Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Hypergamy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→A bit less unequal than 80/20
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
A study analyzing GINI coefficients in human [[relationship|relationships]] found that “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women”<ref>https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/</ref>. This roughly corresponds to the top 20% men having 60% of the sex, so 60/20, and 56/20 for women (i.e. less extreme than 80/20, in the general population at least).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution#Lorenz_curve_and_Gini_coefficient</ref> | A study analyzing GINI coefficients in human [[relationship|relationships]] found that “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women”<ref>https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/</ref>. This roughly corresponds to the top 20% men having 60% of the sex, so 60/20, and 56/20 for women (i.e. less extreme than 80/20, in the general population at least).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution#Lorenz_curve_and_Gini_coefficient</ref> | ||
Mark Regnerus estimated the distribution to be 20/70 for men older than 25.<ref>https://books.google.de/books?id=928uDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=%22Pareto+would+be+proud,+or+nearly+so%22&source=bl&ots=jErxDCkmJ4&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=%22Pareto%20would%20be%20proud%2C%20or%20nearly%20so%22&f=false</ref> Data from GSS also suggests it is around 20/68 for men and a bit less unequal, 20/59 for women.{{citation needed}} | Mark Regnerus estimated the distribution to be 20/70 for men older than 25.<ref>https://books.google.de/books?id=928uDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=%22Pareto+would+be+proud,+or+nearly+so%22&source=bl&ots=jErxDCkmJ4&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=%22Pareto%20would%20be%20proud%2C%20or%20nearly%20so%22&f=false</ref> Data from GSS also suggests it is around 20/68 for men and a bit less unequal, 20/59 for women.{{citation needed}} | ||
A | A study found that Tinder's GINI coefficient for men was comparable with the income inequality of third-world countries (see chart below).<ref>https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a</ref> | ||
A data scientist for Hinge reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. While the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing. According to the Hinge analyst: | A data scientist for Hinge reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. While the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing. According to the Hinge analyst: | ||