Understanding statistical population models and using them to vet correctly

The Social Pathologist chart has made rounds in the manosphere at large.

There are also some clarifications on sexual promiscuity.

There are a couple of things to understand with populational statistics that most people have difficultly with. In general, I’ve seen women have the most problems understanding statistical populations which is pretty clear in my previous post on what I look for in evaluating a potential wife Part 2. I don’t know why this is. Maybe it’s because men tend to be better on average on abstract thinking. Maybe it’s because women cannot compartmentalize thoughts and emotions separate from each other as well as men. It could also possibly be that they don’t often try to do that.

Whatever the case, that’s neither here nor there for this post. So let’s go on to what we can learn about population statistics.

1. Correlation is not causation. This is a pretty common one that is often overlooked. In analyzing sexual partners and divorce risk this is not one of the things that we are concerned about in terms of implying that it may be causative rather than correlative. It’s pretty clear that sexual choices have an affect on divorce. Hence, in this case, the fact that sexual partners tend to have a “causative effect” on divorce risk to some measure.

This is the importance of examining the X and Y variables to see if they have some relationship to each other. Usually most studies that examine other variables that affect the X and Y axes will have someting along the lines of “indepedence” mentioned. For example, X variable had an effect on Y variable independent of other factors such as socioeconomic status. This is present in the adjusted clarifications on sexual promiscuity above.

2. Variables are not always independent or dependent. This is extremely important to realize because it will show us that tendencies toward some things have tendencies toward other things.

Risk taking behavior is a fairly easy one to quantify. Those more prone to “risk taking behavior” are also those who have a higher statistically likelihood to be involved in other risky scenarios. For example, those who binge drink as a risky behavior are also probably more statistically likely to try illicit drugs, be sexually promiscuous, and other risky activities such as these.

These are not what you would call independent variables. If the variables would be independent you could survey someone from the poor and the rich and get the same outcome. You could survey someone from a one parent family and two parent family and get the same outcome. You could survey someone from a religious background and someone from an athiest background and get the same outcome.

Obviously, most variables are NOT independent. They are dependent on many factors because human behavior is integrative. Things that affect one aspect of you as a human will tend to always color your perception a certain way.

This is extremely important to understand because most of the manosphere assumes that many variables are independent. In the example of a potential wife: a woman who is genuinely a Christian and accepted Jesus as her Savior to be saved is more statistically likely to be a virgin, chaste, want to be a wife and mother, and all other such things. This will generally mean that IF you find a particular community of genuine Christians there is a higher likelihood than normal of you finding many women who want to be wives and mothers who are also virgins, chaste, and whatever else you are looking for that aligns with the Scripture.

Like begets like.

3. Populational statistics do not apply to an individual but merely provide a relative risk factor of an individual.

For example, I’m sure many of us have heard of a story where their grandparents or a friend grandparents chain smoked 10 packs of cigarettes a day for 60 years and lived to the ripe old age of 110. On the other hand, I’m sure that we all know of some people who have had relatives die of lung cancer in their 40s and 50s.

Populational statistics do not predict individual destiny. However, they do predict a relative risk factor. Any single one person could be an “exception” to the rule. However, if you are of such population, the other person should take into account population statistics in terms of cost-benefit analysis and risk-to-reward ratios.

I won’t marry a smoker because they are more likely to die earlier, use more money frivolously on cigarettes, and have more healthcare issues. I don’t need to expose my children or myself to second hand smoke either.

The same is true of marrying someone who has been sexually promiscuous. Sure, they could be one of the exceptions and have a godly marriage if they repent of their sins and follow Jesus. However, it is still a risk you are taking by marrying someone with a promiscuous past that you wouldn’t have if you had married a virgin. If they have not made the choice to keep submitting to God it is easier for them to fall back into “old habits” and divorce to go be sexually promiscuous again. The phrases such as “once a cheater always a cheater” tend to play on these statistical tendencies.

You can think of such relative risk ratios as “yellow” or “red” flags depending on your preferences. One yellow flag is a “hmm” moment. Two is eye brow raising. Three is concerning. Four or more and sirens should be going off in your head.

4. The whole package and relative risk.

Therefore, it is important to assess a woman to count-the-cost so to speak in a manner of vetting a potential wife. A “one and done” mistake of having sex for a woman who realizes her mistake and is repentant and never goes there again is more important than a “virgin” woman who has done everything but sex in her 10 relationships.

This is the importance of noting the “quality” of behavior over the “quantity” of behavior. People like to get hung up on quantity of behavior over quality when quality is just as important to understand.

Quality of behavior is also assessed in past history and tendencies of an individual. Someone that was ignorant of the gospel and had sex but has a testimony where she turned around and now has a history of chastity and doing good is going to be more on my radar for marriage than someone who was a “Christian” the whole time they were making “mistakes.”

This leads me into…

Model behavior

The reason why I made these comments is that I want to analyze the first two points of the article I previously posted:

  1. Evidence of a relationship with God — daily Scripture, prayer, meditation, and service in the Church and community. This is a heart that is seeking after God and is fruitful with good works.
  2. Evidence of godly earthly relationships in reference to God  — a potential wife prospect must understand how God views earthly relationships and act accordingly. A woman should respect and submit to the Jesus (John 14:15), the Church (1 Pet 5:5), earthly authorities (Rom 13, Heb 13, 1 Pet 2, Tit 3), and parental/fatherly authority (Exo 20:12, Eph 6:1). When a woman understands godly earthly relationships, she also understands the 3 main roles  and responsibilities of Biblical marriage: a helpmeet (Gen 2:18), with submission (Eph 5, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Pet 3), and with respect (Eph 5, 1 Pet 3). There should be evidence of the fruits of the Spirit — joy and peace — in these actions.

With respect to model behavior it is extremely important to analyze the other parts of someone’s life away from you. This is the importance of analyzing a woman’s relationship with Jesus, the Church, earthly authorities, and her father. A woman’s interaction with YOU in particular may be biased. You have something that she wants whether it is marriage, children, commitment, or whatever else.

However, areas where she stands nothing to gain from bias of a relationship with you such as her submission to earthly authorities or her father when it is difficult reveal her true character.

Christians who understand the order from chaos that the Father likes in our relationships in this world understand much more than people give them credit for. TPC in particular fails in her critique in this manner:

I think men should have a clearer understanding of exactly where the potential wives are, and I think that can be phrased topically. What you have listed, for example, is contradictory. Wanting a woman who is “into fitness” is not compatible with a “large family”. Those women who have more than, say, five children are usually not in tiptop fitness-figure shape. They aren’t 400lbs or anything like that, but they are very much not ripped paleo mamas. And that’s relevant without getting into requirements for men.

Such a critique fails to examine the character of women who are rightly respect and submit to authority.

A Christian woman who wants a large family generally has respect for God and her husband. Women who respects her husband will want to be sexually attractive for him. Thus, it follows that even if a woman has a large family she will want to be sexually attractive for him and make the effort to be. A husband’s perception may also be affected by things such as wife goggles.

The point is not that wives can’t look like “Paleo mom’s” or whatever that means. The point is that a woman will put forth the effort and enthusiasm. “Looks” is a red herring insomuch as “sex” is also a red herring. No man wants to have begrudging UNRESPECTFUL starfish sex with his wife. He wants her to put in effort and enthusiasm.

Likewise, it is the HEART which God judges AND the action. You may mean well but do something horrible wrong or sinful. God forgives that if you repent AND change your ways. As long as your heart continues to be in the right place you will eventually do well for God and not make the same mistakes. Being a Christian is not about performance or doing but about desire first. From desire flows a heart that acts in right standing.

The easiest example is the Duggars. Michelle (the wife) may not “look the best” after 19 kids. But I can bet you that Jim Bob (the husband) is still rather enthused in the bedroom because she is still enthusiastic to maintain an attractive appearance and have sex coupled with their past history of her bearing his kids, being a respectful and submissive wife, and other godly attributes.

No one should be disingenuous to fall into the trap of the false dichotomy of one or the other. This is one of the major pitfalls of a failure to understand populational statistics properly, as well as one of the pitfalls of the humans at large.


Character is as important as actions. This is why I regard your attitude tells me everything I need to know as one of the fundamental posts on this blog. Attitude reveals the heart which reveals character.

It is not enough to look for someone who does only the right things. Everyone is going to make mistakes at one time or another. Instead, you should be looking for someone with the heart to do right things, and has a history of doing a lot of right things and moving away from wrong things.

This type of woman is someone who has set their heart on becoming a godly Christian and is willing to learn and be taught and grow in marriage as a wife and mother.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle, My Search and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Understanding statistical population models and using them to vet correctly

  1. Pingback: Understanding statistical population models and using them to vet correctly | Manosphere.com

  2. Anonymous says:

    You seem to be very fixated on making sure a wife is sexually attractive to her husband at all times. I’m not arguing with that basic premise, but I don’t think you understand just what you are asking for. If you have had eight babies practically one after the other (I have had eight in ten years and I just had a baby last month), your body just isn’t going to be what it was (I also had two miscarriages, so really ten pregnancies). Doing my wifely duties to my husband has cost me a lot — I have very bad varicose veins, fifteen pounds that just won’t come off, and a few other health problems I won’t go into. These are childbearing-related problems, they don’t go away overnight, and the varicose veins are downright painful. The children are all still pretty young and I homeschool because my husband wants me to. Keeping yourself physically fit, I learned, is practically another full-time job. If I want to get any exercise in, I have to be sure I get up at 4 am or something like that, and if the baby wakes up and starts crying because he wants to nurse, there goes the exercise. Do you understand? These are realities. A lot of guys out there start getting disillusioned because we got old — pretty much overnight. I don’t know about Michelle Duggar, but I’d be willing to bet she’s got family to help her out. Most of us don’t have that type of help and we have to juggle the plates on our own. Nobody is complaining about that, but why do you harp on this so much? We’re expected to do it all, and when even that’s not enough, it’s pretty depressing.

    Just a thought from a Momma who has an infant, a toddler, a preschooler and kids who need homeschooling as well….

  3. @ Anonymous… or should I say Traditional Homeschooling Mom or Mom in the Shoe

    First off, stick to one name or be banned.

    Second, weight is regulated by proper nutrition. It’s not that difficult to regulate proper nutrition, especially after you build good habits.

    Third, attractiveness is important for both sexes.

    Fourth, your situation aside this is not a blog to complain at. We realize you’re in a difficult situation, but you need to be addressing with this with people you know in person. *Especially* after you have rejected all of our advice.

    In fact, I would suggest you don’t read this blog if it is adding to your stress.

  4. Anonymous says:

    1. I’m not Mom in a Shoe, although we are a part of the same group of Moms. There are four of us who are trying to make it through the next twenty four hours. I have eight kids, she has six, another has just one, and our fourth member has five and is pregnant with #6.
    2. We’re just trying to survive. We have husbands who are manosphere enthusiasts and we are all “benefitting” from it, shall we say. We all homeschool, we all go to the same church, and our husbands are very firm on the “men talk to men, women talk to women”. So we focus on surviving the next twenty-four hours or the next fifteen minutes, depending on whatever the day is like.
    3. You’d better believe it causes us no end of stress. Amen to that.
    4. We tried to focus on the positive for a long time. Now we’re cynical.
    5. Thanks for your time.

  5. feeriker says:

    1. I’m not Mom in a Shoe, although we are a part of the same group of Moms. There are four of us who are trying to make it through the next twenty four hours. I have eight kids, she has six, another has just one, and our fourth member has five and is pregnant with #6.

    Ah, so THM/MiaS is afflicted with multiple personality disorder. That figures.

    I must say that that is one of the more creative trolling attempts I’ve ever come across.

  6. Cane Caldo says:


    Anonymous’ writing style is different than MitS’, butI’d be happy to search/compare IPs if you want to email me.

    I’d pay particular attention to this comment

    2. We’re just trying to survive. We have husbands who are manosphere enthusiasts and we are all “benefitting” from it, shall we say.

    The subliminal message here is that they (if it is “they”) have tried everything but bowing down and it’s just not working! They believe you to be the weak link; that they can “correct” you and thus change their husband’s courses without having to actually deal with their husbands, or their church. But are these claims even true? Which husbands are these? Do they comment here? If so: Should we agree to or allow marital spats in public?

  7. @ Cane

    Don’t bother I already compared them. They are the same.

    You are correct though. Women should not be appealing to other [anonymous] men on the Internet. Especially after they have rejected said [anonymous] men’s statements to obey the Scriptures.

    They should be addressing their own husbands and/or engaging their Church if they feel they are being improperly treated. You don’t go to your friend’s boss if you have a complain that you need to take to your own boss.

    Any said complaints about said husbands will be banned from this point on. Said complaints need to be address to said husbands.

  8. Pingback: Half of women marry the best sex of their lives | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  9. Pingback: Vetting, risk of divorce, and the myth of change | Christianity and the manosphere

  10. Pingback: Her father | Christianity and the manosphere

  11. Pingback: Doing your homework, studying, and the exam | Christianity and the manosphere

  12. Pingback: Thoughts on wisdom and omniscience | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s