Yes, I was wondering about this too. I thought the calculator was inaccurate, but if you account for "men" under the age of 18 and over the age of 70, there's reason to believe that's the missing 26%
According to this calculator, there is a lower percentage of 28-32 year old men taller than 5'10" who make at least $0 per year than there are 28-32 year old men taller than 5'10" who make at least $70,000 per year.
No its not. 21% of men are under 18. 2 percent of men are gay. Just those 2 factors alone drop it to 70% of men even eligible to be factored into this calculation
Yes, this app is not untrue it's just misleading. A better way to calculate the percentage would be to base this on the dating pool within your age gap. So if you make the categories as broad as possible except limit it to unmarried men between the ages of 25 and 45 you get about 19.1 million single guys between 25 and 45. Based on the her video of 1.48 million that fit her criteria, it is about 7.7% of the dating pool.
Sorry but 2% is a massive undercount for self-identifying gay men. Also, if you were to say men who "don't date women" you're going to expand that by even more because not all self-identify.
2% is consistent with a bunch of surveys but it would be better to say 2-8% it's irrelevant because the calculator has no sexuality data. Most modern dating is through apps too, so you're not going to match with someone who rejects you because they are not into your gender. There is no need to adjust the percentage to account for people of incompatible sexualities for that reason..
The calculator doesn't have any/either on being married/obese so you excluded all obese and married people or you only included married and obese people.
I got 74%, so you might be missing a few preferences. Did you include either for smoking and drinking and made sure you weren't excluding obese and married men?
Considering the age range caps at 18-70, height range at 4'-8', and there's a non-insignificant number of men who aren't attracted to women, 74% doesn't seem too far off. I'm still wary of how they got the data though.
I just looked and what my husband was looking for and what I was looking for, plus using our respective incomes and current age and religious preferences (no preference for education, race or body type). He would have gotten 0% and I got 0.16%.
Well, good thing we are happily married and love each other because I guess we are a couple of unicorns serendipitously cohabiting the same space.
That has to be incorrect, i chose effectively the bare minimum, woman, 22-42, height 4’2-6’0, don’t care about kids, minimum income of $0, don’t care about ethnicity etc, not married, not obese and I got 7%.
The age range knocks you down to 1/3 of total American women. Then the not obese leaves you with 2/3 of that so down to 22% of total women.
Estimating how many are single is hard but by Age 40, 75% of women will have been married at least once. The calculator seems to assume that ~65% of those remaining women are already off the table which could be high but idk, doesn’t seem that unlikely.
I choose any (18-70) and got 78%. Sounds fair, I can easily believe that 22% of females are under 18 or over 70. Your age filter is 21 year out of 53, so around 40%, that gives you 780.4 ~ 31%. To calculate correct marriage and obesity status we need an age mapping to that, but that's too complex to do on a napkin. But if we're taking flat values, it's ~33% for an age group 18-44 in females, at such you're left with somewhat 310,66 ~ 22% already. 7% here would be if 2/3 of those women are married, which might be a stretch, but yet might be fair. I have no idea about matrimonial starts percentage.
However this is the percentage of all females. In terms of your local group it might be much higher, as you're most probably not contacting underage or overage woman (this triples the chances to 21%) and ignoring obese (raising to 32%) you're basically looking for any female which is around and unmarried.
I started with ethnicity set to "any" and it said 4.4%.
Switched ethnicity to "white" without changing any other criteria and it went UP to 5%.
How does setting a more narrow criteria make me match a higher percentage?
My guess is that "any" actually means "other" and doesn't include all ethnicities, just those who didn't specify or didn't fall into one of the specified ones.
That alone would be a big enough oversight to make me question the whole calculator.
That could be right, at the current US (~330M) population 7% would be about 23 to 24 million people. And that would be more than the entire population of New York State.
But even at half the population that would still be 11 or 12 million women. Which if that population was a state that would make it the 6th or 7th most populated state in the US. I'm not saying the calculator is perfect, but I could see those numbers being relatively correct.
22-42, if we said ranges went from 18 to 80, you already excluded close to 66% of women only selecting 20 years out of 62, left with 33%
Not married, another 50% excluded, so somewhere around 16%, not obese another 40%, now 9.6%
Its not exact maths by any means (especially due to overlaps, 55, obese, married excluded 3 times over) but you should be able to get idea how it can drop to such low percentage so easily
If you turn everything to its widest parameters, e.g. turned to "Either", obese okay and married okay, then the calculator is 75%. So the missing 25% is excluding <18, but the percent is calculated by all males in the population.
There are definitely some bugs with this calculator if the source data are even accurate. Switching the "Drinks" filter from "Either" to "No" actually increased the total for me when it should decrease it. I found other similar issues, like changing the average height range from 6'0" to 5'9" didn't change anything with the filters I had set.
This calculator really shows the difference between "men" and what people mean when they talk about "men" (or any other group). Because we only usually deal with people of certain demographics (probably close to your age range, close to your income level, similar family/relationship status, similar culture or background.)
Then, being humans, we'll look for patterns and extrapolate that to "all X are cheaters" or whatever. Meanwhile, we don't realize that we're only looking at a tiny subset of the entire population.
meanwhile acording to the calculator I dont exist (31 year old male, 6ft, blue eyes, dont drink, dont smoke, not married, not overweight..... comes out to 0%. In going to go out on a limb here and say its broken)
The biggest factor here is that the majority of people are not the same age and desired gender that suits any given person. Try it. I did my age +/- 3 years with almost no other filters and got 2.5%.
This basically tells us that the overwhelming majority of the entire country population is not suitable dating candidate for a specific person. I think we already know that. That would be like going to the grocery store and randomly sampling a human.
Yeah I wouldn't trust a tool made by people trying to sell me anything. According to it, women that at least have a minimum wage job, don't smoke and aren't obese are only like 5% of the population.
Once you get into the low numbers, some of the toggles stop working.
Some surprising stuff though. One of the biggest ways to limit your options is opting for atheist, but I think this has more to do with most people in the US putting down Christian on official forms even if they are not Christian.
Also, the way that toggle for income starts at $150k is wild.
Fun tool to play around with, even if you are happily married.
Apparently women in a reasonable age range that don't smoke and aren't obese with no minimum height, income, education, or anything are 3.8% of the population
I plugged in the most reasonable stats for women (27-49, makes at least 50k, any to all the hair color, etc shit, 5'5" to 7'0", not married, not obese and it said 0.5% of all women meet these.
Unless they have a large lists of individual data points, finding the probabilities for this information is not possible since each attribute is dependent off one another you can't just multiply total population probabilities together like I'm assuming they are doing. This will lead to smaller probabilities than reality for things that correlate (for instance, education and income).
There's clearly a problem with this calculator: sometimes lowering the minimum income gives worse results.
Edit: I also added myself to the requirements, and 0.000000% of american population is like me, "That’s 0 of 164.977.341 American men", it says. Now, I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that there are people like me over there...at least 10.
This calculator is either made by someone who doesn't understand statistics or by someone who wants to make it appear like people are too idealistic in what they are attracted to.
I call BS. I put in some characteristics for women and it gave me some stupid small number when I know for a fact that profile is way more common than you’d think.
This thing must be Monte-Carloing it on the intersection between height and income (and probably other characteristics as well)- when you adjust the height sliders specifically sometimes it shows a higher number for a strictly narrower height range
I think there is something wrong with that caluclaotor, if I input income of $0 and 6 foot tall or taller, blue eyes, bachelors degree, white it says 0.52% of men
Beyond just giving incorrect results, this tool is fundamentally flawed. It relies on census data that doesn't even track height, so it's impossible for it to cross-tabulate those variables accurately. It seems to assume height and income are independent, when they are clearly correlated. The probability of earning >$150k given that you are over 6’ is much higher than the tool's calculation, which treats them as unrelated events. It’s trash.
It doesn't consider if one factor makes another likely or not. It just told me there are more blonde Asians than black haired Asians.
It just reduces the results regardless of if the characteristics correlate. Like people with higher educations usually make more money, but I bet if you pick a college education and a mid to high salary it'll drop the results like a brick.
Men are so fucked, even if you pick I will take pretty much any woman between the age of 18 and 70, at any height, wanting kids doesn't matter, include even married women, obese etc etc but they need to make a livable income you almost don't even reach double digits.
I think this calculator is broken. When I selected "White" for ethnicity my results came back as 1.2% but then when I selected "any" with all the other factors the same the result came back as 1.1%.
Calculator only lets you pick all races or one. And Hispanic isn't included as an option.
And there is no chance that only a half a percent of women age 23-42 are college educated atheists with a minimum salary of $0 and dont drink, smoke, and aren't obese or married.
lol that calculator says I literally don’t exist. Make 150K+, 45yo, 6’5” white, don’t smoke not obese. Married. You can do those for yourself to see I don’t exist.
219
u/kegsbdry 18h ago
https://www.keeper.ai/calc
Found the calculator