is just one person, the experiences of one person (or her relatively limited acquaintances) is hardly representative of anything. In fact, Mia's opinion is as valid as Uncle Troph.
I could have stated the very opposite you said based on my personal experiences - but I didn't, because would you believe Uncle Troph? No; should you believe Uncle Troph? No. And the reasons you would to not take my hypothetically opposite opinions are the same to not consider Mia's opinions of any value.
Statistical research on the other hand, has a higher probability of being representative of reality.

 

[Mia]

The study was performed using virtually anonymous data evaluated through mathematical tools used in any statistical research, thus it is as objective as any research that is published through peer-to-peer review. Simply stating your opinion, "it has objective value zero", doesn't do much difference. It is objective, far more than the personal experiences of any particular individual.

Virtually anonymous data? Mathematical tools? On messaging apps where people often lie, or indicate things that they think others want to hear, or bots message, is valueless.

It certainly doesn't mean it must be true, if that were the case, it wouldn't be science. Still, it is always more valid than personal experiences.

I don't think it does. Especially if the premise is objectionable in the first place. Personal experience is more valuable.

Mia from autism forums is just one person, the experiences of one person (or her relatively limited acquaintances) is hardly representative of anything. In fact, Mia's opinion is as valid as Uncle Troph.

It's not? My personal experiences have no value over a statistical study of messaging apps on a dating website? I beg to differ, in reality my experiences and the experiences of my friends and social groups and acquaintances have more concrete value based in a solid foundation rather than the fantasy of a dating app study. Your ad hominum is based in little more than the reference of a faulty study on the internet. It lacks ethical standards and it lacks true human interaction in it's outcome. An ad hominum attack will not better your chances of being true or valid.

 

[Trophonius]

Virtually anonymous data? Mathematical tools? On messaging apps where people often lie, or indicate things that they think others want to hear, or bots message, is valueless.



I don't think it does. Especially if the premise is objectionable in the first place. Personal experience is more valuable.



It's not? My personal experiences have no value over a statistical study of messaging apps on a dating website? I beg to differ, in reality my experiences and the experiences of my friends and social groups and acquaintances have more concrete value based in a solid foundation rather than the fantasy of a dating app study. Your ad hominum is based in little more than the reference of a faulty study on the internet. It lacks ethical standards and it lacks true human interaction in it's outcome. An ad hominum attack will not better your chances of being true or valid.

It's not. Have you read any paper that starts with "According to my personal experiences I conclude..." ? Your personal experiences is just one data point among many.
In fact, it's what we call "anecdotal evidence", and if you care to read anything about it (but I can find a book for you if needed), you will only see how unreliable and weak it is.

For you they may have more value, some people are indeed very fond of their personal experiences. However, they lack any real value beyond the subjective realm.

It's very elemental to me than academic research has at the very least a higher probability of representing reality than the personal experience of one individual. You can call it a "fantasy app study" (though I posted two sources, and there's a good more) if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change the fact that is a research paper published through peer-to-peer review using standard tools of its field. The data is objective, and concrete. It's valid to disagree with it, but it needs to be done with equally obtained data rather than "my friends and I...".


For your information: Ad-hominem is "a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I am not attacking YOU, nor saying your statement is invalid because YOU said it. Therefore, it is not an ad-hominem fallacy.
Stating that a published paper (or more) has a higher probability and it's more reasonable to consider than the opinion of ONE individual and her acquaintances is not an ad-hominem argument, and I'm rather surprised that anyone would consider it controversial (note in this case it only is because the paper contradicts your world-view).

Do you have any real data to show? Because like I formerly stated, the experiences of one person, regardless of how much "dating knowledge" has gained, are meaningless.

 

[Mia]

Mia from autism forums is just one person, the experiences of one person (or her relatively limited acquaintances) is hardly representative of anything. In fact, Mia's opinion is as valid as Uncle Troph.

It's representative of a great deal, and is far more experienced than a dating app. It represents a lifetime of experiences.

Your personal experiences is just one data point among many. For you they may have more value, some people are indeed very fond of their personal experiences. However, they lack any real value beyond the subjective realm.

They have a great deal of value, far more than you seem to comprehend. And it isn't one data point, it's many. In human relationships they hold far more value, than an internet study.

motive, other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

When you attack a person's opinion and experience it's part of what makes them who and what they are. Where you indicate a person's experience and opinion and motives as invalid, and equate them to Uncle Troph. That is an ad hominum attack.

Do you have any real data to show? Because like I formerly stated, the experiences of one person, regardless of how much "dating knowledge" has gained, are meaningless.

They are far from meaningless. In fact the study you presented is meaningless and based in subterfuge and untruths. Data is not real human interaction or experience, it's highly questionable. What I think and know does not require quantification.

 

[TheGuyWithTheTacoma]

Well, it would appear that I've started something here...

 

[Trophonius]

It's representative of a great deal, and is far more experienced than a dating app. It represents a lifetime of experiences.

It's anecdotal evidence. This, in any scientific study, is weak and meaningless. I don't consider it here otherwise.
Your lifetime of experiences may be valuable to you, I already said it earlier. For everyone else, they are meaningless.

They have a great deal of value, far more than you seem to comprehend. And it isn't one data point, it's many. In human relationships they hold far more value, than an internet study.

You can give "human relationships" (which in fact is what is considered in the study, only quantified) whatever "value" you wish. Scientifically, ONE coming from an individual no value. This is what you don't seem to comprehend.
Also, it is possible to far more research if you wish, consistent with the one I posted. And here"Internet study" is rather pejorative, it's a scientific study made by a research team, and before published properly reviewed by other experts in the field (this is how peer-to-peer review works, a requirement to publish a paper).

It is an ad hominum: When you attack a person's opinion and experience it's part of what makes them who and what they are. Where you indicate a person's experience and opinion and motives as invalid, and equate them to Uncle Troph. That is an ad hominum attack.

I read this many times I cannot decipher the meaning. Please write more clearly.
But yo do need to interpret correctly the meaning of "ad-hominem". Ad-hominem points to a specific individual, and uses it to critique an argument instead of the actual argument; "When you attack a person's opinion and experience it's part of what makes them who and what they are" is not part of the definition since it would trivially turn any argument between two individuals in "ad-hominem".
Who you are is irrelevant in this discussion, like it should be in any formal discussion. Your opinion is not invalid because YOU say it (therefore, not ad-hominem), it is invalid because it pretends to turn the limited experiences of an individual as representative of objective reality. It's your flawed methodological thought what I'm arguing, YOU as an individual is not something I care about.

They are far from meaningless. In fact the study you presented is meaningless and based in subterfuge and untruths. Data is not real human interaction or experience, it's highly questionable. What I think and know does not require quantification.

Data is based always on human interactions and experiences. It's simply the bulk of human experiences quantified. And yours is one of the many. Some data points deviate from the norm, this is normal. Still, it's what any "social science" uses to study society and behaviors: objective data obtained (preferably anonymous) and quantified through statistical methods.

 

[Mia]

This is a she said/he said pointless almost circular argument, with little outcome.

You vote for science as an explanation for males being interested in younger females, the numbers are small and highly questionable based on data from app messaging.

I disagree and I don't discount what I know and understand as valid and true from experience.

The discussion is a stalemate.

 

[tree]

How about attempting to address the original topic of this thread.
What does anyone have to contribute to that?
The OP's interest in a relationship with what he describes as a
"strong independent woman."

 

[Aspychata]

This is a she said/he said pointless almost circular argument, with little outcome.

You vote for science as an explanation for males being interested in younger females, the numbers are small and highly questionable based on data from app messaging.

I disagree and I don't discount what I know and understand as valid and true from experience.

The discussion is a stalemate.

There are studies on why endless amounts of woman don't date and even less are getting married but l digress.......


I think everyone here was great in discussing the topics and tried to support with their data. Being on the spectrum means we actually do jump off the topic and start discussing other *stuffs* just another day in the aspie way. That's why l enjoy this forum because we aren't so rigid in our debates.