From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 03:59:59 GMT

In article <!82ms6h.shannah@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.114357.14357@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>
>>What sort of male/female ratios do you tend to see at such events [SF cons]?
>>
>[lots more of Trygve's good suggestions deleted]
>
>Every time I see this word "ratios" on the net I want to scream.
>AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!!  Ah, thank you, I feel so much better now.

You're welcome.  :-)

See, you wouldn't be feeling so much better now if I hadn't given you a
reason to scream.  :-)

>Ratios mean nothing!  Seriously!  Ratios are an excellent *excuse*,
>but they are neither cause nor effect.  

That's right.  Ratios aren't cause nor effect.  They're *probability
modifiers*.

>Consider the following true
>scenarios:
>
>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.

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.

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.

>2) There is a gathering where there are 25 men, no women.  However, Jeff
>   has a friend that he thinks would really enjoy Stan, so he introduces
>   her to Stan at another prearranged time.

Okay.  Now what we're talking about is expansion of the player set, and
the picture gets more complicated as a result.  In this case, the women
that each person knows becomes a "virtual participant".  But a virtual
participant doesn't weigh in as much as a real participant, because a
virtual participant counts only if they are introduced by one of the real
participants.  This introduction isn't guaranteed to happen.

So let's say that there's a 20% chance that any given guy in the group
will introduce another guy to a friend.  In your example, that means that
5 guys out of the 25 men will gain introductions, and everyone else will
lose.  The average chance of success in this case is 20%.  Not particularly
good.

>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.

>4) There is a barbeque where there are about 12 women and 4 men.  The
>   men stand around talking to one another about various stuff, and the
>   women get together and talk about other stuff.  Bo is single, but is
>   afraid to make a move and talk with the women, and none of the single
>   women approach him.

Again, no problem.

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
any given male will pair up with a female in the same group.  You can extend
the group to include "virtual participants", but in that case you have to
change the ratios appropriately (and account for the fact that a virtual
participant is not equivalent to a real participant).

>Granted, in scenario 2, I was not there to see what happened, but my
>brother was, and since, in that case, he was Stan, I have no real reason
>to doubt his word.  8-)

Yeah, but what about Bo?  :-)

>So, the question becomes, are you a Stan?  Or are you a Bo?  If you are
>a Stan, you will find romance in spite of the ratios.  If you are a Bo,
>there is no ratio that will help you.

I am somewhere in between.

>My sincere advice, for any single out there, is to stop worrying about
>the ratios, and worry more about your ability to attract those MOTAS
>that you encounter.  

The second part is good advice.  The first isn't.

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.

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.

The only group to whom ratios makes absolutely no difference is the homosexual
crowd.  In that group, there is no such thing as a group mismatch.

>Haven't you ever known someone who just seemed to
>be a MOTAS magnet?  Someone who always seemed to have a date?  

No.

>The person 
>who would offer to introduce you to folks?  

I've never met anyone who offered to introduce me to eligible women.

>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.

>Have you ever known someone who was very attractive in person, yet always
>seemed to look bad in pictures?

No.

>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.

>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.

You don't *seriously* think it came from thin air, do you?

Most people (that I know) aren't confident in their abilities unless they
have *reason* to be confident.  That reason comes from their experience.
Someone who, in the past, was unable (for *whatever* reasons) to attract
MOTAS is *very* unlikely to have much confidence in his ability to attract
MOTAS.

Oh, it's not impossible.  I'm sure there are some people whose self-concept
is entirely removed from reality.  But mine isn't.  Rather the opposite: I
try very hard to keep my self-concept as close to reality as possible.  That
way, I minimize the chance that I'll do something stupid.  Know thine own
limitations and all that.  :-)

>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...:-)



-- 
				Kevin Brown

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