Yakk

Naw, refusing to by a ticket means you have a 0.00% chance to win a jackpot at the lottary -- the same as the chance if you buy a ticket!



But sure. Alot depends on how strictly one holds to the 5 criteria.

Is he willing to date a skinny/pretty girl who is a complete idiot, no sense of humor, barely can stand him, and refuses to eat anything other than hamburgers and broccoli?

Probably not.

...

BTW, I'd advise you to get to work on it, at least casually. This has a few benefits:
1> You can learn where to find people who meet some of your criteria. As noted, if you can find aforsaid "target rich environment", you can do better.

2> I'm guessing you are young, maybe college aged? As yet, your entire life has been in "lock step" with your peers. When you graduate college, this will probably fade away or end sharply.

3> You can increase your own skills at being desirable. That #5 is not a fixed variable: you can change relatively minor features of yourself, and have a huge impact on pleasant you are to be around, while leaving your "self" alone.

This requires you have some self awareness of how others perceive you, sufficient intelligence to spot the features that people like/dislike, and enough flexibility to tweak unimportant parts of your behavior to boost your image.

4> When you do run into potential soulmates, you will probably end up asking them out to a neat place to eat. This is an excuse to eat at neat places. Om nom nom.

5> Human psychology includes "how hard they are to get" as part of their value-estimate system. If you spend time casually looking for a "good enough girl", you appear to be a better catch than if you frantically work to find a "good enough girl". Appearing to be worth someone's bother is an important step for them to start to like the "real you".

As I mentioned: almost all of your criteria are in sync with the steriotypical way that western males pick desireable females. This makes your job harder.

First, the people you are attracted to will have lots of other men who find them attractive. This means that someone liking them isn't all that special to them: it probably happens 3 times on the way to the corner store. They don't have the time to interact with all 3 of those people.

So to be considered, you have to have surface attractiveness sufficient to get over that hurdle. This doesn't mean that they are shallow: it means that they only have so many hours in the day, and they have to filter somehow.

Second, the people you are attracted to might have a quite decent chance to be in a relationship. Other people will be trying to convince them to enter a relationship with them regularly, so whenever they 'feel like' being in a relationship, they will quickly have multiple options presented to them.

Hence the advice: is there anything you like that isn't stereotypically a feature of female attractability? Your #4 is an example of this: not everyone finds "likes strange food" to be particularly positive feature. Is #4 an additional filter, or would it be sufficient to justify less of other features?

...

ASU2003, I was presuming an AND at the 20th percentile level. And then assumed that any correlation (every intelligent girl is funny!) and anti-correlation (all girls who like food are fat!) effects would cancel out.

[quote]For example, any physical criteria (3) can be evaluated at a glace, assuming he doesn't date girls that don't meet his physical criteria(why would he?) that category can be completely discounted.

Also, (1) & (2) can be reasonably ascertained, at least in the pass/fail sense, in casual conversation. How many new girls can you strike up a casual conversation with a week? 3? 4? 50? Even if we lowball it, and say one every other day, thats at least 3 per week.[/qutoe]

So, talk to 3 new pretty girls every week, sufficiently deeply that you can determine with 50% accuracy if they are intelligent and 50% accuracy that they are funny.

You ask those who pass both tests (~16%) out on a date. They can tell, with similar accuracy, if they like you -- and 40% say yes (half of which actually won't end up liking you).

So 3 per week * 16% * 40% = 1 date every 5 weeks at this rate.

Of those, 1/2 of them aren't actually smart enough, 1/2 aren't actually funny enough, and 1/2 won't actually end up liking you. So you get one pretty, smart, funny girl who likes you every 40 weeks of chatting up girls.

1 in 5 of those likes interesting food, giving you an average of 200 weeks, or 4 years.

*nod*, I guess that isn't that bad. Just chat up ~600 girls at a rate of 3 per week, be attractive enough that 1/5 of them like you and 2/5 of them say yes to the date, and be willing to settle for the 20% percentile of smartness/funniness/food lovingness out there.

Of course, you still have a ~38% chance that after 4 years you still won't have found a "good enough" girl. And noodles help you if your funny/smart/food detectors are broken!

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.