From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:34:15 GMT

Sigh.  It's really hard to talk about statistics to someone who seems to be
having trouble grasping the basic concepts (Teri may well be well-versed
in statistical analysis, but what I've seen so far indicates otherwise).
Perhaps I should try explaining them first.  But one more try at the
standard approach...:-)

And ye gods...the length!  Longer than my "microscopic self-description"
posting.

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 (Kevin Brown) writes:

[40 men, 2 women, Stan winds up with 1]

>>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.  

And *none* of the others did?  Not a *single one*????

>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.

Statistics is completely useless (and meaningless, I might add) in
situations that have already happened.  It cannot be used as a measure
of the past.  It is a *predictor*, i.e. can only be used to analyze
situations which are either hypothetical or about which you know little.

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

No, they *don't*, unless you happen to have data which indicates otherwise!

Statistics isn't a substitute for omniscience, but I'm sorry, I don't know
anyone who is omniscient.  Do you?  I didn't think so.  :-)

[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.

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.

Now, *here* we get into an unknown area, and *here* is where we can play
the statistical game.  In particular, the interesting question is: which
of the women, if any, has a greater chance of going out with the one guy
that might be interesting to them?

Well, if we have no further data to go by, then each woman has a 50%
chance, assuming that the guy will be able to go out with only one of
them and assuming that both are sufficiently interested in him (and both
are sufficiently interesting to him) to cause him to want to go out with
them and vice-versa.  More data will allow us to come up with a better
estimate.

>>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.  

(Oh, brother)

Probability is a statistical term!  It is conserved *by definition*.

>If you think so, I honestly think that could be part of the
>problem.  

Why's that?

>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-)  

...and how likely you are to run into me, and how likely you are to have
the time, and...

But I guarantee you that the probability that you would ask me out and
the probability that you would *not* ask me out *will* add up to 1.

>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.  

So what?  That only says something about your *interest*.  It doesn't say
much about what will *happen*, which is what I'm concerned about.

If you find someone interesting, and someone *else* also finds them
interesting, and they can only handle one person at a time (but are
interested enough in both to go out with either), then it's just a
question of who asks the guy out first, right?

Interest is a necessary precondition.  It's not a *sufficient* precondition.

Not only must you be interested in the other person, but *they* must also
be interested in *you*.  But that's not all!  You must also actually make
contact!  And you must do so at a time when both of you are free!

>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.

...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.

What you know determines what probabilities you assign.

>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?

Right.  But you don't know *ahead of time* whether or not you'll find
any of the men interesting, and *that* makes the problem one which can
be statistically analyzed.

Again, you seem to be confusing *probability* with *certainty*.  They're
not the same thing at all.

So, the interesting question is: in the case where you *do not* know
ahead of time whether or not there will be any interesting men at the
mostly-men event of your choice, do you go, based on whether you expect
to find interesting men there, or not?  And how do you decide whether or
not there will be interesting men there?

If people lived forever and were omnipresent, they would be able to get
away with going to every possible event in order to find the Right Person.
But you and I both know that people don't live forever and are not omnipresent.
So you *know* that you have to decide *where* to go and *what* to do, and
that different environments give you different options.

You *might* find The One anyplace at all, but you can't look *everywhere*,
can you?  You *have* to select a limited number of options from the vast
array of options facing you.

The only question, then, is *how* you select those options.  That's where
statistical analysis comes into play.

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.

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.

People have better things to do with their time than doing things that
*might* work but usually don't.

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

Clearly, but unless you know going into it how attractive the men are, this
fact becomes *irrelevent*.

In particular, you can make yourself as attractive as possible, but you can
only go so far with this.  You *can't* make yourself the Most Attractive
Woman On The Planet unless you have what it takes.  If you *don't*, then
you have to compromise!

I've never seen you.  I don't know what you look like, or how fun you are
in person, or any of these things.  For all I know, you *might* be The Most
Beautiful Woman On The Planet.  But there are 2.5 billion other women out
there, so the chance that *you're* the Most Beautiful is very small, and
how hard you try to be can only take you so far.

The same thing is true with me.  I *might* be The Most Attractive Guy On
The Face Of The Earth and just not know it.  But I doubt it.  I can do
everything conceivable attempting to become The Most Attractive, and the
chances are very good that I'll fail.  My genes and my pocketbook will
only take me so far, and many others have better genes and bigger
pocketbooks.

So: the right answer is that I maximize my attractiveness level however I
must and then live with the consequences of that.

But my attractiveness level isn't the *only* thing I have control over (even
if that control is marginal).  I *also* have control (to some extent) over
which environments I place myself.

THIS is where the ratio bit comes in.  It is an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE from
my attractiveness level, because it is something that I control
independently.

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 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.

>>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?  

He stood a better chance of going home with someone in *that* situation
than he did when there was a lot more competition, didn't he?  All other
things being equal, of course.  Why?  See below.

>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.  

Not necessarily.  Why?  Because you haven't yet accounted for the
possibility that one of the women will be bold enough to approach Bo,
right?

Well, in an environment in which most of the participants are male, it's
not bloody likely that one of the female participants will approach Bo,
because it's much more likely that one of the other males will get to
the few women that are there first.  *Again*, this assumes that we don't
know anything more than just the fact that Bo is there and that there are
some number of women there and a much larger number of men there.

This doesn't mean that, in the face of such a lousy environment, that it's
*guaranteed* that Bo will not be approached.  It *might* happen.  But it's
not bloody likely.

>>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.  

Exactly.  But my point is that it's not ALL you can do!!

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!

>Then, regardless of the ratios, you can succeed.  

Well, that depends, doesn't it?  I mean, I can play the same game as you
and contrive a situation in which I know everything in advance.  So, the
contrived situation is, in this case, an environment in which everyone is
married and highly religious, and the only people each person knows is in
the group.  I'm the only unmarried person there.

Do you think I can succeed in that environment, *regardless* of how
attractive I am?

>Unlike Bo, who
>is going to be unsuccessful, no matter what the ratios.

Ah, but that's not necessarily true, is it?  Again, you've failed to
account for any women that might approach him.

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

So?  All this means is that there are guys out there stupid enough to
ask out a woman who is wearing a wedding ring (you *do* wear a wedding
ring, don't you?), and that you're obviously someone that men find
attractive.

Consider yourself lucky.

>>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. 

Exactly.  But guess what race car drivers do?  Account for everything,
including the way they hit the brakes.  Why do you think they're race car
drivers instead of taxi cab drivers?

>>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.  

In other words, if you were unable to find someone with these specific
traits at a minimum, you'd rather be alone the rest of your life than
compromise, right?

>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*.

Obviously.

Now tell me, Teri: how am I supposed to figure out where this woman *is*?

Unless you can answer that question, the fact that there may be some woman
out there looking explicitly for me is *irrelevent*, because it will be
ONLY BY CHANCE that I run into her.

And further, the fact that she's looking for me doesn't mean that I'm
looking for her, does it?

You're not someone who believes in fate or predestination or any of that
other garbage, are 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?  

Nothing in and of itself.  It's an orthogonal measurement.  But it's an
answer to your question.

>Do they not get dates in all
>situations?  Or only in situations where the ratios are against them?

They get *more* dates in situations in which, all other things being equal,
the ratio is better for them.  Note very carefully the "all other things
being equal".


>>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.

Right.  In other words, you "click" with some people and not with others.

All the people I've "clicked" with were in extreme demand.  Why?  Because
there are *a lot* of guys out there like me.

This wouldn't be a problem were it not for the fact that there are very
few women that I (and apparently these other guys) "click" with.  Why?
Because all my interests are male-dominated.

>>>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.  

Oh, I can already do that.  I managed to talk with Charleen (she still
around??) at Usenix, so if you talk to her, you might be able to find
out what her impressions were.  Perhaps that'll give you a more objective
answer to what I'm capable of and what I'm not.  I also met a few people
and made some friends there.

I can make friends, but they *must* have something in common with me that
we can both talk about.  Otherwise it won't work.

*My* problem is that I can't make a romance happen, and I *must* be able
to make it happen because *nothing* good has *ever* "just happened" to me.

>Once you get 
>to the point where women are showing an interest in you, 

How am I supposed to make this happen?  I mean, I can get women to show an
interest in me AS A FRIEND, but that's not good enough (in fact, so far it's
been detrimental), inasmuch as it has killed off any chances of something
happening every time I've tried it before.

>and you are
>confident of your ability to strike up interest in a compatible woman,

Finding the "compatible woman" is going to be the hardest part of this.
That's where I need the most help.  CS classes don't cut it.

>move on to step 2, going on dates.  Then step 3, whatever the two of you
>determine that should be.

Right.

>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.

>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.

There is *no such thing* as a guarantee in life, except that you'll eventually
die.

I don't care *how* attractive you are, there's no guarantee that if someone
you're compatible with is in your environment, that you'll hook up with
them.  It may be real likely, but it's *not* guaranteed.

>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-)

Again, it's not clear what you're talking about here.  What does "vibrant"
look like?

Do you mean animated, energetic, etc.?  Things that require a motion
picture to capture?  If so, then I can see why these qualities are not
captured in a still picture: they're dynamic expressions instead of static.

But it means that you should be able to capture these things on videotape.


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com