From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:25:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug16.221555.30817@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug14.073415.2677@nuchat.sccsi.com>  kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>> Sigh.  It's really hard to talk about statistics to someone who seems to be
>> having trouble grasping the basic concepts

Kevin, the main reason you're having trouble talking statistics to me is that
I believe that statistics can really only measure like things.  How many
sparrows go to the birdbath.  How many apples will grow per tree.  What
percentage of homes have tar-and-gravel roofs.  Things like that.  When you
are talking romance, people are very, very different.  What I want in a man
is almost dead opposite of what Marcia Bednarcyk is looking for, and I
suspect that's very different from what Miriam Nadel or Tyger are looking
for.  

I don't believe that one can meaningfully apply statistics to that.
>> Teri, I'm in full agreement here.  If you know everything ahead of time,
>> statistics is a useless way of analyzing the situation because (obviously)
>> you already know everything you need.
>>
>> This is the case in the above situation, apparently.  You knew GOING INTO
>> IT that there was only *one* man in that room who you would date.
>
Untrue.  I had no idea.  I knew *one* person at that party - my housemate.

>But Stan didn't.  Had he looked at the odds and decided to go somewhere
>else with a "better" male/female ratio, he might have not met *anyone*,
>despite the greatly improved odds.
>
Precisely!  Larry, you've just nailed what I'm trying to say.  Stan went
with the idea of meeting some folks and just having a good time.  That's
generally Stan's way, anyway - he goes to events where he thinke he will
learn something or have a good time.  

Stan is very attractive.  Not classic features, really, but has a certain
charm, is a good person, dresses in an attractive way, and is very easy
to talk to.

He has women hanging all over him wherever he goes.  He's the type of
person who can go to a party with just 2 women and date at least one 
of them.

>> [40 men, 39 of which are into country.  2 women, both of which hate country.
>> Teri concludes that the 39 country guys don't have a chance in hell]
>>
>> In the situation you're talking about above, the statistics will say
>> exactly what you're concluding.  Why?  Because to do a statistical
>> analysis properly, you have to account for everything you know!  Now,
>> in the above case, it is *known* what the women like, it is *known*
>> what the men like, and thus it is *known* who will be attracted to
>> who.  All these things get accounted for in the statistical analysis.
>
Nope again, Kevin.  Only if you know ahead of time, as Larry rebutted
(trimmed for space, sorry) is this information helpful.  In general,
the only way to know that is to attend and see.  Now, if you go to a
square dance, I think you can make certain assumptions.  But, if you
get an invitation from someone you don't know, how do you figure it
out?  I think you don't.  I think the best way is to be an attractive
*you*, and if you don't find someone at a particular party, it's because
there was nobody suitable.  If, on the other hand, you prefer to sit
around and argue statistics instead of buying a cute sweater or
learning to chat, you may well find that you go to a party where there
are lots of MOTAS you find suitable, but *they* may not like *you*.

>> So what's left?  Two women and one guy.
>
>So clearly omniscience is required to do a proper statistical analysis.
>In the case where you *don't* know everyone's preferences, you *can't*
>do one.
>
And what I'm suggesting, Kevin, is that you stop worrying about the
actual numbers, and try to become the one guy.  Yes, you may waste your
time going to a number of events, who knows?  On the other hand, if
you become attractive, you can be a member of the select group of
successful men who do well no matter where they go.

>> ....except that if I don't know ahead of time who you're interested in and
>> who you're not interested in, the *only* thing I can do is count the other
>> people and assume that you *might* have an interest in them.
>
>And while you're busy counting the other people, one of them who doesn't
>give a damn about the odds has already gone up to her and asked her to
>dance.  Later on, they go home together.  You go home alone, nodding
>sagely, "My statistical analysis was dead-on."
>
Does this sound familiar!  Until I got into engineering, I had a lot of
trouble making friends with women.  I have male friends who I've known
for 10 years or more, but my longest term female friend at this point
(with the exception of a childhood friend I only see once every 2 to 3 
years) I have known 8 years, and she was married when I met her.  The
next longest is 3 years.

Why?  Because (as women told me) they hated going places with me and
having men talk to me, not them.  They hated going to parties with me
(where the ratios were usually lots of women to few men) and having
me dance with the cutest guys.  Women "friends" would get boyfriends
then refuse to associate with me, because they didn't want me talking
to "their man".  

They weren't doing statistical analysis.  They were generally doing
their faces, adjusting their pantyhose, trying to walk "just so",
but never just learning to *talk* to these guys.  Seriously.  A man
would walk up, and they might smile, simper sometimes, but they just
couldn't open their mouths and say something intelligent.

So, even though I didn't look as good (didn't dress as nicely) or 
know all the moves, I did very well, because if someone came up
and said "hi", I could actually think of something to say!  And, 
while a lot of these women would hide out in the ladies' room 
comparing notes on the available men, I'd be out there talking
about cars, pets, woodworking, travel, whatever.

Kevin, if you're going to hide in a corner and do your statistics,
please don't be surprised when someone who can actually *talk* to
these women does so, and takes her home with him as a result.

>> That's why you don't see many guys going to CS classes strictly for the
>> purpose of finding a mate.  Why?  Because it *usually* doesn't work!  It
>> *can* work, yes, but it *usually* doesn't.
>
>So, by your logic, we should see women going to CS classes strictly for the
>purpose of finding mates.  After all, the odds are in their favor.
>
That was the last thing on my mind.  On the other hand, I'm just
confident (egotistical, maybe?) enough to feel that I don't *have*
to plop myself down in the middle of a group of men to have a chance
at finding someone interesting.  

>> Given two environments in which I know nothing but the male/female ratio, I
>> will select the one which gives me the best chance of hooking up with
>> someone.
>
Not me, Kevin.  I will select the one that I think is most fun.  If I
have a choice between going shopping with a couple of female friends,
or sitting in a group of 250 men listing to Richard Stallman talk about
Gnusomething, I'll go shopping!  You know what else?  Chances are high
that I'll make a contact.  Why?  Because as I'm laughing and talking with
my friends, and having a good time, there is a confidence, an inner
glow, that seems to be attractive.

>> IT DOESN'T MATTER how attractive I might be at that point, because
>> that is ALREADY DETERMINED, and which environment I put myself in will have
>> no effect on my attractiveness level.  They're entirely different things.
>
>Not necessarily.  The two different environments might attract women
>with different preferences, so the women in one might tend to find
>you much more attractive than the women in another.
>
Yes, and further, if you are having a good time, you are more likely
to be attractive.  And, if you pick an environment where you are more
comfortable, that increases the chances that the women you do run into
will be more suitable/attracted.

>> So: the *real* question is: which is easier to change?  Your attractiveness
>> level, or your environment?
>>
>> I say it's easier to change your environment!  By a *long* way!
>
>But if your attractiveness level is low, you can constantly change your
>environment and it won't help.
>
You can say that again.  I believe there is someone for everyone, but
still, I do think that one can increase one's chances by working on
being more attractive.  I mean, when women first meet you, what do they
have to go on?  If you are not talking with them (or being coldly logical
and distant) and not doing much else to entice them, why should they 
bother?

>> >Real confidence is knowing that whatever the ratios,
>> >that if there is a compatible person for you there, you will get
>> >together.
>>
>> This seems to me to be a highly unrealistic way of looking at things.

Why?  It has worked for me for over 20 years.  So it seems unrealistic
to you.  What data do you have to back that up, Kevin, besides statistics,
which I don't believe have anything to do with it anyway?

If you don't believe it, fine.  Do things your way.  Doesn't seem to me
that your way is getting you much.  On the other hand, I know lots of
men who are having lots of luck finding SOs, even in this area, where
the ratios are generally lots of men to few women.  How do you explain
that?  Do you think they take a poll to figure out whether they are
compatible with the women before they go?  Or are they just lousy
mathematicians who get their statistics wrong?  Or could it be that
they are "lucky" because they are *attractive*?  Nah, sorry, of course
not, the numbers don't bear that out, do they?