thanks for the input on the last post, next time i'll make an actually interpretable one in like a year or something, or next time reddit fucks up
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
320 points (100.0% liked)
196
16504 readers
12 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It kinda is. 341 identify as straight. 525 identify as cis. 341/525 = ~65% of respondents who identify as cis are both cis and straight. Out of all those who responded, approximately 18.5% of respondents are both cis AND straight.
We don't have the fine detail, but this is enough for a rough estimate.
Edit: is everyone happy now?
You can't do it this way. It would work if we would know that everyone who is straight also identifies as being cis, but that's obviously not the case.
Also the way you calculated it would be 65% of people who identify as straight under the condition that a person is straight. Not 65% of respondents.
But again, that's assuming that everyone who is straight is cis.
That's all this is...a rough estimate. If we knew more details, we could refine that estimate. But then things get muddy when you consider what a "straight" relationship means to a cis person when only one person in the relationship is cis. So it comes down to what you want. Do you want a rough idea of the ratio, or do you want to get bogged down in the details and debate about what should be included?
But what you calculated isn't even possible. You calculated that more people are cis and straight than there are cis people. That alone is enough to disprove you.
I edited my comment to extrapolate the data and make it more clear...
Sorry, but WTF is this math. Cis people, regardless of sexual orientation, are less than 65% of respondents. Straight people, regardless of gender identity, are also less than 65%. How come people who are both at the same time would be more? You are saying that e.g. cis straight people are more than straight people in total.
What your math gives is what share of cis people are straight, if we assume that all straight people are cis.
Why wouldn't that be a reasonable assumption? If you identify as non-cis, then you likely identity as non-straight. Which would mean that if you identify as straight, you likely identify as cis. There might be some outliers of non-cis people that identify as straight, but they are statistically insignificant.
Otherwise, I've edited my comment for clarity, since people seemed to be having trouble extrapolating the conclusion.
The keyword is likely. I agree that there is some correlation, but we can't know for sure how strong the connection is unless we are given the numbers, and their lack is the reason for this math in the first place. If we assume that all straight people are cis (which I doubt), then we need not do any math - the number of straight cis people is the number of straight people. If we assume no correlation at all (which I also doubt), then we get a more reasonable number. If we assume some correlation, then we just get a similar number, but the math gets a lot messier.
there is a lot wrong with that math
Then please...enlighten me.
Other people have already said a lot, but I'll fill in some more of the calculations. So, according to the poll, we only know that
P(Cis) = 0.28
and
P(Straight) = 0.19
Now, what we are looking after is P(Cis ∧ Straight). Since we don't know if cis people on this sub are more or less likely to be straight, there's no way to calculate this without making assumptions, but generally in statistics for a rough estimate we can assume statistical independence. In that case we get
P(Cis ∧ Straight) = P(Cis) * P(Straight) = 0.28 * 0.19 = 0.06
which would mean about 6% of people are cis and straight. That is probably underestimating it, because it is pretty likely that cis people are more likely to be straight, but from this data, there is no way to know.
Now, to what you calculated: instead of writing it in absolutes, you can rewrite it in probabilities:
P(Straight) / P(Cis)
In and of itself this gives us no information. But again, if we assume this time that all straight people are cis, which is a steeper assumption, we get the conditional probability:
P(Straight) / P(Cis) = P(Cis ∧ Straight) / P(Cis) = P(Straight | Cis) = 0.65
This gives us that assuming all straight people are cis, if you meet someone who is cis, there's a 65% chance they are also straight. Which is interesting, but not what we're looking for
wow, that turned out a bunch of nerd shit, what I actually meant to say was
:3
Just realized I messed up the actual numbers, but I'm too lazy to correct them
So in other words....you have no idea what you're talking about and don't know the right answer, yet you still feel compelled to tell me that I'm wrong. I guess the internet never changes no matter what kind of people are on the forum...
I misread the results, taking the 1872 responses, instead of 964 users. In no way does that change the math behind it. Just in case you actually care about the numbers, the updated figures would be:
P(Cis) = 0.55
P(Straight) = 0.36
P(Cis ∧ Straight) = 0.20
giving us 20% cis and straight people.
Based on these numbers alone, anywhere from 0 to 341 respondents could be both straight and cis