From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:40:16 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

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

So it seems.  So, that being the case, please explain the basic concepts...

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

Right.  He *might* not have met anyone.  But then, he *might* have, too.
But that's not the issue!  The question is how *likely* it is that he would
have met anyone.

>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.

Right.  Statistics are only as good as what you know.  They are no
substitute for omniscience.  But when it's the best you've got...

>So clearly omniscience is required to do a proper statistical analysis.

Yes, insofar as getting predictions that are on the money goes.  But
this can be said of *any* predictive process, not just statistics.

>In the case where you *don't* know everyone's preferences, you *can't*
>do one.

No.  You *can* do one, but you probably won't be as accurate as you would
be if you knew everything.

>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."

How did you guess?  :-) :-)

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

Obviously not, else I wouldn't be talking about this.  But then, I haven't
tried everything, either.

For instance, I haven't yet tried becoming wealthy, like Trygve.  I haven't
tried building a fabulous body, like my brother.  I haven't tried dating
services.  I haven't tried putting myself in an environment where the ratio
*is* good (well, I *have*, but I didn't stay there very long).  So far,
it's been things like the computer room, classes, etc.

And I haven't tried acting yet.  I'll bet acting will work great, because
it is about the most perverse thing I can think of, with respect to what
relationships are *supposed* to be about (aren't relationships *supposed*
to be about honesty, openness, warmth, etc.?  In other words, everything
that acting is the antithesis of?).  And, as we all know, the perversity
of the universe tends towards a maximum.

>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.

...assuming that they expected the men in such an environment to conform
to their idea of what their mate should be like.  However, I doubt that's
the case.

You expect to find computer geeks and the like in CS classes.  You expect
to find people whose behavior matches the "geek" stereotype: wimpy, whiny,
and uninteresting (gee, sounds a lot like me, though I'm anything but a
wimp.  It's debatable whether or not I "whine"  :-).

Now, that probably isn't what you actually find (well, you will find *some*
of that, but people are more complex than stereotypes make them out to be),
but that doesn't matter.  People base many of their judgements on
stereotypes just the same.

Thus, you don't see women going to CS classes in order to find a mate.

>The problem with this, of course, is that (theoretically, at least) people
>go to classes to learn something.  

Well, yes.  Theoretically.

In real life, of course, it seems that people go to classes *not* to learn
something, but simply to meet the degree requirements.  Were this not the
case, I wouldn't get so many people insisting that I not ask questions
during the lecture ("so the professor can cover all the material that is
supposed to be on the test").  And, of course, I tell such people to take
a hike, because *I'm* there to learn and I don't give a damn what *they*
say.  If they want to learn something different then they can ask their
own damned questions!

I don't let people step on me anymore.  No more Mr. Nice Guy!! (removes
hat, coat, and glasses, revealing a caped suit with an "S" plastered on
the front  :-)

>The fact that more males are interested
>in certain fields is irrelevant.  

Not irrelevent to the ratios.

>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.

True.  However, one can take classes IN ADDITION TO the classes normally
prescribed for the chosen field.  Classes which presumably have more
women in them.

At least, this is what has been suggested by others, right?

Nevertheless, you're right: you have to work with the existing ratios in
the classes you choose.  This is what I have done.  Look where it has
gotten me.

Of course, this was before I decided that people who expected me to do
what *they* wanted (without suitable compensation, of course :-) could
go elsewhere.  Since then, I've been doing what *I* wanted to do.  The
only problem with that is that there haven't been any women around.

>> 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.

Well, nothing useful, anyway.

It's easy for me to imagine such environments.  For instance, a freshman
english class.  Or registration.  Or the cafeteria.  Or the museum.  Or
the plane you're on.  Or the park.

There are *lots* of such environments.

>> 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.

Now *this* is true.  Good point, I hadn't thought of this.

>> 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.

That's true.

And what this means is that while it may be easier to change your
environment, you might get a better bang for the buck in attempting
to change your attractiveness level.

If, however, your attractiveness is related to your environment, then
you have to either (a) tailor yourself to a specific environment, or
(b) identify the common elements of all environments and build those
up.

And, of course, this doesn't even touch on the problem of *how* to
change your attractiveness level, something about which I haven't a
clue (other than working out, that is).

>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.

In other words, you try anyway, regardless of the odds?

A bit counterintuitive, but I guess since there *probably* isn't much
to lose, you may as well.

If, on the other hand, you have something to lose, then you have to
figure out whether or not it's worth your while, and *that* is where
it's useful to know the odds.

>> >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.

And here I run into real trouble.

I'm a realist.  It's who I am.  I *can't* throw it out the window, just
as you can't throw your values out the window (or can you?).

And yet, if my realism is the cause of all my problems in this regard,
I *have* to throw it out the window if I'm to get anywhere.

And I *despise* being put into a situation like that.  *Must* I throw
out everything that is important to me in order to find a mate?  Is it
so necessary that *I* change for *them* in such a basic way, when *they*
will hardly do the same for me?  Who the hell do they think they are?
The least they could do is meet me halfway, but that's far too much to
expect.

Of course, none of that is particularly relevent.  Why?  Because it
doesn't *matter* who I *really* am.  All that matters is what they see,
and if I have enough control, I can make them see whatever they *want*
to see.

All I have to know is what they want to see.

So: they want to see confidence, eh?  No problem.  But won't they be
surprised when they find out that it was all an act...

Somehow, I find the idea of fooling someone else into giving me what I
want to have some appeal.  I wonder if this means that I'm turning into
an Evil Person.  :-)

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


-- 
				Kevin Brown

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