Personality Cafe banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A relative of mine who is recently divorced and lives in a small town is having a hard time finding a new love. I've tried to explain that the pool of compatible people based on age, marital status, geographic area etc is very small and that they might consider widening the search - via maybe the Internet etc. I started looking at it from a demographic point of view and what I found was shocking. The chances of just encountering someone with whom you are compatible are remote - much less talking to them.

I'm curious what the people on the forum think. I'm not a demographer and certainly not a mathematician but I tried to come up with an idea of what variables would be involved just in terms of how many potential partners were truly available (and desireable). Some NTs ought to look at this and check my arithmetic. This is by no means accurate - it doesn't take into account things like similar people going to similar places etc.

Example prepared based on 40yr old male heterosexual (seeking).

Base population in acceptable geographic area = 177,661

Female-to-Male adjustment = 1.1:1 = 93,505

Age rule eligibility ((half your age + 7) to 58) = (27.5 - 58) avg. 30.5 years old
(29.5% of general population) = 27,583

Restated "r" = 27,583

Married = (27,583)(35.3% ) = 9,736

Married / Divorced as indicator of extramarital availability = (50%)+(single) = 22,715 (not recommended)

Single = 17,847

Homosexual Female Fx = (17,847)(14.4%) = 2,570

Bisexual Female Fb = (17,847)(5.6%) = 1,000

*Heterosexual Female Fy = (17,847)-(Fx+Fb) = 14,277

Compatible Comeliness "c" = 7,138

Genetic compatibility "h" = 3,569

Intellectual compatibility = h(49%) = 1,749

Cultural compatibility = (79%) = 1,382

Total eligible females not sorted by type = 1,382

Composition of total population = 0.77%

Population density per square mile = 1876.7 people

Eligible females per square mile = 1 (approximate)

Available Females by Psychological Type in given geographic area.

Eligible females encountered as a component of total population = 1 in 128

Example Types

INFJ = 1% = 14
Encountered among all otherwise eligible females = 1 in 98

INTJ = 3% = 41
Encountered among all otherwise eligible females = 1 in 33

Can you guys kind of see where I'm headed. I know there is no way to really do this scientifically but I was just trying to convey the idea that you've got to broaden out the search strategy to find somebody compatible. Also I think we have to be realistic and say Hey I'm not going to find Mr-Ms 100% perfect. You're going to have to work on it no matter who it is.

Ideas?

[A lot of Fs may think, he must be an NT. Just wait for the NTs to tell me how wrong my math is and then you'll see I'm not an NT:cool:]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I probably should have included the variables I was considering - some of which you can't really calculate, but hey...

Elements
P = Total Population

X = Females

Y = Males


Attributes
a = age, exact
g = geographic area (local, regional, national, global etc)
x = sexual preference for females
y = sexual preference for males
b = bisexual preference
t = psychological Type qualifier (i.e. t(NF) or t(F) or t(INTJ) etc)
r = Age Rule - Half your age plus seven
s = single (available 1=yes, 0=no) {this is distinct because single does not mean available}
m = married or in a committed relationship (0=no/matters, 1=yes/matters, 2= N/doesn't matter, 3=Y/dm)
c = Compatible Comeliness (mutual attractiveness ranged value = 1-10)
h = genetic compatibility of HCA alelles & MHC complex (1=yes, o=no) {conveyed through smell to women not taking bc}
i = incestuous (1=yes, o=no)
p = psychological/physical compatibility (i.e. relations of disease, mental illness, etc) (1=yes, o=no)
e = intellectual capacity or educational compatibility (range = 1-10)
l = cultural compatibility (religion, citizenship, lifestyle, political preference) (scale range 1-10)
z = barren or fertile (1=yes, o=no)
o = desire offspring (1=yes, o=no)
d = willing to adopt (1=yes, o=no)
j = employed (job 1=yes, 0=no)
w = willing to travel or relocate
v = female birth control (1=yes, 0=no) {affects positive selection strategy for compatible immunity in offspring}


Example Combinations
Fy = heterosexual female

Fx = homosexual female

Fb = bisexual female

Yx = heterosexual male

Yy = homosexual male

yb = bisexual male
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,730 Posts
This is exactly why I am so pessimistic about my searches for a compatible woman: they are so rare. I crunch the numbers down, and it turns out that my odds of running into one of them is virtually 0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
This is exactly why I am so pessimistic about my searches for a compatible woman: they are so rare. I crunch the numbers down, and it turns out that my odds of running into one of them is virtually 0.
I wouldn't despair, though it is tempting. I think this gives a notion that people should try smarter strategies when trying to meet potential mates or even just companions. This forum is a good example. Before I came onto this forum I didn't realize how many people there were out there who were willing to share these kinds of ideas with one another.

A point worth considering in my opinion is that we should approach the question of which "Types" are compatible with one another for mating (or even friendship) with a grain of salt. Type is a matter of cognitive style, a preference mesh for processing information. But to date I have not read of or discovered a way to Prove or Disprove counterfactuals in terms of intertype relations.

So when I read that one type will have a relationship of variety X with another type based that second type's preference order - I note that the examples given have the following characteristics;


  • The match-ups are anecdotal
  • Sources often disagree on intertype compatibility
  • Compatibility can be greatly affected by individual's desire to understand one another (patience)
  • Sample groups are too small (There are 256 possible combinations. How many examples of each do we have documented?)
  • No way to prove or disprove counterfactuals (did they get along because T/F directionality were compatible or because of J/P? Who knows. You'd have to have a large sample group.)
  • Inaccuracy in Type determination overall
So I think the best strategy would be to understand that Type could influence a relationship but not to hang your hat on it as a method of sorting and filtering. And while my numbers (admittedly error-prone) may seem to paint a grim picture. I believe it's just a sign that one should look smartly. If you enjoy the library and there are 1800 eligible women in your area - there's a good chance you will encounter one compatible with you at the library.

Just some ideas I'm mulling over.

Do you think I put this in the right forum?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts
Do you think I put this in the right forum?
Well, frankly I'm disappointed by the lack of weird masturbation confessions, but so be it. ;-)

Anyway, the reasons not to despair are those you mentioned, but also some prosaic things I'll throw out there:


  • Most of us will have multiple mates through our adult lives. It's likely none will be a perfect match.
  • "Settling" might not seem a good strategy for personal happiness, but that's how it's been done and is done and will be done. Why? It facilitates forwarding our genes to the next generation.
  • It used to be that most people met their mates through family and mutual friends. That seems to be changing. However, the logic of why this worked for so long is pretty solid. Why not call on the help of the people who know and like us best when looking for a mate?
  • It follows then that real-world social chances need to be increased at every opportunity. In other words, be nice to old ladies. Old ladies frequently have daughters and granddaughters.
  • People who are married are frequently just in-between divorces. Keep an eye out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Well, frankly I'm disappointed by the lack of weird masturbation confessions, but so be it. ;-)
She was 73. I was 16. She was made out of cardboard and I put an eye patch on her. It was just the standard thing of a guy sitting in his basement wearing roller skates, slowly wrapping his body in cellophane. You know...that old chestnut.

All seriousness aside - thanks for the post. Good observations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
Why I Will Never Have a Girlfriend - nothingisreal.com
Why I Will Never Have a Girlfriend

Tristan Miller
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence[1]

20 December 1999​
Why don't I have a girlfriend?

This is a question that practically every male has asked himself at one point or another in his life. Unfortunately, there is rarely a hard and fast answer to the query. Many men try to reason their way through the dilemma nonetheless, often reaching a series of ridiculous explanations, each more self-deprecating than the last: "Is it because I'm too shy, and not aggressive enough? Is it my opening lines? Am I a boring person? Am I too fat or too thin? Or am I simply ugly and completely unattractive to women?" When all other plausible explanations have been discounted, most fall back on the time-honoured conclusion that "there must be Something Wrong™ with me" before resigning themselves to lives of perpetual chastity.[2]
Not the author, though. I, for one, refuse to spend my life brooding over my lack of luck with women. While I'll be the first to admit that my chances of ever entering into a meaningful relationship with someone special are practically non-existent, I staunchly refuse to admit that it has anything to do with some inherent problem with me. Instead, I am convinced that the situation can be readily explained in purely scientific terms, using nothing more than demographics and some elementary statistical calculus.
Lest anyone suspect that my standards for women are too high, let me allay those fears by enumerating in advance my three criteria for the match. First, the potential girlfriend must be approximately my age—let's say 21 plus or minus three or four years. Second, the girl must be beautiful (and I use that term all-encompassingly to refer to both inner and outer beauty). Third, she must also be reasonably intelligent—she doesn't have to be Mensa material, but the ability to carry on a witty, insightful argument would be nice. So there they are—three simple demands, which I'm sure everyone will agree are anything but unreasonable.
That said, I now present my demonstration of why the probability of finding a suitable candidate fulfilling the three above-noted requirements is so small as to be practically impossible—in other words, why I will never have a girlfriend. I shall endeavour to make this proof as rigorous as the available data permits. And I should note, too, that there will be no statistical trickery involved here; I have cited all my sources and provided all relevant calculations[3] in case anyone wishes to conduct their own independent review. Let's now take a look at the figures.

Number of people on Earth (in 1998): 5 592 830 000[4]


We start with the largest demographic in which I am interested—namely, the population of this planet. That is not to say I'm against the idea of interstellar romance, of course; I just don't assess the prospect of finding myself a nice Altairian girl as statistically significant. Now anyway, the latest halfway-reliable figures we have for Earth's population come from the United States Census Bureau's 1999 World Population Profile (WP/98). Due presumably to the time involved in compiling and processing census statistics, said report's data is valid only as of 1998, so later on we'll be making some impromptu adjustments to bring the numbers up to date.


…who are female: 2 941 118 000[5]


I'd've thought that, given the title of this essay, this criterion goes without saying. In case anyone missed it, though, I am looking for exclusively female companionship. Accordingly, roughly half of the Earth's population must be discounted. Sorry, guys.


…in "developed" countries: 605 601 000[5]


We now further restrict the geographical area of interest to so-called "first-world countries". My reasons for doing so are not motivated out of contempt for those who are economically disadvantaged, but rather by simple probability. My chances of meeting a babe from Bhutan or a goddess from Ghana, either in person or on the Internet, are understandably low. In fact, I will most likely spend nearly my entire life living and working in North America, Europe, and Australia, so it is to these types of regions that the numbers have been narrowed.


…currently (in 2000) aged 18 to 25: 65 399 083[4][5]


Being neither a pedophile nor a geriatrophile, I would like to restrict my search for love to those whose age is approximately equal to my own. This is where things get a bit tricky, for two reasons: first, the census data is nearly two years old, and second, the "population by age" tables in WP/98 are not separated into individual ages but are instead quantized into "15–19" (of whom there are 39 560 000) and "20–44" (population 215 073 000). Women aged 15 to 19 in 1998 will be aged 17 to 21 in 2000; in this group, I'm interested in dating those 18 or older, so, assuming the "15–19" girls' ages are uniformly distributed, we have


Similarly, of 1998's "20–44" category, there are now

females within my chosen age limit. The sum, 66 059 680, represents the total number of females aged 18 to 25 in developed countries in 2000. Unfortunately, roughly 1% of these girls will have died since the census was taken;[6] thus, the true number of so-far eligible bachelorettes is 65 399 083.

…who are beautiful: 1 487 838


Personal attraction, both physically and personality-wise, is an important instigator of any relationship. Of course, beauty is a purely subjective trait whose interpretation may vary from person to person. Luckily it is not necessary for me to define beauty in this essay except to state that for any given beholder, it will probably be normally distributed amongst the population.[7] Without going into the specifics of precisely which traits I admire, I will say that for a girl to be considered really beautiful to me, she should fall at least two standard deviations above the norm. From basic statistics theory, the area to the left of the normal curve at z = 2 is

and so it is this number with which we multiply our current population pool.


…and intelligent: 236 053


Again, intelligence can mean different things to different people, yet I am once more relieved of making any explanation by noting that it, like most other characteristics, has a notionally normal distribution across the population. Let's assume that I will settle for someone a mere one standard deviation above the normal; in that case, a further

of the population must be discounted.


…and not already committed: 118 027


I could find no hard statistics on the number of above-noted girls who are already married, engaged, or otherwise committed to a significant other, but informal observation and anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that the proportion is somewhere around 50%. (Fellow unattached males will no doubt have also noticed a preponderance of girls legitimately offering, "Sorry, I already have a boyfriend" as an excuse not to go on a date.) For reasons of morality (and perhaps too self-preservation), I'm not about to start hitting on girls who have husbands and boyfriends. Accordingly, that portion of the female population must also be considered off-limits.


…and also might like me: 18 726


Naturally, finding a suitable girl who I really like is no guarantee that she'll like me back. Assuming, as previously mentioned, that personal attractiveness is normally distributed, there is a mere 50% chance that any given female will consider me even marginally attractive. In practice, however, people are unlikely to consider pursuing a relationship with someone whose looks and personality just barely suffice. Let's make the rather conservative assumption, then, that a girl would go out with someone if and only if they were at least one standard deviation above her idea of average. In that case, referring to our previous calculation, only 15.8655% of females would consider someone with my physical characteristics and personality acceptable as a potential romantic partner.
Conclusion

It is here, at a pool of 18 726 acceptable females, that we end our statistical analysis. At first glance, a datable population of 18 726 may not seem like such a low number, but consider this: assuming I were to go on a blind date with a new girl about my age every week, I would have to date for 3493 weeks before I found one of the 18 726. That's very nearly 67 years. As a North American male born in the late 1970s, my life expectancy is probably little more than 70 years, so we can safely say that I will be quite dead before I find the proverbial girl of my dreams. Come to think of it, she'll probably be dead too.
OK, I find this gross and objectionable






...because this guy took 2 standard deviations for "beautyl"... seriously, he's a little picky! :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Zic - this is possibly the funniest (and saddest) post I have seen on the Internet in weeks.

Fortunately for me, I am already married. Unfortunately for my cousin - the math is simply not in favor of a good outcome.

Oh, and I think we can agree that this math looks a lot prettier than mine :tongue:

Thank you so much for this post. Fantastic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zic
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top