Generalizations About Mormons Extracted From Utah Statistics

[Stargazer]

And now I'm wondering how many paid signups are of people who were trying to see if their spouse/significant other were active on the site?  That's an entirely different motivation, and is probably even an innocent one.

 

But just try proving it!

[MorningStar]

And now I'm wondering how many paid signups are of people who were trying to see if their spouse/significant other were active on the site?  That's an entirely different motivation, and is probably even an innocent one.

 

But just try proving it!

 

If this site had been up when my friends and I were teenagers, I could totally see us registering just to mess with men who want to cheat.  "Uh huh!  Meet me at the Hilton!" 

[Stargazer]

If this site had been up when my friends and I were teenagers, I could totally see us registering just to mess with men who want to cheat.  "Uh huh!  Meet me at the Hilton!" 

 

I loved the evil leer you made while you were writing this! 

 

Now, don't worry, I wasn't watching -- I could see it clearly in my mind's eye, however!

[MorningStar]

I loved the evil leer you made while you were writing this! 

 

Now, don't worry, I wasn't watching -- I could see it clearly in my mind's eye, however!

Wow, we've never met, but you know my mischievous smile.  Ha!  I bore my testimony recently and a new friend said, "You have this smile ...... Like you know something we don't ....."  Hahaha!!!

 

But seriously, when I was a teenager, my friend told me she and her sister played on a "dating hotline" for hours until they got kicked off.  The men had to pay and the women didn't.  You could leave messages back and forth for each other or chat live.  The advantage of leaving a message was that if you started to laugh, you could erase it and start again.  She begged me to do some improving on it and after a while I was like, "Man, what does it take to repel these guys?  This is pathetic!"  One of them was reading really deranged poems and I said in my sexy voice, "Stop the rhyming and I mean it.  Anybody want a peanut?"  He left a message asking, "What are you - some kind of comedian?!"  I replied, "Yes, I am."  I got bored and started telling them all that I was very fat.  One guy said, "Well you sound nice."  I felt a little guilty later, but then I was pretty sure at least a couple of them would have hidden my body in the woods if given the opportunity. 

 

So to read that most of the female profiles on Ashley Madison were fake?  Yes, that sounds believable.  I really can't imagine a woman paying to have an affair. 

[webbles]

It'll be interesting to see what sethpayne and Mola Ram Suda Ram find if they get the chance to do a more in-depth analysis of the data (but even then, it'll be difficult to tell, IMO).  How would you know the Ashley Madison member's religion?

I tried to break it down by county (since some of Utah's counties are a little more indicative of religion).  I used the paid information, deduped it (mainly using membership ids but about 30 didn't have that so I just used first/last names), and converted the zipcodes into counties using the census zcta dataset.  Since some zipcodes span multiple counties, I would split up the users in those counties according to the zcta percentages (so if a zipcode had 80% of its population in one county, I would assign 80% of the users to that county).  There were also about 600 users that used at least two cards from different zipcodes.  For many of those, the zipcodes were still in the same county but in a few cases I just picked one of the counties.

 

The number of paid subscribers is 10,544.  About 96% were male (though apparently woman didn't have to pay for most of the site so this is probably a useless statistics).

 

The top 10 counties with the most subscribers are: Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, Washington, Summit, Cache, Tooele, Uintah, Box Elder.  It is pretty much ordered by county population except for Summit and Uintah.

 

I also calculated the per adult rate.  I used the 18+ 2013 population estimates from the census.  Here's the counties with the per adult rate:

Summit: 0.95%

Rich: 0.76%

Daggett: 0.69%

Davis: 0.65%

Salt Lake: 0.62%

Uintah: 0.59%

Tooele: 0.58%

Duchesne: 0.55%

Weber: 0.48%

Grand: 0.48%

Utah: 0.47%

Wasatch: 0.40%

Box Elder: 0.39%

Morgan: 0.38%

Piute: 0.36%

Iron: 0.35%

Cache: 0.32%

Kane: 0.32%

Beaver: 0.30%

Washington: 0.28%

Carbon: 0.27%

Sevier: 0.26%

Millard: 0.24%

Sanpete: 0.22%

Garfield: 0.21%

Juab: 0.18%

Emery: 0.14%

San Juan: 0.13%

Wayne: 0.10%

[Stargazer]

Wow, we've never met, but you know my mischievous smile.  Ha!  I bore my testimony recently and a new friend said, "You have this smile ...... Like you know something we don't ....."  Hahaha!!!

 

 

Yes, well, I've read your blog, too, so ....

[sethpayne]

Perhaps they ask in the signup?  I mean, wouldn't a devout [insert religious adherent descriptor here] rather commit adultery with another of the same faith?  Or perhaps with anyone BUT someone of the same faith?

 

I don't know if religious faith is part of the profile on AM, and I think I'm going to stay as far away as I can from signing up just so I can discover this factum.  Although my curiosity is really pulling me in that direction.

 

Religious affiliation is NOT a part of the leaked AM data.  They may have asked but they didn't store it in any of the database tables that were leaked.

 

This whole thing just gets more and more sad.

 

http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/heres-what-ashley-madison-members-have.html

[Stargazer]

Religious affiliation is NOT a part of the leaked AM data.  They may have asked but they didn't store it in any of the database tables that were leaked.

 

This whole thing just gets more and more sad.

 

http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/heres-what-ashley-madison-members-have.html

 

That much is certain.

[MorningStar]

Religious affiliation is NOT a part of the leaked AM data.  They may have asked but they didn't store it in any of the database tables that were leaked.

 

This whole thing just gets more and more sad.

 

http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/heres-what-ashley-madison-members-have.html

What would be the point of identifying one's religion when looking to cheat on their spouse?  "I'm a Presbyterian hoping to have an affair with a nice, attractive Presbyterian." 

[Stargazer]

What would be the point of identifying one's religion when looking to cheat on their spouse?  "I'm a Presbyterian hoping to have an affair with a nice, attractive Presbyterian." 

 

He was responding to something I asked, namely did they in fact ask what your religion was.  Presumably because you would rather commit adultery with a fellow Presbyterian, or whether you would rather avoid other Presbyterians. 

 

This grows out of the question, how would they know a person on AM was LDS?

[BlueDreams]

If anyone is curious, based on Webbles' data....I did a quick comparison based on this map (not sure of the percentage accuracy on it) to get a basic idea of the break down between high mormon counties and lower ones. To make this easy, any county with an LDS rate of 80% or higher (9 counties) is in blue and anything of 60% or lower is in orange (8 counties).

 

Summit: 0.95%   - 37%
Rich: 0.76%  -  85%
Daggett: 0.69% - 52%
Davis: 0.65% - 71
Salt Lake: 0.62% - 56%
Uintah: 0.59% - 62%
Tooele: 0.58% - 60
Duchesne: 0.55% - 72
Weber: 0.48% - 58%
Grand: 0.48% - 29%
Utah: 0.47% - 83%
Wasatch: 0.40% - 71%
Box Elder: 0.39% - 80%
Morgan: 0.38% - 88%
Piute: 0.36% - 67%
Iron: 0.35% - 65%
Cache: 0.32% - 76%
Kane: 0.32% - 62%
Beaver: 0.30% - 74%
Washington: 0.28% - 67%
Carbon: 0.27% -  49%
Sevier: 0.26% - 82%
Millard: 0.24% - 82%
Sanpete: 0.22% - 79%
Garfield: 0.21% - 80%
Juab: 0.18% - 80%
Emery: 0.14% - 76%
San Juan: 0.13% - 40%
Wayne: 0.10% - 81%

 

I honestly didn't think the trend would be that obvious....but basically higher percentage mormon populations are more likely to be at the bottom or clustered in the middle. Lower ones are nearer the top. This doesn't prove anything, obviously....it could be that all the users in the low populations are all mormons. Not likely, but it could happen. Still the trend at least suggests that there's a reverse connection between the influence of LDS communities and the likelihood of them using AM. Ie the more mormony it gets the the less likely they're out about to go and jump for an AM sorted affair. So this not only indicates a problem with generalizing UT data for LDS populations....but the earlier concern that LDS are being duplicitous. 

 

So there, we're not hypocrites. Statistics are still liars. And this would be yet another indicator that if it sounds almost unbelievable....it probably is. Don't take things at face value.  

 

Also, if I had to take a guess, the trends probably follow populations with greater wealth distribution and population dense areas...those are the regions I would expect to have more high-tech and costly affairs. Of the population heavy areas (100,000+ areas) this is the order

 

Davis: 0.65% (AM Users) - 71% (LDS)
Salt Lake: 0.62% - 56%

Weber: 0.48% - 58%

Utah: 0.47% - 83%

Cache: 0.32% - 76%

 

Make of it what you will....but the 2 lowest in this are also the areas with the highest percentage of LDS in the group. 

 

 

EDIT: Also for the OP, I think using UT stats for LDS can be a big mistake. The reason is in the demographics and cultural influences you may find in UT compared to outside the state just in the US. The racial demographics differ, the likelihood of them being 1st or 2nd generation are a lot lower, and the cultural context is very different...including being a religious majority v religious minorirty/obscurity. These are going to give UT LDS a different outlook and culture than those outside the state. These both are likely to differ from outside the country...where the pressures, experiences, cultural contexts, etc of being LDS are likely to radically differ.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2015 by BlueDreams

[jkwilliams]

If anyone is curious, based on Webbles' data....I did a quick comparison based on this map (not sure of the percentage accuracy on it) to get a basic idea of the break down between high mormon counties and lower ones. To make this easy, any county with an LDS rate of 80% or higher (9 counties) is in blue and anything of 60% or lower is in orange (8 counties).

 

 

Make of it what you will....but the 2 lowest in this are also the areas with the highest percentage of LDS in the group. 

 

 

EDIT: Also for the OP, I think using UT stats for LDS can be a big mistake. The reason is in the demographics and cultural influences you may find in UT compared to outside the state just in the US. The racial demographics differ, the likelihood of them being 1st or 2nd generation are a lot lower, and the cultural context is very different...including being a religious majority v religious minorirty/obscurity. These are going to give UT LDS a different outlook and culture than those outside the state. These both are likely to differ from outside the country...where the pressures, experiences, cultural contexts, etc of being LDS are likely to radically differ.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thank you for the most informative post about this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That should work.  Access can probably handle 32M records .... but make sure you are using a SSD.  

Yeah, access can handle that. I might get with my bro and put it in his SQL server. I think it will work better.

 

I hope to have some time to noodle with this. It looks like some people are making some good use of the info.

[Thinking]

So out of a 15 Million worldwide number only 8% are represented by active Utah Mormons.  They are the most dense LDS population of any state, but it's still difficult to draw conclusions about "Mormons" by looking at "Utah" and supposing they are synonymous.

 

Although it would be not valid to assume that the % of LDS who use AM is the same as the population %, it would be extremely unlikely that the there aren't a significant number of LDS registered. An anonymous survey would theoretically be more accurate but most likely be biased toward a lower percent because those who would answer "Yes" might not trust the stated anonymity of such a survey. The AM hack is what we have and its message is clear. There is a problem.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Thinking

[carbon dioxide]

New data shows that almost all the users of Ashley Madison where MEN.  http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

 

A few quotes:

 

"The first field, called mail_last_time, contained a timestamp indicating the last time a member checked the messages in their Ashley Madison inbox. If a person never checked their inbox, the field was blank. But even if they’d checked their messages only once, the field contained a date and time. About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages."

 

"The pattern was reflected in another data field, too. This one, called chat_last_time contained the timestamp for the last time a member had struck up a conversation using the Ashley Madison chat system. Roughly 11 million men had engaged in chat, but only 2400 women had."

 

"Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created."

[ALarson]

New data shows that almost all the users of Ashley Madison where MEN.  http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

 

I read that most of the women on that site had free accounts, but I don't know how accurate that is.  Anyone who wanted to approach another person on there had to buy credits and use them to contact people.  So, it was explained that it was mostly men buying the credits and the women could join for free and just wait to be contacted (which didn't cost them anything as it was free to join). Again,I don't know how accurate this is, but it would explain why 95% of the paid accounts were men and only 5% were women (in the CC database).

[MorningStar]

Ashley Madison Was a Bunch of Dudes Talking to Each Other

 

I guess that works if you're a dude looking for a dude. 

[Thinking]

I read that most of the women on that site had free accounts, but I don't know how accurate that is.  Anyone who wanted to approach another person on there had to buy credits and use them to contact people.  So, it was explained that it was mostly men buying the credits and the women could join for free and just wait to be contacted (which didn't cost them anything as it was free to join). Again,I don't know how accurate this is, but it would explain why 95% of the paid accounts were men and only 5% were women (in the CC database).

 

Do dance clubs still have "Ladies Night?" I remember back in the 80's ladies were let in free on Wednesday night at the Palace in Provo. It sounds like the same formula for AM.

[Thinking]

Ashley Madison Was a Bunch of Dudes Talking to Each Other

 

A bunch of guys trying to have an affair.

 

#Fail

 

#GetInTroubleAnyway

[MorningStar]

A bunch of guys trying to have an affair.

 

#Fail

 

#GetInTroubleAnyway

 

  To add insult to injury, AM had charged a fee to delete everything, yet they didn't.  Back to having affairs the old fashioned way, everyone! 

[Calm]

I read that most of the women on that site had free accounts, but I don't know how accurate that is.  Anyone who wanted to approach another person on there had to buy credits and use them to contact people.  So, it was explained that it was mostly men buying the credits and the women could join for free and just wait to be contacted (which didn't cost them anything as it was free to join). Again,I don't know how accurate this is, but it would explain why 95% of the paid accounts were men and only 5% were women (in the CC database).

But doesn't activity or lack there of show whether or not the account was paid for?

[Calm]

  To add insult to injury, AM had charged a fee to delete everything, yet they didn't.  Back to having affairs the old fashioned way, everyone! 

Got to wonder how many actually got a refund for not having an affair in three months or whatever it was.

 

If there were hardly any women on it, then hardly any guy managed to get an affair even assuming all the women actually went for it.  So almost every guy who signed up should be demanding a refund.

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

Got to wonder how many actually got a refund for not having an affair in three months or whatever it was.

 

If there were hardly any women on it, then hardly any guy managed to get an affair even assuming all the women actually went for it.  So almost every guy who signed up should be demanding a refund.

 

I'm guessing it's kind of like rebates.

 

You honor all requests but make it enough of a hassle such that only 30% or so actually submit a request.

 

Plus I imagine these men would be embarrassed.

[webbles]

But doesn't activity or lack there of show whether or not the account was paid for?

No.  You can apparently be active on the site without paying for it.  It seems like you bought "credits" (ignoring the "guarantee") and had to use those to initiate contact or real-time chat.  So if you never did real-time chat and you never initiated contact (just responded), you wouldn't have to pay for anything.

[BlueDreams]

  To add insult to injury, AM had charged a fee to delete everything, yet they didn't.  Back to having affairs the old fashioned way, everyone! 

 

Well, I mean their motto was cheating and lying  by not divulging  the truth to those your closest to is the way to go! Really they were just being consistent with their company ethics...