/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11933522]

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

>Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
>Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,
>Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.

This is an interesting study indicating that marriages where the women had less sex partners are less likely to divorce. This shit has been spouted on /pol/ for the longest time and it should come to no surprise to anyone who frequents there. But, what I'm curious about is the r2 (r-squared) value:
>0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean.
>100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.

I'm curious as to how much the female promiscuity amount actually contributes to the divorce. The r^2 value gives a percentage and indicates if there are many or few other contributing factors. If it's very low then it would indicate that promiscuity is not too much of an important factor in that given divorce, and that many other greater factors contributed to it. Are there any statisticians here to help explain the depth and importance of this study? And how much of an important factor is it in choosing a partner?

[Anonymous No.11933544]

It doesn't have to be that the sex makes them this way, but rather that women who have high body counts are naturally inclined to seek out new sexual partners and ditch their marriage, because that is what they value.

[Anonymous No.11933571]

>>11933544
I don't think it means that at all. Rather women that remain celibate until marraige have little or no experience with relationships and are also naturally indoctrinated to believe they must rain married no matter what. Women that have had multiple partners are more experienced with relationships and less inclined to stay in a relationship they aren't happy in. It's correlation, not causation

[Anonymous No.11933580]

>>11933522
The r^2 value is a simple way to look at this. In any case you need the actual data they used to compute that value. The insight this will provide will be conditional on the existence of other variables in the data set (not to mention the existence of other relevant data sets).

[Anonymous No.11933587]

>>11933571

I was offering an alternate take on your exact point, which is the conclusion most want to jump to from this data. And you're drawing a causality as well.

[Anonymous No.11933600]

>>11933571
>women that remain celibate until marraige have little or no experience with relationships and are also naturally indoctrinated to believe they must rain married no matter what. Women that have had multiple partners are more experienced with relationships and less inclined to stay in a relationship they aren't happy in
Women that remain celibate also tend to be happier.

[Anonymous No.11933616]

>>11933522

It might also be read in a different way, women who are less inclined to compromise interrupt relationships more easily.
Or women who tend to be more promiscuous have a lower threshold for relational stability.

[Anonymous No.11934531]

>>11933600
Literally no objective evidence or truth to that

[Anonymous No.11934539]

>>11933587
>you're also drawing a causality
Similarly I was establishing a counter argument, not saying that was necessarily the case. Without alot of amplifying data the graph doesn't really mean alot

[Anonymous No.11934576]

>>11934531
YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

[Anonymous No.11934609]

More statistics

[Anonymous No.11935784]

>>11934576
>>11934609
>same special interest source conflating causation with correlation
Yawn

[Anonymous No.11936934]

>>11935784
>Attempt to misuse causation=/= correlation to dismiss evidence

Yawn.

Never in those stats does it imply a causal direction. Nor do you need to establish causality to see that sluts are garbage.

It's also interesting you believe higher promiscuity isn't causal in STI risk. Truly, this is the height of slut culture's reasoning.

[Anonymous No.11937064]

>>11935784
Nowhere is causation implied in that study, next time at least try to understand what your garbage can-of-worms response means before you speak. Do you seriously think promiscuity has zero effect on any of those factors presented?

[Anonymous No.11937073]

>>11933522
correlation does not imply causation

[Anonymous No.11937095]

>>11937073
This is either a bot or a literal retard

[Anonymous No.11937140]

>>11937095
you're curious how much promiscuity contributes to divorce

you need reason to believe it contributes at all first