What Does Chad’s Dick And Bill Gates Wealth Have In Common?

I recently asked the following question on Quora:

If Bill Gates were as tall as his money, he would be a “300 mile tall man.” Likewise, if “Chad [Thundercock]’s” Thunder Cock were as long as the number of matches he got on Tinder [relative to the average man], how long would it be?

RCM Capital provides a statistical estimate for Bill Gates’ height (as measured in terms of his wealth compared to the average person):

Take the distribution of wealth as compared to the distribution of human height as an example. Consider that the tallest human ever recorded was 8’ 11”, or about 1.6 times the average, and 10 standard deviations outside of the average.

Now consider Bill Gates and his net worth of about $54 Billion. How tall do you think a person would have to be so that they are as much over the average in height, as Bill Gates is over the average in wealth? 10ft tall? 50? 1000?  Would you believe 1.6 million feet, or 303 miles, tall… which is about the length of Lake Michigan.  That is how much greater Bill Gates’ wealth is than the average American. He should literally not exist in a world which is normally distributed, being thousands of standard deviations above the average. But he does exist, and those $54 Billion are really his, making it painfully obvious for those of us down there within a few standard deviations of the mean that we are in fact in extremistan.

I thought this was a nice explanation for how non-normal statistical distributions might be represented in a visual format.

Given the following answer to my original question on Quora:

…I realized that this is something people generally have a strong opinion about, so I thought it pertinent to produce my own statistical estimate for Chad’s hypothetical Thunder Cock, as measured in terms of the number of his matches on Tinder compared to the average man.

According to Worst-Online-Dater:

the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men…the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies.

What does this mean for the hypothetical length of Chad’s Thunder Cock?

Well, taking the most recent Tinder usage statistics, we know that last month there were 1.6 billion swipes per day. Knowing also that the amount of men and women on the app are are approximately equal, and that men swipe three times as often as women, we can assume that men swipe at least 1.2 billion times per day.

…the most attractive men will be liked by only approximately 20% of all the females on Tinder.

Of those 1.2 billion daily male right swipes, distributed across 5 million daily active users who are men, Chads all around the world generate matches from 20% of their 240 average daily swipes—this amounts to 48 matches for the average Chad each and every day. On the other hand, Beta Brads generate a pithy 1% of matches from their average 240 daily swipes, or 2.4 matches (on average) per day.

Assume a degenerate distribution (swiper is either a Chad or Beta Brad) that follows the 80/20 rule as described above in Dataclysm:

2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 4848, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 4848, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 4848, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 48, 48

Here are some of the computed statistics:

Population Total
40

Mean (Average)
11.52

Standard deviation
18.55182

Variance
344.16993

To put this into more visceral terms, if the average man’s erect penis is 5.12 inches in length, then Chad’s magnanimous Thunder Cock would stand gloriously at 153 inches long (average penis length * (variance / mean)), or just a couple feet taller than a standard issue NBA basketball hoop. This is also the relative difference in height between a Chihuahua and an African Bush Elephant.

It is important to note that our thought experiment is inherently limited. We collect a non-random sample of data from a degenerate distribution of observations in order to estimate a plausible variance from the mean, which allows us to identify the most extreme possible values from the distribution. In a sense, our data is “cooked” insofar as one would consider the preparation of a frozen TV dinner “cooking,” but that is somewhat okay for purposes of our analysis, because it is still possible to estimate a lower bound on Chad’s dick length and I believe there is some social utility in that—consider that a warmish bowl of macaroni with a few chunks of unthawed ice in it is slightly better than nothing if you prefer macaroni to nothing.

So, if we do not assume a particular type of distribution, then:

  • At least one value in the population is μ+σμ+σ or more, or at least one value is μσμ−σ or below. In our example, we cannot have that all the values are strictly between 7.03182−7.03182 and 30.0718230.
  • Since all the values are non-negative, then the largest value must be at least μ+σ2μμ+σ2μ. In our example, the largest value would then have to be more than 41.39587.

Given that the population of Tinder matches from which the revealed preferences of women for men are derived is likely to be non-random (they are probably correlated), we are likely to underestimate the true size of Chad’s Thunder Cock by such an order of magnitude so as to make our analysis mostly meaningless.

My best guess is that status determinations are rank-order prioritized, based on a moving historical average of salient recent matches—as opposed to independently and identically distributed.

Translation: Women keep a running mental playbook of recent matches and make comparisons among and between them, updating their internal hierarchy on every new match, whereas most men simply rate women on a gradient scale based on looks alone, which are typically normally distributed in any population. No one is actually as tall as Bill Gates is wealthy, a fact that comically illustrates the point that status hierarchies are much more competitive than ones based on mere physical appearance. Male social status scales non-linearly, which means that we can’t actually provide any meaningful estimate for how many matches the world’s very top Chads actually receive on a daily basis.

Simply put, future Black Swan Chads may have hypothetical Thunder Cocks that are 30 times as long or longer when fully erect compared to the average frustrated chump, but we’ll never know more from statistics alone than that such a value has to be larger than approximately 41 matches per day (the empirical Dataclysm data cited above shows that Chads receive about 48 matches per day).

Tinder makes 5% of men appear 30 times taller than the rest. The technology behind online dating applications magnifies the visibility of the highest status potential male suitors for women at the expense of the average man. Compared to a traditional world in which the more proximal relations of Church and community took precedence over the instantaneous gratification of dopaminergic short-term digital dating preferences, low status men are effectively invisible to women.

In a world where only size matters, is the supremacy of Chad a good incentive for average men to put in more effort—to work diligently to improve their interpersonal skills, physique and career opportunities—in order to compete for more dates, or is this merely a better a reason to simply opt out of the race altogether?

It appears that for most men, the reality confronting them is that the growth of the Incel Economy will make it easier to resign oneself to a simpler, less challenging life… Simply put, that compared to dating, sex bots and cloning will become more efficient ways for 95% of men to enjoy their leisure time and get their genes into the next generation. In an increasingly socially disparaging and sexless world, “opting out” is day by day becoming more preferable to what generations past would have considered a normal, healthy sex and social life.

Chad: 10 Ft. Thunder Cock
Brad: 5.12 inch weenis

Welcome to the Age of Babylon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *