…and this is a 
The OKCupid site dug deep into their database of users and analyzed…a lot of stuff. The interesting one is this chart of reading/writing level by religious belief.
Look there: the godless users of OKCupid score higher than the religious users; and furthermore, being more serious about agnosticism/atheism is correlated with better scores, while the more devout you are within a religious tradition, the lower your score.
Is anyone surprised by this? Not me.
We should regard these data with a little suspicion, though — OKCupid is an online dating site, so it's not an entirely random sample of the population. It could mean that the most earnest atheists have a hard time getting a date, while the smart believers are all off getting married or indulging in wild orgies all the time and have no need of a dating service.
Comments
Posted by: daveau
|
September 9, 2010 9:57 AM
I kin rite like a 9fh grader. I r smart.
Isn't OKCupid a Radiohead album*?
*Yes, old people still say 'album'.
Posted by: zshuford
|
September 9, 2010 9:58 AM
It could also be that atheists have a reputation to uphold - we like to think we're smarter, so we make sure our profiles are eloquent and loquacious.
Bible Thumpin' Protestants, on the other hand, are supposed to be "down home, we don't need no books 'round here" types. They don't want to have verbose profiles for fear of appearing "elitist."
Posted by: erichoug
|
September 9, 2010 9:58 AM
Wait, so the best writers are doubting Buddhists?
Posted by: stompsfrogs
|
September 9, 2010 10:01 AM
OK Computer..
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
September 9, 2010 10:02 AM
I read Unserious Buddhist as "Philosophy Major." If they know how to do anything it's obfuscating writing.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:04 AM
This is one of those wildly flawed studies that, if you were to do it correctly, would almost certainly produce the EXACT SAME RESULT.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 9, 2010 10:05 AM
What, no tip of the hat to Jen McCreight? The full post is pretty funny in a lot of ways. Worth following the link.
Posted by: daveau
|
September 9, 2010 10:05 AM
I would venture to say that atheism is more of a non-belief, so now I don't know what to make of this graph.
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
September 9, 2010 10:08 AM
People.. we're still talking about the difference between 8th grade and 9th grade reading comprehension. Kind of sad really.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 9, 2010 10:08 AM
Yeah, but the span is from about 7.5 to 9.1, which isn't all that much difference, is it?
Posted by: Basil
|
September 9, 2010 10:09 AM
Interesting data, even if it's from a dating site. I can imagine that if one were to factor in all of the believers that don't use computers or the internet(because it fills your computer with the porns, oh noes!) it may further reduce the reading and writing scores. I find that every theist I meet online, is at least in some small part, smarter than the ones I've met that don't use the internet. I totally agree with Dawkins when it comes to this sort of thing. We really need to fund some serious studies into intelligence and belief.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:09 AM
@8: I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that when asking the average atheist how strong their 'beliefs' are, you'll get an answer that is highly correlated to how 'vehemently' they espoouse atheism.
Posted by: Giford
|
September 9, 2010 10:10 AM
Interesting that highly committed and wavering Catholics and Protestants can both write better than midly-believing Caths & Prots.
Gif
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:11 AM
"espoouse", v.t. (es poo' owz) to... um...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4
|
September 9, 2010 10:14 AM
This chart doesn't have any context without a correlation to the global decline in pirate activity.
--Lauren Ipsum
Posted by: daveau
|
September 9, 2010 10:15 AM
@12-
Atheism exists whether you believe in it or not.
Don't know what espoouse means. Sounds dirty.
Posted by: Danno Davis
|
September 9, 2010 10:16 AM
I'm kind of curious what a "very serious" agnostic looks like myself..
Posted by: Felicis
|
September 9, 2010 10:18 AM
I notice that one aspect could be explained by correlation with whether or not the believers' primary language is English.
That still leaves the question of why protestants do so poorly, but for hindu, muslim, and catholic believers - the discrepancy might be explained by their native languages being other than English.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:18 AM
@13. Another guess, although why this wouldn't also apply to muslims and other religious sects that work from books as well I don't know: is it possible that the 'very serious' read the bible a lot, and thus accidentally improve their reading and writing abilities? Especially in older translations, the bible can be difficult reading (especially if you're only at an 8th grade level).
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:22 AM
@16. Agreed. No argument from me there. Was only speculating on how atheists might answer the question.
Posted by: daveau
|
September 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Why protestants do poorly*: category would include fundies.
*Idle speculation while I should be working.
Posted by: melissa.b.elliott
|
September 9, 2010 10:28 AM
@18
If you follow through the link, there are charts of ethnicity vs. writing ability, and the dominant ethnicities of the English-speaking world don't do so hot. If I had to explain it, I'd say that children of Asian and Middle-Eastern immigrants are pushed to do well in school more than the average American kid.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
September 9, 2010 10:29 AM
Well there's enough here to set Christians off. Serious Muslims beat out serious Christians of both major stripes somewhat handily. It is funny though how the less strongly someone believes the more their writing abilities increase. As for the waning Buddhists, there may be some agnostic/atheist overlap there due to the perception of Buddhism as more peaceful and accepting than most other religions, and as a result a few of us head on over there. Total conjecture on my part though.
But now I'm concerned of my own writing proficiency level. Perhaps I have too much faith in humanity to hope that the grade level of proficiency be north of early high school...
Posted by: sarahb
|
September 9, 2010 10:30 AM
I'm on that site and I wouldn't say that my profile is the best work of writing I've ever produced. I think that it's not a great indicator of how smart someone is. PZ, maybe you could help me find a date amongst the horde. In fact, I think you should start your own dating site. All you need is a snappy name.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 9, 2010 10:32 AM
@te24hours #19
And it therefore explains why most of them have no fucking idea what it's on about either.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
September 9, 2010 10:33 AM
I have(had) a profile at OKCupid. They ask you your religion (or, in my case, lack of same) and on a scale of "laughing about it" to "very serious about it" ask how important it is to you. Not really a measure of how strongly you "believe."
Can't judge the religious types' writing as I clicked over anything that says "religionX and very serious about it."
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 9, 2010 10:34 AM
Too bad we can't compare mormons to the protestants. But mormons do have their own dating/matchmaking services both online and in meat space. They don't need OKCupid.
Source: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon536.htm
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
September 9, 2010 10:36 AM
All you need is a snappy name.
OKthulhu work for you?
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 10:40 AM
@25, no doubt.
Posted by: ian.monroe
|
September 9, 2010 10:41 AM
I wonder how much of this is just noise in the data. ANOVA pls, kthnx.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
September 9, 2010 10:41 AM
This is interesting, but the 'grade level' ascribed appears to be mostly based on Coleman Liau index, which correlates length of words used with grade level. I'm not sure what to make of that, but it does seem somewhat one dimensional.
Also the person who wrote the analysis appears to be a devotee of PZ:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-real-stuff-white-people-like/
Comic sans bible eh? I think that might put an interesting spin on some of the more severe bits.
Posted by: raven
|
September 9, 2010 10:50 AM
Just look at the fundieland xian Red states versus Blue states.
The red states are always leaders in incidence of social problems and always score low on anything to do with education or socioeconomic well being.
Toxic religion correlates with lower socioeconomic status and lower education levels. And that is why the Tea Baggers come across like a mob of morons.
Posted by: agentnoun
|
September 9, 2010 10:56 AM
This is the first post I've commented on even though I've been reading for months. This one, of all posts, right?
I am a writing teacher! A brand new one. I wonder if there's a way I could (non-threateningly) collect data on my students' religious beliefs and their writing ability as they both enter and leave my classes. Unfortunately I have to be careful so as to avoid offending anyone--I'm a graduate student, not a tenured professor--but I think it could provide some interesting data.
I'm sure research has already been done on geographic location and other sorts of background, but religion may be a variable to watch.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
September 9, 2010 10:56 AM
Lynna, hi,
Wow, but those Mormons get right down to it. No messing about with formalities!
(for English-speaking western Europeans, 'ride' is slang for 'doing the dirty'. So I was lucky not to have a mouthful of coffee when I read that)
Posted by: MoonShark
|
September 9, 2010 10:58 AM
Or they're super-serious about their "relationship" with Jeebus and therefore have no need to copulate. But I guess there's a reason "ascetic monk" isn't the most popular career choice these days, heh.
Posted by: raven
|
September 9, 2010 11:00 AM
President Obama implores minister to call off Quran burning
Suicide attack in Russia kills 17, wounds over 130
China makes major breakthrough in quantum teleportation
OT. Just checked my news feed. Two of the top stories involved religion. One involved science.
Can you tell which is which? Which is more valuable to humanity?
Posted by: Bjarne
|
September 9, 2010 11:07 AM
Well, I know that anecdotal evidence is no evidence, but comparing my lame love life to that of my fundi-cousin, I do hesitate to disregard this possibility entirely.Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
September 9, 2010 11:14 AM
"while the smart believers are all off getting married..."
What?
Posted by: The Pint
|
September 9, 2010 11:19 AM
Who knew a dating site like OKCupid would actually turn up something interesting like this?
Although just wait - it won't be long until someone takes offense to the data and starts bleating about how "Ok, so what if they're 'smarter' - they have no heart and no soul so we're still better than those silly atheists!" Because everyone knows that just because Gawd gave people brains and intelligence, it doesn't mean we were supposed to use them.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
September 9, 2010 11:21 AM
The other part that is just as humorous is this:
which isn't that surprising considering how the moment a believer begins scrutinizing their particular faith using scientific and historical knowledge, cue cultural whatever-ism because they have already put a foot in the doorway to atheism.Posted by: paulnaveau
|
September 9, 2010 11:22 AM
@sarahb #24 excellent idea :-)
i recently rediscovered my okcupid account but am not too interested in it, but meeting female pharyngula readers ... instant connection!!
Where do i sign up for this "OKthulhu" (nice one Randomfactor!)
Anyone from around Antwerp (BE)? put @gmail.com behind my name and let me know! :-p
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 11:26 AM
*looks around nervously
Posted by: casecob
|
September 9, 2010 11:27 AM
I really wish they'd used a continuous variable for belief, as opposed to discrete variables.
I think the summary result is cool, but then when you see Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists, you get this odd trend; the scores go "not serious" > "very serious" > "somewhat serious"... this is an odd correlation structure (and we can speculate until we're blue in the face why this would be so).
I think the margin of error might be reduced if the user was asked, "On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being 'by family history only' and 10 being 'strongly devout', how do you feel about your religion?" the correlation structure would be easier to see. I think people do a lot better with continuous variables. Maybe it would be more muddled though - I just think people give a more honest assessment of themselves with continuous variables, especially on a dating site where a particular response might "sound better."
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 9, 2010 11:42 AM
Take a look at the soi-disant militant agnostic John Wilkins.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 9, 2010 11:44 AM
What does young people say?
Posted by: Roxane
|
September 9, 2010 11:44 AM
What freaked me out was the blog post. Click on the icon for "Middle Eastern men." One of the sets of words that turns up often enough to get a mention is "Richard Dawkins."
I'd love to know the context. Is he getting mentioned to assure possible romantic interests that the poster ISN'T a loony, or that he IS?
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 9, 2010 11:53 AM
raven, sorry to be potentially pedantic, but:
I thought this was a pretty complicated issue. Is fundie-ness more cause than outcome, as I believe you are implying?
I don't want to get into a scrap with you or anything, I'm just curious.
Posted by: raven
|
September 9, 2010 12:02 PM
Does it matter really. Fundie xianity is correlated with ignorance and idiocy. As to whether and how much it is causative, how important is it to know.
Probably it is both. Many cults discourage education and actively teach lies about the real world to their kids. And the best and brightest seem to be the ones who escape toxic religions.
Posted by: Lifer
|
September 9, 2010 12:08 PM
Has nothing to do with reading level at all. It just parses one section of their profile and compares the writing level based on number of words and number of letters in those words. Did you actually read the description of how they created the charts PZ?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 12:11 PM
Writing clearly (i.e. at a lower grade level) is often quite difficult and has relatively little to do with the complexity of ideas being conveyed. This is huge problem with those stupid Accelerated Reader programs that give kids points for reading books so that they can save up points to "spend" on silly souvenir type items. The program assigns greater point values to longer and/or higher "grade level" books, so that Life of Pi (356 pages) is written at a 5.7 grade level and gets 13 points, while John Grisham's The Runaway Jury (414 pages) is written at an 8.0 grade level and gets 23 points.
I scrounged up some other reference points for reading level: The Economist and The New York Times are both written at a 7th grade level. Richard Dawkins' July 2010 essay on religious tradition and child indoctrination as child abuse is a 12.4 grade level; Carl Sagan's pale blue dot speech is a 10.0 grade level.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 9, 2010 12:12 PM
"lets stand on this lawn"
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 9, 2010 12:14 PM
@17
They show up once in a while. Usually very obnoxious, totally enamoured with how much they don't know (just about god of course, they don't apply the same standard to anything else).
As for this chart, I don't find it surprising (biases and all), but I wonder how significant any of it is. The buddhist part makes sense to me. My grandfather (a zen buddhist monk) puts a lot of emphasis on clarity of language in describing his beliefs (along with the imperfection of language and it's ability to convey complex ideas with 100% accuracy). It's also a religion that, in most contexts allows for a lot of intelligent discussion and questioning. I certainly don't go along with the more mystical aspects, but it's an otherwise appealing religion.
Posted by: yaburrow
|
September 9, 2010 12:17 PM
Interesting data. I listed myself as "Other" and didn't specify level of seriousness on OKCupid, but the Other category doesn't appear in the graph.
Where is the data on "Other"? Us Others need to know. Maybe they left it out because it's a catch-all category? Thing is, Pagans, Wiccans, and Unitarians don't fit in any of the categories shown in the graph.
I did a research project on Pagans and science (with about 300 respondents) and most of my respondents were very interested in science, and had university degrees. Also, most Pagans don't teach their religion to their kids (see 7th pie-chart from top).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 12:17 PM
I don't know about the rest of youse, but my profile is fucking brilliant.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 9, 2010 12:25 PM
I'd be more inclined to rely on internet experience to say that those results are pretty close to the truth than I would rely on those figures. You just don't run into very many religious people who can handle intellection (and apparently Jewish believers mainly skip the places I frequent).
Then again, why are all of the levels so low?
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 12:27 PM
The first paragraph of Brownian's profile is a grade level 9.6, which pretty much goes with the adolescent humor and the desire to someday find a female person to date...
Posted by: psycchick
|
September 9, 2010 12:28 PM
I think it is of great importance that Atheists and agnostics are represented in a positive light, i.e., do well in school, are disproportionately underrepresented in prison, and just as nice as everyone else, etc. Atheist and agnostic people are discriminated against in the United States, and thus combat that by being above reproach.
Posted by: psycchick
|
September 9, 2010 12:30 PM
Brownian, if you lived in my area (heck, or my country) I would totally recommend you to my smart, funny female friends.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 9, 2010 12:35 PM
@17
I don't know...
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
September 9, 2010 12:39 PM
I'd do ya, Brownian.
If I weren't outside your age/location/sex specs. It looks like I've successfully hidden my profile (just last week) or I'd show ya'll mine.
I don't think there's any way of telling what a very serious agnostic looks like.
Posted by: marylouh67
|
September 9, 2010 12:46 PM
What it really means is that people who use dating sites are either illegally young or can't read/write very well.
Come on: the best rating was still a mere 9th grade level - presumably from people who have graduated at least from high school!!?!
Posted by: Quantumburrito
|
September 9, 2010 12:47 PM
Why do agnostics rank lower than some other religious folks? I would have expected them to rank just below atheists.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 12:48 PM
I used to write at grade level 9.8, but I work for the government, where clarity of thought and speech are vigorously discouraged. Instead, we're supposed to parrot whatever buzzword was fashionable in the private sector years ago. The new favourite among those who get paid more than I do to irritate me during meetings is "low-hanging fruit", (which HR has forbidden me to respond to with standing up and pointing to my junk.)
I shouldn't have mentioned Argentinian Tango. Every so often the OK Cupid bots send me a potential match (who doesn't seem to me like such a good match, given, for instance, that she's a woman looking for another woman) with the note, "I think you both like dancing."
Looks like we're still a few years from Kurzweil's singularity.
And thanks, psycchick. If I ever move to your country, I might take you up on those recommendations.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 9, 2010 12:55 PM
If their grade level analysis is anything like Word's was back in the 90's lack of clarity is more likely to give a higher grade level - I always found that in papers where I had no bloody clue what I was talking about, and therefore had to attempt to look like I knew what I was talking about by using long words sans content, my grade level tended to spike. When I knew what I wanted to say it went down.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 12:56 PM
http://instantrimshot.com/
Posted by: melissa.b.elliott
|
September 9, 2010 12:58 PM
Remember people,
Most people who graduated from university write on a lower-than-"university senior" level and most people who graduated from high school as their highest level write on less than a "12th grade" level. This doesn't mean that they're bad writers, just *average.*
Only the fraction of people who are genuinely skilled writers have a 12th grade or higher writing level, and there is also the systematic bias that dating profiles are not formal. You could probably assume their "formal and graded" writing scores are a little higher across the board.
Posted by: julezyme
|
September 9, 2010 12:58 PM
Is anyone else concerned that no one has higher than just above a 9th grade reading level?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 1:00 PM
I joined OK Cupid specifically because PZ wrote a post about atheists being successful on dating sites, and the data were from OK Cupid.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 9, 2010 1:03 PM
@34
LOL. Oh my heck! Yes, mormons are efficient, if nothing else.I've heard horror stories from mormon friends who are single. The dances and other social events organized for singles wards sound so bad that I can't figure out why they keep attending. Probably so their bishop will hassle them less.
There also seems to be a tendency to separate single people from married people so that the singles will not infect the marrieds.
Posted by: Dianne
|
September 9, 2010 1:08 PM
I don't know...apart from everything else, I'd like to see some confidence intervals on those data points before concluding...anything at all from them.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 9, 2010 1:18 PM
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole analysis because of a conflict between the data and the blogger's analysis in another area. He describes white women as being primarily interested in "romance novels, some country music, and a broad selection of Good Housekeeping type stuff." According to the data he presents, their number 1 interest is the Boston Red Sox. Somehow I don't think that's a country band.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 1:19 PM
My Mormon coworker used to fly down the US for speed dating excursions arranged by her BYU friends, in which she'd go on six dates with six guys in six days, or something like that. They never turned out well, the poor girl.
I think she's relaxed her standards, somewhat. Last guy she dated was an alcoholic Catholic. (I was proud of her for opening her mind like that. Even more so when she dumped the jerk. She's gonna be okay. She's gonna be okay.)
I stay away from my married friends for similar reasons. I don't wanna catch their breeder cooties.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 9, 2010 1:36 PM
I think we can assume that most people don't go into extreme fits of perspicacity for a dating site. You can't assume that is the best writing the person can do, just what they tend to use in everyday speech, which I think is fairly accurate.
They presumably don't go around pontificating, with perfect perspicacity, about the problems of the potentially problematic political positions in Paraguay. It just isn't prudent to use that kind of propaganda in preternaturally prolonged paragraphs based solely on the preservation of alliteration in place of a personal, to-the-point paragraph about your personality for a website purposed for the possibility of proposition and/or proposal of philoprogenitive procreation, or at least the portrayal of such a passionate performance, even if lacking in paramour, and, as such, probably postulates protection or pulling-out at the pause of palpitation of the privates; otherwise, there could be particularly peculiar position if one presumes the possibility of a partner passing into pregnancy.
What grade level did I get for that particular demonstration of preservation of p-words in that paragraph?
-Kemanorel
Posted by: unemployed
|
September 9, 2010 1:45 PM
As a scientifically-inclined, seriously open-minded buddhist, I'm gratified to see all of my preconceptions confirmed.
BTW, I am happy to share that I now need another label, since after nine jobless months I am soon to be employed, at what looks to be a good job. Still hoping (and working) to see a similar change for the other 30 million of us who have yet to be so fortunate.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 1:54 PM
@ googlemess #73
That mess was a 23.4 grade level. You win.
Posted by: nora-anne
|
September 9, 2010 1:59 PM
@71
I think that's a little unfair. He was talking about broad categories of what appeared in their top lists. He describes the white men's list as "sweaty guitar rock, bro-on-bro comedies, things with engines, and dystopias" when their clear #1 is Tom Clancy. Looking at the data, it seems to support his generalizations.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 9, 2010 2:26 PM
ROFL. Thanks! That makes my day. :-)
-Kemanorel
Posted by: Godless Bliss
|
September 9, 2010 2:39 PM
It's already been done. Operation Save America and Minutemen United, led by Flip Benham and Dave Daubenmire, conducted a ritual Koran burning at Columbus, Ohio, City Hall, July 22, 2004.
On public Koran burning, and respect for religion
The adult men then gathered around, and tore up a copy of the Koran. The shreds were then added to the bucket, and the contents were then set afire.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
September 9, 2010 2:42 PM
I was a little surprised that Muslims are a bit ahead of Christians, then I realized this is a study of Americans. One thing I've noticed from all the recent war coverage is that in the Middle East, a huge percentage of Muslims seem to be illiterate.
Posted by: lasthussar
|
September 9, 2010 2:45 PM
Err.. what are skeptics always saying about correlation?
Posted by: ridetheory
|
September 9, 2010 2:48 PM
@ zshuford "Bible Thumpin' Protestants, on the other hand, are supposed to be "down home, we don't need no books 'round here" types."
I call deviation within the rules of Just a Minute. You can't be a "no-books-'round-here" type and thump a bible.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 9, 2010 2:55 PM
This may be a little difficult to analyze without knowing the exact composition of population, but the trend between christian, catholics and muslim lead me to the following theory.
1. The chart appears to correlate with the number of each religion in US.
2. The larger the population, the less likely they need to go online to find date (bigger pool locally to choose from).
3. Among the large population, those that go online will mean that a proportionally larger group of people reject them for dating.
4. One such reason may be due to their lack of intelligence.
In summary: The larger the group, the more likely it is that the "weeded" out one is particularly undesirable (assuming OkCupid is primarily a secondary dating resource). Atheist and buddhist suffers from low number of peer, so it's less likely that those go online are a result of being "weeded-out" (more likely that they simply can't find their peer).
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 9, 2010 3:07 PM
To #82,
Urgh, need to find a way to express my thoughts better. Gonna try an example.
1. Assuming, in a localized population, the following statistic is true.
90% Christian.
10% Atheist.
2. Assuming that each individual in each population will try 10 times to find date in said population before going online.
3. Assuming that Christian won't date Atheist, and vice-versa.
Base on the above assumption, it means that on average a Christian will find 9 potential Christian dates, while Atheist will find 1 potential Atheist date.
Given that both went online, that would mean that on average, a Christian is rejected by his/her peer 9 times. While an Atheist, only once.
Using a card-game analogy from here, this mean that said Christian's hand (quality) is so bad it cannot beat 9 randomly selected hands (qualifying threshold). While the Atheist's hand cannot beat 1 randomly selected hand.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 9, 2010 3:15 PM
correlation != casusation. However, it is an interesting excercise into figuring out how that correlation arise.Posted by: mothwentbad
|
September 9, 2010 3:27 PM
I looked up the metric that they're using, and... it only counts letters per word and words per sentence. So that's kind of crude at best. A few overwrought sentences in one profile and an honest admission of "I like cheese" in another could manifest as a difference of several grade levels, which may not be all that fair.
It could be that theists mix up short and long sentences for variety and style, and atheists are a bunch of pedantic wankers who like to navelgaze over every detail for sentences on end.
Ah, what can you do?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 9, 2010 3:47 PM
@85
Write a paragraph like mine so you can claim to be more than two to three times as awesome as anyone on OKCupid?
-Kemanorel
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 3:48 PM
Where does leet rank on the writing proficiency scale?
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 9, 2010 4:00 PM
It depends. If you treat leet as a separate language, probably somewhat lower (due to them relying on the bizzareness of leet to get their idea across). Maybe a good way to do that is to find one of those leet -> english converter then run whatever came out through a "grader".Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 4:05 PM
It's akin to writing English at a Grade Level .1337
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
September 9, 2010 6:08 PM
It could be that theists mix up short and long sentences for variety and style, and atheists are a bunch of pedantic wankers who like to navelgaze over every detail for sentences on end.
You say that like omphaloskepsis is a *BAD* thing...
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
September 9, 2010 6:58 PM
As a reminder that literacy doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence,
Pharyngula beats out Uncommon Descent on common scales, but only barely.
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
September 9, 2010 7:01 PM
Darn it, I meant that to be the other way around.
Posted by: timothy.green.name
|
September 9, 2010 7:54 PM
@ Roxane #46
I noticed that too. Weird, isn't it?
TRiG.
Posted by: Marella
|
September 9, 2010 8:11 PM
That's it! Just one louse Koran? I had assumed there would be a pile of them, a nice little bonfire of Korans. I suppose the religious nutters will get just as incensed over one as over a hundred but it seems like a bit of an anticlimax to me.
On Topic, has anyone assessed Christopher Hitchens' writing with the magic assessing program? Just interested to see what it would think.
Posted by: Marella
|
September 9, 2010 8:13 PM
Louse -> lousy obviously. Been over at WEIT reading about bird lice.
Posted by: lirio
|
September 9, 2010 10:16 PM
I'm terribly lazy and I had never commented here because I didn't bother to sign up, but now I'm doing it because I eventually use OKCupid and it's not exactly what most of you imagine.
I won't explain much, I'll just say that it isn't like most dating sites, particularly because it asks reallly lots of questions, which you can answer or not and you can also tell if that matter is important to you or not and if it is important that the other person agrees with you or not. And then they will say for each person, based on the answers they've answered, what's the
% of match, friend or enemy. Being so, you can discard most idiots at once, and you can find some interesting people from all over the world to learn more about their cultures.
The graphic is based on what the users say about themselves, so the seriosly atheists are the ones that say that they are atheists and itt is important for them, I guess.
And please, don't judge me by my English, because it's not my mother tongue.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
September 10, 2010 5:51 AM
Someone mentioned ethnicity. It may be that a lot of the not-very-believing Buddhists aren't just white people dabbling in philosophy/religion, but also well educated people from Buddhist backgrounds who don't want to give up all their traditions and like the wisdom aspects of the beliefs (like not spending all your time wanting what you don't have), but who are, essentially--
agnostics or atheists.
Posted by: Bribase
|
September 10, 2010 7:36 AM
Suck it agnostics!
B
Posted by: rironin
|
September 10, 2010 11:01 AM
"while the more devout you are within a religious tradition, the lower your score."
Except for the Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Buddhists, yeah... but you're 33% correct... :-\
Posted by: Pvblivs
|
September 12, 2010 2:16 PM
In several of those "very serious" falls between "not serious" and "somewhat serious" on the scale. The level of seriousness is likely not a significant factor.
Posted by: mothwentbad
|
September 12, 2010 5:30 PM
Kemanorel -
I like cheese.
Posted by: yaburrow
|
September 13, 2010 5:00 AM
Just chcked, and assuming they used the Flesh-Kincaid (hmm I thought it was Fleisch-Kincaid), it works like this:
Calculate the average number of words you use per sentence.
Calculate the average number of syllables per word.
Multiply the average number of words by 0.39 and add it to the average number of syllables per word multiplied by 11.8.
Subtract 15.50 from the result.
Algorithm: (0.39 * average_words_sentence) + (11.8 * average_syllables_word) - 15.9
The result is the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Like the Gunning-Fog index, it is a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take someone to understand the content. Negative results are reported as zero, and numbers over twelve are reported as twelve. (source: http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php#fleschkin
You can test the reading grade of your writing (or your OKCupid profile).
I analysed my OKCupid profile. Here are the results:
Number of characters (without spaces) : 4,253.00
Number of words : 873.00
Number of sentences : 52.00
Average number of characters per word : 4.87
Average number of syllables per word : 1.64
Average number of words per sentence: 16.79
Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading
Gunning Fog index : 12.08
Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :
Coleman Liau index : 11.11
Flesh Kincaid Grade level : 10.27
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 9.91
SMOG : 11.73
Flesch Reading Ease : 51.31