The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by cambio wechsel
No. If salmonella is evenly distributed between brown and white eggs, a person eating only brown eggs exposes himself to precisely the same degree of risk as someone eating both, where they consume in the same quantity.


You're right. I got mixed up with LGBT stats. Sorry.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I didn't do the mathematics but I just assumed that figure was calculated from the 1.7% number. If you date only one of the genders, your chances of meeting an intersexual is down by half.

No it's not. Think about it, if you've halved the number of intersexual people but also halved the population (by excluding one gender) then the odds remain the same...
Original post by CurlyBen
No it's not. Think about it, if you've halved the number of intersexual people but also halved the population (by excluding one gender) then the odds remain the same...


Yes, I've made a mistake. I've acknowledged it in a post above.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I didn't do the mathematics but I just assumed that figure was calculated from the 1.7% number. If you date only one of the genders, your chances of meeting an intersexual is down by half.

But if the 11.3% figure has already taken that into account then just forget that part.


It's not that intuitive unfortunately :tongue: You need to take the odds of a person not being intersex (98.3%, or 0.983), raise it to the power of the number of people entered into a relationship with, and subtract the result from one. So if you date 60 people, the chances of at least one being intersex are 1 - (0.983^60), or 64.3% to one decimal place.
That thread title floored me :rofl:
Original post by Saoirse:3
It's not that intuitive unfortunately :tongue: You need to take the odds of a person not being intersex (98.3%, or 0.983), raise it to the power of the number of people entered into a relationship with, and subtract the result from one. So if you date 60 people, the chances of at least one being intersex are 1 - (0.983^60), or 64.3% to one decimal place.




I admit maths is not my strongest subject in school but doesn't this mean it's even less likely than I thought?

I thought statistically after 60 people the possibility should be theoretically 100%. And now it's only 64.3%.

5 partners is much more reasonable than 10 (I think 6 is around the number the average person has sex with in their lifetime, not for long-term relationships), and yes 8% is not small. But still very unlikely. As I've said, normal people don't worry about their partner being secretly gay or HIV+ (both are more likely than this) so why worry about this?

I know there can be selection bias, but I'm saying we don't know anything about either of these people here. His selection bias could be caused by his previous personal experience or the news article posted instead of anything to do with this girl.
He wouldn't ask for no reason. But we don't know if the reason was even related to this girl or other things that's been going on and happened in his life.

Someone who's worried about their husband being secretly gay could have their doubt purely because her best friend's husband was secretly gay or simply because it's a plot on TV. There's a news article with the 1.7% number, saying it's say common as red heads. There's a model who's just come out as intersexual. So many things are possible and I don't think we should assume it's got anything to do with this girl in particular.

What I thought was, if you have dated 60 people, you can reasonably assume one of them was intersexual. That's correct, right?

ETA: What aren't news articles a good reason? Mexicans read about the very first school shooting in Mexico (and in an American school, no less) and the entire country's schools panicked and searched for guns. You don't know the OP.
(edited 7 years ago)
No, I hated maths.

I disagree with the "no smoke without fire" assumption on principle, and wouldn't assume that especially when there's literally 0 information on the girl. On the other hand, he explained what intersexuals are before saying what parents usually do. If I have to bet on this, I'd bet on his coming across a documentary or something on the topic, or even more likely, attended a lecture on that topic. And in that case, there's actually "fire", only that it's not from the girl.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I admit maths is not my strongest subject in school but doesn't this mean it's even less likely than I thought?

I thought statistically after 60 people the possibility should be theoretically 100%. And now it's only 64.3%.

5 partners is much more reasonable than 10 (I think 6 is around the number the average person has sex with in their lifetime, not for long-term relationships), and yes 8% is not small. But still very unlikely. As I've said, normal people don't worry about their partner being secretly gay or HIV+ (both are more likely than this) so why worry about this?

I know there can be selection bias, but I'm saying we don't know anything about either of these people here. His selection bias could be caused by his previous personal experience or the news article posted instead of anything to do with this girl.


Think it through logically. If you draw four cards from a standard deck, is one guaranteed to be a spade simply because the odds are one in four? What you said before (that you'd expect 1 intersex person after dating 60) implies a greater than 50% chance after 60 (so that you'd be more likely to than not) - there is of course no such thing as total certainty, and in reality you exceed a 50% chance after 40 people, lower than your calculation :smile:
Original post by Saoirse:3
Think it through logically. If you draw four cards from a standard deck, is one guaranteed to be a spade simply because the odds are one in four? What you said before (that you'd expect 1 intersex person after dating 60) implies a greater than 50% chance after 60 (so that you'd be more likely to than not) - there is of course no such thing as total certainty, and in reality you exceed a 50% chance after 40 people, lower than your calculation :smile:


You're right, and this is a very good explanation.
People get scared over one news article all the time...They don't get scared for a very long time, but they do immediately after reading it. I've given you the example from Mexico.

I can't prove this but I'd say most people would suddenly have doubts if they read about the chances of getting cancer, or in the US a GP taking money from companies to promote a drug. Or the existence of bed bugs. Or something like "your cleaner might be an illegal immigrant". Or an article on harmful substances from some dolls or toys or food.
Let's say there is fire. Is his sudden exposure to the topic (eg documentary, TV, news etc) or perhaps an unrelated personal experience (a former girlfriend being an intersexual or a friend's girlfriend is) not fire?

I just think we don't know nearly enough to even begin to judge the reasonableness of his question.
I'd say the stock markets and things like foreign exchange rates are further examples. They fluctuate over even with only remotely related rumours.

Mexicans being Mexicans would actually be a further support to my point - the average Mexican should have more exposure to violence than someone from most other countries, but they still freaked out over their very very first school shooting that happened at a atypical school that has a unique student body. I'd also say Britons rushing to get an EU passport in fear of needing a visa to travel in the future (very unlikely) is another example of that.
Reply 53
Original post by Sabertooth
The offside rule (in football I assume) is pretty simple.... :confused:


You say that because you're a guy. :biggrin:
Original post by Sabertooth
The offside rule (in football I assume) is pretty simple.... :confused:


I actually didn't know about the rule until I just looked it up right now, I agree with you. I don't see how it's not simple ??? If I can understand it in <4 mins then it can't be that bad :tongue:
Original post by Inexorably
I actually didn't know about the rule until I just looked it up right now, I agree with you. I don't see how it's not simple ??? If I can understand it in <4 mins then it can't be that bad :tongue:


I've always been fond of the thesis that it's more to do with men being bad at explaining it, rather than women bad at understanding :tongue:
Original post by Saoirse:3
I've always been fond of the thesis that it's more to do with men being bad at explaining it, rather than women bad at understanding :tongue:


That sounds a lot more plausable tbh :tongue:
Reply 57
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I'd say the stock markets and things like foreign exchange rates are further examples. They fluctuate over even with only remotely related rumours.

Mexicans being Mexicans would actually be a further support to my point - the average Mexican should have more exposure to violence than someone from most other countries, but they still freaked out over their very very first school shooting that happened at a atypical school that has a unique student body. I'd also say Britons rushing to get an EU passport in fear of needing a visa to travel in the future (very unlikely) is another example of that.


How many people heard the story about the intersex model? Now, how many people posted a question on a forum about their girlfriend possibly being intersex? I'm sure the latter is a small minority of the former. Even though it might be most likely that the reasoning for this person to ask this question is not based on 'reality' as such, that doesn't change the fact that this does increase probability of gf being intersex, because there is a chance that it is based on reality. I understand this is a little confusing (I'm not being patronising here).

I think the kind of panics you are talking about are real, but firstly, they aren't as big in term of percentage of population as you think (because of media only concentrating on the extremes, and it can take only small percentage of population suddenly changing behaviour to create big problems), and secondly, some people might decide they will get a passport or whatever but soon after change their mind, forget, put it off etc. Also, what's this intersex news story compared to the big events you are talking about, they are obviously more likely to spur the public to action.

Just some thoughts.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by lukeuser
How many people heard the story about the intersex model? Now, how many people posted a question on a forum about their girlfriend possibly being intersex? I'm sure the latter is a small minority of the former. Even though it might be most likely that the reasoning for this person to ask this question is not based on 'reality' as such, that doesn't change the fact that this does increase probability of gf being intersex, because there is a chance that it is based on reality. I understand this is a little confusing (I'm not being patronising here).

I think the kind of panics you are talking about are real, but firstly, they aren't as big in term of percentage of population as you think (because of media only concentrating on the extremes, and it can take only small percentage of population suddenly changing behaviour to create big problems), and secondly, some people might decide they will get a passport or whatever but soon after change their mind, forget, put it off etc. Also, what's this intersex news story compared to the big events you are talking about, they are obviously more likely to spur the public to action.

Just some thoughts.


This explains this. And I literally said this,
I don't want my kids to be intersex v2

Latest

Trending

Trending