From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:52:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug12.035959.15882@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In an article shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>>1) There is a party where there are 40 men and 2 women.  The ratio of
>>   men to women is really poor.  However, Stan winds up going out with
>>   one of the 2 women, and even after they break up, remains good friends
>>   with her.
>
>In other words, Stan got damned lucky.  Why?  Because he was able to go
>out with one of the women AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE OTHER MEN.
>
No, he didn't get lucky.  He had skills that enabled him to get the
girl to date him.  Had he not arrived, she would have not dated any
of the other men at the party.  How do I know?  I was the woman.
There was nothing he did that increased or decreased any of the 
other men's chances.  The other men didn't lose anything as a result
of his actions, because the woman wasn't going to go out with them,
anyway.

This is precisely why the ratios are (IMHO) bullshit.  They give a false
sense of the dynamics.  

Here's an example.  Say, at a party, there are 40 men and 2 women.
Imagine, for a moment, that the women absolutely hate country music,
western wear, and square dancing.  Say, for the sake of the example,
39 of the men come in wearing cowboy boots, cowboy hats, western
clothing, bolo ties, and bringing Merle Haggard and Charlie Pride
music to listen to.  One man comes whose favorite group is REM, and
one of the women loves REM.  This guy likes to wear jeans and polo
shirts.  The woman thinks he's cute.  He talks about the latest 
dessert creation he made, a chocolate rum cheesecake, and she is a
chocolate lover.  Do you really think that if she dates this guy
who likes REM that it reduces the chances of her dating one of the
guys in the bolo tie?  Maybe in the world of statistics, but I'm
trying to talk real life here.

>So Stan was able to go out with one of the women.  That leaves one woman
>left for the remaining 39 men to "fight" over, and thus a 1 in 39 chance
>(all things being equal, which is usually not the case.  When it's not
>the case, the people with a better chance of success have a better chance
>at the expense of those who don't, i.e. a person's probability of success
>goes up only if someone else's goes down.  This is because probability is
>a conserved quantity) that any given man in the group will be able to go
>out with the one remaining woman as a result of that party.
>
Maybe probability is a conserved quantity in statistics, but it isn't
in dating.  If you think so, I honestly think that could be part of the
problem.  The probability that, say, I would ask you out is directly
proportional to how attractive I find you, and whether or not my
husband would object.  8-)  Seriously, though, if I find someone 
interesting enough to date (or did, when I was dating) I find them
interesting enough to date, and it has nothing to do with the others 
in the group, unless there are multiple people who I find interesting
enough to date.  That's more rare, and counting all of the people in
the group into the set of those I'm interested in dating is just plain
bad math.

>The only way this isn't true is if the women are going out with multiple
>men simultaneously.  The problem is that it won't *stay* that way: sooner
>or later they'll find someone they like enough that they'll stop dating
>anyone else.  So in the final analysis, the ratio *does* matter.
>
Nope.  Because personal preference is the most deciding factor, and 
unless the participants in this little drama never get out, the ratio
for any particular event is meaningless, anyway.  I might go to an
all-women event on Saturday, and not meet any men there, but I might
go to several mostly-men events the next week and meet lots of men 
there.  Of course, if I don't find any of the men interesting, what
does it matter?

What is a much bigger deciding factor is how attractive the men are.

>>3) There is a party where there are 25 men and 25 women.  Men and women
>>   are pairing off, but Bo is shy, and doesn't interact with any of the
>>   women.  After a while, some of the women decide to go out and chat
>>   together, leaving the party, and leaving Bo there without a date.
>
>Right.  An even distribution doesn't guarantee a match.  But in this
>scenario, a much larger number of the men managed to get a date than the
>first scenario.  Why?  BECAUSE THE RATIO WAS BETTER.
>
Maybe.  Not necessarily.  Again, for any particular man, the chances
are much more dependent upon how attractive he is than what the ratio
is.  Look at poor Bo, who is going home alone!  The ratio didn't help
him much, did it?  The ratio only helped those who were attractive
enough to others in the group to get paired up.  Hence my assertion
that depending on the ratios is useless.  

>You're confusing guarantees with chance.  This is a game of chance, and the
>best you can do is maximize your chance of success.  The male/female ratio
>is a probability modifier: the higher the ratio, the lower the chance that

Yeah, and the best thing you can do to maximize your chances is to become
a Stan.  Then, regardless of the ratios, you can succeed.  Unlike Bo, who
is going to be unsuccessful, no matter what the ratios.

How do I know?  I still get asked out, in spite of being married.

>Yeah, but what about Bo?  :-)
>
Sadly, I've met a number of Bo's.
>
>You *have* to account for *everything* if you're going to maximize your
>chance of success.  The ratios *do* affect your chances, though they're
>obviously not the sole determining factor.
>
Sure, and the way one hits the brakes can determine how one gets around
a corner, too, but I sincerely think that using the steering wheel will
make the most difference. 

>All other things being equal, you are best off choosing an environment where
>there is less competition for the available MOTOS.  In other words, if you
>are heterosexual, you will do best to maximize the (not your sex)/(your sex)
>ratio.
>
Only if you're willing to take whatever you can get.  I'm not.  I wanted
someone who shared interests with me.  I wanted someone who had his own
opinions.  I had a number of traits that were important to me.  Simply
"finding a man" wasn't enough.  I don't think I'm the only person who
feels this way.  If you go to a party where there is a woman who is
looking for *you*, it won't matter if there are 200 other guys there - 
she will want to date *you*.

>>Some of them are attractive,
>>yes, but how do you explain those who aren't, and get dates anyway?
>
>Simple: a male's attractiveness is very loosely coupled to his appearance,
>and much more strongly coupled to his success traits.
>
>Those males who have large amounts of self-confidence, who are outgoing
>(i.e., aggressive), etc., get many more dates than those who aren't.
>
>So, as far as I can see, those men who aren't attractive TO WOMEN tend not
>to get dates, just as those women who aren't attractive TO MEN tend not to
>get dates.
>
So what does that have to do with ratios?  Do they not get dates in all
situations?  Or only in situations where the ratios are against them?

>>There is a confidence, an ability, a comfort with oneself, and with others
>>that is more potent than catnip.  Some people are just able to talk with
>>whoever they are with.  They are happy (for the most part) with themselves.
>
>I'm able to do this to a small degree, but it tends to depend a lot on who
>I'm with and where their interests lie.
>
Same here.  I would find it difficult to talk at length with someone
who's only interest was Fantasy role playing games and MUDs.

>>They feel confident of their ability to attract MOTAS, and know what to
>>do once they've caught one.  
>
>Sigh.  You don't understand, do you?
>
>THIS CONFIDENCE HAD TO COME FROM SOMEPLACE.
>
Exactly.  Precisely.  That's why I have been suggesting that you start
by learning to be able to talk comfortably with people.  Once you get 
to the point where women are showing an interest in you, and you are
confident of your ability to strike up interest in a compatible woman,
move on to step 2, going on dates.  Then step 3, whatever the two of you
determine that should be.

But real confidence *isn't* going around counting up the various bodies
and making a statistical estimate of whether or not you're going home
with someone.  Real confidence is knowing that whatever the ratios,
that if there is a compatible person for you there, you will get
together.

>>They often have their own style.  This is
>>why some very ordinary-looking people in photos are just vibrant and
>>extremely attractive in person: there is a quality that brings one alive
>>that is very attractive, and these folks have it.
>
>I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.  It sounds very much like
>a myth...:-)
>
No, it's not a myth.  I know several of them.  The key is that their
personalities show in the way they stand, the things they say, their
gestures and facial expressions, and all of those things work together
to make them very attractive.  Hell, one of the sexiest men I've ever 
known looks like James Burke's twin, and forgive me PBS lovers, but
James Burke just isn't what I'd consider a hunk.  8-)