-Vincenzo-
New member
Idi Amin Dada;3254763 said:But your statistics make NO REFERENCE TO PROMISCUITY! You retarded ass nigga. NONE! ZERO! NADA! No reference to promiscuity. virginity and promiscuity are the same now? We understand stats fine, but your stats have NOTHING to do with your argument.
I don't really know where to start this to me the relation is so obvious it's really hard to not see it but anyway i will try my best:
"By age 19, 87% of college students have had sex. At MIT, it’s only 51%. (Furthermore, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex.)"
There are 20 people, 10 were at MIT and 10 were at the West New York community college. Out of the 10 who went to the community college 8 or 9 (8.7) had sex. Out of the MIT group it were only 5 (5.1). Assuming that in order to be a slut you have to had sex it only leaves 4.9 persons in the MIT group that fulfill that criteria but 8.7 in the community college group.
Smart as Idi Amin Dada is he will now protest and say: "Maybe the 4.9 students from MIT are total sluts and the 8.7 from the community colleges are non-promiscuous." Well as unlikely as it is that there is such a sharp contrast and MIT students only come in 2 groups sluts or virgins theoretically it would be possible. Therefore findings from another study investigating the relation between education and promiscuity are presented below:
"Ordinary least squares and instrumental variables estimates suggest that number of sex partners is negatively related to educational attainment"
The whole study can be found if you search for "The Price of Promiscuity: Does the Number of Sex Partners Affect School Attainment?". Of course you can go on and look for a 0.5 % loophole that was left open somewhere but I highly doubt you do not see the bigger picture at this point.
Last edited: