From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:15:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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

It's really hard to talk about life to someone who seems to be having
trouble grasping the basic concepts.

> In article <194m+9=.shannah@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug12.035959.15882@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Ke
>
> [40 men, 2 women, Stan winds up with 1]
>
> >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.
>
> 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.

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.

> [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.

As you said above, this is known *after* the fact.  If nobody knows
anyone's dating preferences, then all the guys will think they have
a 2 out of 40 chance, whereas in fact the one non-country guy has
a very good chance of getting to know both women, and the country
guys have 0 chance.

> So: we have two women, neither of whom like country music, western wear,
> square dancing, etc., and one man who shares these dislikes.
>
> The fate of the other men is predetermined by these boundary conditions.
> They don't even enter the picture.
>
> 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.

> ....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."

> We *all* use it to some degree.  That's why we "stick with what works" and
> ignore what doesn't work.  We *know* that "what works" isn't guaranteed to
> work *all* the time, but that it will work *most* of the time, and that's
> *usually* good enough.

Has *anything* you've tried so far worked?

> 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.

The problem with this, of course, is that (theoretically, at least) people
go to classes to learn something.  The fact that more males are interested
in certain fields is irrelevant.  You take classes in order to get a
degree in your chosen field.  Given that you have to be there anyway, the
only choice you have is to work with the existing ratios.

> 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.

It's hard for me to imagine two environments in which you know *nothing*
but the male-female ratio.

> 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.

> 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.

> >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.
>
> Clearly.  It's a way of evaluating the suitability of the environment.

Nope.  It means if you see someone interesting, you go to talk with
her, regardless of the suitability of the environment or the statistical
likelihood that she'd want to go out with you based on the number of
other men present.

> >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.

Perhaps, but it's confident.  Many women find confidence attractive.
By being realistic you could be hurting your chances.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)