There is a lot wrong with this analysis. I really hope Backus is not involved in any serious research as his analytical skills are well below par.
In this model, the distributions are assumed uniform (a 70 year old is just as likely to have a four year degree as a 25-35 year old).
Second, probabilities are assumed independent (like 4 year degree and yearly earnings over 50,000). The correct way to analyze this would be to condition on each factor. P(he’s attractive and he’s the correct age)= P(he’s attractive)P(he’s the correct age given he’s attractive). I’d assume the probability he’s the correct age given he’s attractive is close to 1, so this is not equal to the probability he is attractive times the probability he’s the correct age for example. This will occur throughout as the events are fairly dependent (not independent) since P(a and b)= p(a)p(b)- p(a or b) (inclusion exclusion).
Third, his calculation assumes you are likely to meet your match at random. If you were to walk aimlessly all over Austin until you find a match, your chances would be much worse than if you went to bars where college grads hang out who happen to be between 25 and 35 that make over 50k/year.
Lastly, the probability you calculated is the probability that at a particular moment, if you meet a particular guy, he will be the “one.” In reality, you probably meet multiple guys over a longer period of time, so you would multiply the resulting probability by the Expected number of people you meet/day and then by the number of days you are meeting people.
Hot piece, your chances are far better than you think. You’ll do well.
Leave it to Europeans like Backus to screw up simple stats. Next time leave the heavy lifting to Americans.
Hot piece, your chances are far better than you think. You’ll do well.
There is a lot wrong with this analysis. I really hope Backus is not involved in any serious research as his analytical skills are well below par.
In this model, the distributions are assumed uniform (a 70 year old is just as likely to have a four year degree as a 25-35 year old).
Second, probabilities are assumed independent (like 4 year degree and yearly earnings over 50,000). The correct way to analyze this would be to condition on each factor. P(he’s attractive and he’s the correct age)= P(he’s attractive)P(he’s the correct age given he’s attractive). I’d assume the probability he’s the correct age given he’s attractive is close to 1, so this is not equal to the probability he is attractive times the probability he’s the correct age for example. This will occur throughout as the events are fairly dependent (not independent) since P(a and b)= p(a)p(b)- p(a or b) (inclusion exclusion).
Third, his calculation assumes you are likely to meet your match at random. If you were to walk aimlessly all over Austin until you find a match, your chances would be much worse than if you went to bars where college grads hang out who happen to be between 25 and 35 that make over 50k/year.
Lastly, the probability you calculated is the probability that at a particular moment, if you meet a particular guy, he will be the “one.” In reality, you probably meet multiple guys over a longer period of time, so you would multiply the resulting probability by the Expected number of people you meet/day and then by the number of days you are meeting people.
Hot piece, your chances are far better than you think. You’ll do well.
Leave it to Europeans like Backus to screw up simple stats. Next time leave the heavy lifting to Americans.
Hot piece, your chances are far better than you think. You’ll do well.
This is well done.
Sig Ep… NF