From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.204016.25260@nuchat.sccsi.com>
kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>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:

>>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.

The chance of you meeting someone at a "bad" party are 2%.  The chance
of you meeting someone by complaining about the odds on USENET is 0%.

The chance of meeting someone by going to one bad party a week for a
year is better than 2/3.  The chance of meeting someone by posting to
USENET about your bad chances multiple times a day for a years is
still 0%.

>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...

Fine.  So go to parties with better odds.  Nobody is telling you to
take 2% chances instead of 20% ones; we're telling you to take 2%
chances instead of 0% ones.

>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.

Since your attractiveness is not defined by you, but by other people,
you might be able to change both at the same time (e.g. leaving an
environment where the women want men who are very muscular for one
full of women who prefer intelligent men).

>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.

or (c) find an environment in which you are attractive.

>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.

Not counterintuitive at all.  The odds of success given trying may be
very low; the odds of success given not trying are even lower.

>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.

In general, you don't have anything to lose.  The time you spend will
be spent sooner or later; the ego-damage of rejections will happen
some number of times before success.

Suppose you were told (by an omniscient oracle) that of all the women
you ask out, the 12'th, 46'th, and 94'th will go out with you; the
94'th will end up becoming you s.o.  Wouldn't you start asking out
women immediately, in order to get up to those numbers?  Since that
would be the case, whatever the numbers are, what are you waiting for?

>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.

Wrong.  An *intelligent* realist knows that a lot of 1% chances add up
to near certainty (even if it takes 230 of them to hit 90%).  There's
a difference between being *realistic* and *hopelessly pessimistic*.

>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.

There are women who prefer realistic men.  They may be few; that means
you have to look harder.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com