|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| According to the graph, women's happiness went down less than a tenth of a point. What's the big deal? It seems silly to have an entire article devoted to dissecting the possible reasons behind that less than a tenth. |
It decreased by ~1/10th of a point on a scale from one to three. |
Yes, I know it's on a three point scale and I'm still not impressed. It's a less than a three percent drop over the course of forty years. The whole world has changed so much, and women's perceptions and attitudes have changed so much, it just seems impossible to even take it seriously. It could be as simple as differing definitions of happiness. |
I am not trying to argue with you, but actually, its more than a four percent drop, not less than three percent.
(2.25 - 2.15)/2.25 is about 0.0444 = 4.44%.
Another problem is that there was no option for putting in zero in the surveys. So, another interpretation is that one should be considered zero and all other numbers should have one subtracted from them. In that case, 2.25 decreasing to 2.15 should be considered equivalent to 1.25 decreasing to 1.15. Then, the percentage drop would be the following below.
(1.25 - 1.15)/1.25 = 0.1/1.25 = 8%.
In my opinion, I think the last calculation of an 8% drop is probably the most sensible interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sqrlnutz123
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| According to the graph, women's happiness went down less than a tenth of a point. What's the big deal? It seems silly to have an entire article devoted to dissecting the possible reasons behind that less than a tenth. |
It decreased by ~1/10th of a point on a scale from one to three. |
Yes, I know it's on a three point scale and I'm still not impressed. It's a less than a three percent drop over the course of forty years. The whole world has changed so much, and women's perceptions and attitudes have changed so much, it just seems impossible to even take it seriously. It could be as simple as differing definitions of happiness. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz!
I am not trying to argue with you, but actually, its more than a four percent drop, not less than three percent.
(2.25 - 2.15)/2.25 is about 0.0444 = 4.44%.
Another problem is that there was no option for putting in zero in the surveys. So, another interpretation is that one should be considered zero and all other numbers should have one subtracted from them. In that case, 2.25 decreasing to 2.15 should be considered equivalent to 1.25 decreasing to 1.15. Then, the percentage drop would be the following below.
(1.25 - 1.15)/1.25 = 0.1/1.25 = 8%.
In my opinion, I think the last calculation of an 8% drop is probably the most sensible interpretation. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz! I've been skooled. Not to be technical and snarky, but the values were more like 2.24 and 2.17 which puts it at three percent.
Also, I the numbering is arbitrary. The women were given three choices, therefore, there were three numbers to choose from. I the most important thing is that there is a three point range and not the numbers themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| According to the graph, women's happiness went down less than a tenth of a point. What's the big deal? It seems silly to have an entire article devoted to dissecting the possible reasons behind that less than a tenth. |
It decreased by ~1/10th of a point on a scale from one to three. |
Yes, I know it's on a three point scale and I'm still not impressed. It's a less than a three percent drop over the course of forty years. The whole world has changed so much, and women's perceptions and attitudes have changed so much, it just seems impossible to even take it seriously. It could be as simple as differing definitions of happiness. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz!
I am not trying to argue with you, but actually, its more than a four percent drop, not less than three percent.
(2.25 - 2.15)/2.25 is about 0.0444 = 4.44%.
Another problem is that there was no option for putting in zero in the surveys. So, another interpretation is that one should be considered zero and all other numbers should have one subtracted from them. In that case, 2.25 decreasing to 2.15 should be considered equivalent to 1.25 decreasing to 1.15. Then, the percentage drop would be the following below.
(1.25 - 1.15)/1.25 = 0.1/1.25 = 8%.
In my opinion, I think the last calculation of an 8% drop is probably the most sensible interpretation. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz! I've been skooled. Not to be technical and snarky, but the values were more like 2.24 and 2.17 which puts it at three percent.
Also, I the numbering is arbitrary. The women were given three choices, therefore, there were three numbers to choose from. I the most important thing is that there is a three point range and not the numbers themselves. |
Okay, lets use your numbers, 2.24 and 2.17. However, at the very least, the result is still a little bigger than 3%.
(2.24 - 2.17)/2.24 = 0.07/2.24 = 3.125% or about 3.13%
By the way, in statistics, range is defined as the difference between the highest number and the lowest number in a given data set. So, the range is actually 2. After all, 3 - 1 = 2. That ties into my point about there not having been a choice of zero. Again, this is why I say that one should be subtracted from all of the numbers in order for the choice of one to be interpreted as zero.
(1.24 - 1.17)/1.24 = 0.07/1.24 which is about 5.65%
So, using your numbers, I arrive at a 5.65% drop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Just watch a fat person, or someone a bit 'low class' stroll by...and you can see my brother's eyes narrow. If you look carefully, you can clearly see the disgust in his face. |
| Quote: |
| Obese people, absolutely. 100%. Complete contempt. Eating oneself into a disability is utterly bizarre. Gamblers are the real focus of my contempt, but that topic never comes up on ol'daves. |
Given that obesity rates have risen during this same time frame as female unhappiness has increased is it possible that there is a correlation, dare I say causation. I haven't read the article so I don't know if it 'corrects' for obesity, but we don't need a study to tell us that looking good (or being perceived by society as being good looking) can affect one's happiness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Here's a question back at you. What's the difference between a man who doesn't want to marry and have kids and a woman who doesn't want to marry and have kids? |
Both will be less happy than they would be had they obeyed their biology. Probably.
| Quote: |
| Why would one be staring with violent envy at a baby and the other not be fazed? I'm not saying men and women are the same, that would be stupid, there're clearly differences. But I want to know what exactly you think would be the difference in this situation. Or would unmarried childless men be staring with violent envy too? |
Biology. Evolution. Or are you a cultural creationist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littlelisa
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not a creationist. I'm much more of a relativist. Some people want kids. Some people don't. That goes for both sexes. Is it that everyone who says they don't want kids is kidding themselves or lying? Can't be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| littlelisa wrote: |
| Not a creationist. I'm much more of a relativist. |
Kinda the same thing. Both deny biology. Both because their other ideas demand it be denied (god for the religious and "blank slate" for your team). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| According to the graph, women's happiness went down less than a tenth of a point. What's the big deal? It seems silly to have an entire article devoted to dissecting the possible reasons behind that less than a tenth. |
It decreased by ~1/10th of a point on a scale from one to three. |
Yes, I know it's on a three point scale and I'm still not impressed. It's a less than a three percent drop over the course of forty years. The whole world has changed so much, and women's perceptions and attitudes have changed so much, it just seems impossible to even take it seriously. It could be as simple as differing definitions of happiness. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz!
I am not trying to argue with you, but actually, its more than a four percent drop, not less than three percent.
(2.25 - 2.15)/2.25 is about 0.0444 = 4.44%.
Another problem is that there was no option for putting in zero in the surveys. So, another interpretation is that one should be considered zero and all other numbers should have one subtracted from them. In that case, 2.25 decreasing to 2.15 should be considered equivalent to 1.25 decreasing to 1.15. Then, the percentage drop would be the following below.
(1.25 - 1.15)/1.25 = 0.1/1.25 = 8%.
In my opinion, I think the last calculation of an 8% drop is probably the most sensible interpretation. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz! I've been skooled. Not to be technical and snarky, but the values were more like 2.24 and 2.17 which puts it at three percent.
Also, I the numbering is arbitrary. The women were given three choices, therefore, there were three numbers to choose from. I the most important thing is that there is a three point range and not the numbers themselves. |
Okay, lets use your numbers, 2.24 and 2.17. However, at the very least, the result is still a little bigger than 3%.
(2.24 - 2.17)/2.24 = 0.07/2.24 = 3.125% or about 3.13%
By the way, in statistics, range is defined as the difference between the highest number and the lowest number in a given data set. So, the range is actually 2. After all, 3 - 1 = 2. That ties into my point about there not having been a choice of zero. Again, this is why I say that one should be subtracted from all of the numbers in order for the choice of one to be interpreted as zero.
(1.24 - 1.17)/1.24 = 0.07/1.24 which is about 5.65%
So, using your numbers, I arrive at a 5.65% drop. |
OK, here's the real deal:
Out of a total range of 2.00, there has been a change of 0.07, or 3.5%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| sqrlnutz123 wrote: |
| According to the graph, women's happiness went down less than a tenth of a point. What's the big deal? It seems silly to have an entire article devoted to dissecting the possible reasons behind that less than a tenth. |
It decreased by ~1/10th of a point on a scale from one to three. |
Yes, I know it's on a three point scale and I'm still not impressed. It's a less than a three percent drop over the course of forty years. The whole world has changed so much, and women's perceptions and attitudes have changed so much, it just seems impossible to even take it seriously. It could be as simple as differing definitions of happiness. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz!
I am not trying to argue with you, but actually, its more than a four percent drop, not less than three percent.
(2.25 - 2.15)/2.25 is about 0.0444 = 4.44%.
Another problem is that there was no option for putting in zero in the surveys. So, another interpretation is that one should be considered zero and all other numbers should have one subtracted from them. In that case, 2.25 decreasing to 2.15 should be considered equivalent to 1.25 decreasing to 1.15. Then, the percentage drop would be the following below.
(1.25 - 1.15)/1.25 = 0.1/1.25 = 8%.
In my opinion, I think the last calculation of an 8% drop is probably the most sensible interpretation. |
I knew someone was going to challenge my math skillz! I've been skooled. Not to be technical and snarky, but the values were more like 2.24 and 2.17 which puts it at three percent.
Also, I the numbering is arbitrary. The women were given three choices, therefore, there were three numbers to choose from. I the most important thing is that there is a three point range and not the numbers themselves. |
Okay, lets use your numbers, 2.24 and 2.17. However, at the very least, the result is still a little bigger than 3%.
(2.24 - 2.17)/2.24 = 0.07/2.24 = 3.125% or about 3.13%
By the way, in statistics, range is defined as the difference between the highest number and the lowest number in a given data set. So, the range is actually 2. After all, 3 - 1 = 2. That ties into my point about there not having been a choice of zero. Again, this is why I say that one should be subtracted from all of the numbers in order for the choice of one to be interpreted as zero.
(1.24 - 1.17)/1.24 = 0.07/1.24 which is about 5.65%
So, using your numbers, I arrive at a 5.65% drop. |
OK, here's the real deal:
Out of a total range of 2.00, there has been a change of 0.07, or 3.5%. |
You have to reference the original average, not the maximum allowed value. Basically, the percent drop is calculated the same way as percent error in a basic science class.
percent change = [|(original - new)|/original] x 100% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
OK, here's the real deal:
Out of a total range of 2.00, there has been a change of 0.07, or 3.5%. |
You have to reference the original average, not the maximum allowed value. Basically, the percent drop is calculated the same way as percent error in a basic science class.
percent change = [|(original - new)|/original] x 100% |
You don't have to. You can calculate either the absolute change (my figure) or relative change (yours). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimda
Joined: 15 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure that it is even possible to have a rational discussion about women's happiness when the majority of posters in this thread seem to completely hate women.
Do you suggest that we throw all of the post-menopausal and infertile women into a gas chamber, since they can't produce children and are biologically useless? Why don't we throw all of the fatties and uglies in there too because, really, who wants to do it with them? Nevermind, let's keep them, they're good for one night stands.
But, seriously, what happened to you guys as children? I've always known that sexism like this exists, but I have never encountered it so blatantly. I imagine that most men are afraid to voice these types of opinions in the company of women (as they should be).
To the guy who suggested that women "get back in the kitchen", and that men and women should live in separate wigwams and just get together to "bump uglies" - why do you hate women so much? To the guy who said that feminism was created for ugly women - what makes you think that way? To the guy who said that he sees bitter, childless, unmarried middle-aged women staring with a violent rage at mothers with young children - how do you know that these women are childless? Where they wearing patches with the letter 'B' for barren on their chests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimda wrote: |
To the guy who suggested that women "get back in the kitchen", and that men and women should live in separate wigwams and just get together to "bump uglies" - why do you hate women so much? ? |
The first was a joke and the second was a just to point out that humans have historically practiced a wide variety of domestic living situations (and that perhaps some could hold more benefits than the "typical" arrangements).
Sorry if I made you even more unhappy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimda wrote: |
| I am not sure that it is even possible to have a rational discussion about women's happiness when the majority of posters in this thread seem to completely hate women. |
I don't think a single person in this thread actually hates women. Some people just like to joke.
The real irony is that the behavior you're engaging in now -- oversensitivity -- is another female stereotype which is fertile breeding ground for such jokes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Grimda,
Myself, I just find it sad that women would rather do low-skilled, low-paid drudgery than become mothers. If there was money in mothering (if, say, the state offered women much bigger benefits � like $30,000 per annum) they�d soon change their tunes. It�s hardly an impressive use of female equality. And let�s just say I�ve had some bad experiences with childless middle-aged women who are as married to feminism as they are to the bottle. One of the main things that keeps me abroad is the thought of going home and working with gigantic, stupid white women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
How is this measured, I wonder? I remember research showing that self-assessments of how much work a man and woman do can be very innaccurate. |
I agree with this, and with the other poster not impressed with the shift in the change.
I don't know why we put any faith in these studies. Measuring happiness? How does one go about that? I think Koveras in the slavery thread himself had a nice missive on the difficulties of measuring the feelings of slaves. Having seen some of the criteria these studies use for measuring happiness, I'm pretty suspect of this study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
