Mating Probabilities

[Anonymous No.5575189]

Lets see if we can find the chances of finding a suitable mate using my personal selection criteria:

-Must not be fat. 6/10 (0.6) Americans are too fat (this includes the obese plus the curvy types).
-Must not smoke. I think its about 1/5 (0.2)
-Must not be a lesbian. 1/20 (0.05)
-Must not have cats (I'm allergic). 1/2 (0.5)
-Must be moderately attractive. Standard curve, above 1 standard deviation acceptable. 3.18/10 (0.318)
-Must be at or around target age (1/5) (0.2)
-Must believe in global warming (47/100) (0.47)
-Must not be religious (about 4%) (0.04)

so we have

0.6 * 0.2 * 0.05 * 0.5 * 0.318 * 0.2 * 0.47 * 0.04 = 0.00000358704

Out of a US population of 320 million, 320000000 * 0.00000358704 = 1147.8528

There are only about 1,148 girls which meet my criteria. Lets say I'm above average in looks, and only 40% of them will reject me. That leaves about 669 women who are eligible. Lets take the population density of America, 88.6 people/sq mi, and half being women, then 44.3 * 0.00000358704, then the probability is about (0.000159 * 100) or about 1.6% that she's in ANY given square mile.

These are shit odds, /sci/. What do?

[Anonymous No.5575193]

But some fat people also smoke. And most lesbians are fat.

Your math is flawed.

[Anonymous No.5575197]

>above one standard deviation
>3.18
>19/20 women are lesbians
Huh.

[Anonymous No.5575218]

Wait, I totally did this wrong.

>-Must not be fat. 6/10 Americans are too fat (this includes the obese plus the curvy types). This means probability is 4/10
>-Must not smoke. 1 in 5, so (4/5)
>-Must not be a lesbian. (19/20)

recalculated, 0.00018174336, or 1.8% of population = about 58,158 women, or 0.008051230848 * 100 = 80% chance there is one eligible in any given square mile.

WOO HOO! There is prausibility.

We're all gonna make it nerd brahs

[Anonymous No.5575232]

>>5575218
let's bring this into perspective:
* she is single (1/10)
* you will actually talk to her (0/infty)

[Anonymous No.5575244]

>>5575193

Lets say you have a population of 4.

Ones skinny

Ones fat

One smokes

Ones fat AND smokes

Your probability is

skinny 0.25 (1/4)
fat 0.50 (2/4)
smokes 0.50 (2/4)

But you're looking for the probability that picking one at random that isn't fat AND doesn't smoke. Therefore, your probability of pulling a non-smoking, non-fat person form the population is 12.5%.


So the method is correct

[Anonymous No.5575248]

>>5575232
>let's bring this into perspective:
>* she is single (1/10)

Damn, that is true... practically speaking.

So there are only 10% of the 58,000 specimens who are NOT in a relationship of some kind. That drops the probability to 8% per square mile.

Actually this is more accurate to my experience. I wanted to believe the 80% though.

[Anonymous No.5575262]

>>5575232
>* you will actually talk to her (0/infty)

Good point dickhead. But seriously, I do try. The whole reason for this is to approximate the amount of time and effort involved just finding a bitch.

Conclusion I'm coming to is this:

Never before in history has so much time and energy been wasted trying to mate. Think about it. Historically, for the most part, this shit was arranged. Not until about 30 years ago was everything left up to kids. Previous generations had a get hitched mindset. They weren't picky. Today? Plenty of us will never be married, never get married, and probably won't stay married.

Notwithstanding the Froeveralones, there is a vast army of involuntary alones, females and males alike. And this whole activity, of searching and interviewing and etc., multiplied by the time and effort everybody throws into it- versus the result?

[Anonymous No.5575281]

your math is flaws in important ways
You don't take into account how a lot of your variables overlap, so many people get discounted multiple times. You use the people per square foot thing, but that ignored that most people now live in cities. As well most better-educated people (believes in global warming, not religious) also live in cities. AS WELL, if you participate in certain types of activities you are more likely to meet certain types of women. Also, if you actually want to find a woman like this, certain parts can be changed. For example, you can help a woman to quit smoking, or lose weight. Oh and your statistics are bullshit anyway
the numbers aren't that bad, just stop being a basement dweller

[Anonymous No.5575288]

>>5575262

>* you will actually talk to her (0/infty)

Heres where its relevant. You can't know if a bitch is religious until you talk to her. Thats 96% of the female population before selecting out the poor characteristics.

It seems to boil down to sheer numbers. As in, a guy needs to ask hundreds of women a list of disqualifying questions.

And even then, this bitch has to say yes to you. The probability is so small I don't even blame dudes for not approaching because like you said the probability approaches infinity or something a lot like it.

inb4 pessimism

[Anonymous No.5575291]

>>5575262
if you spend time looking for a mate you will run into this problem, but most people find mates involuntarily

and anyway, why are you so set on getting married? who cares?

[Anonymous No.5575293]

>>5575281
>You don't take into account how a lot of your variables overlap, so many people get discounted multiple times.

No, I am, by calculating the probability of them having just one trait that disqualifies.

I agree on the population density thing, thats more a spatial estimation for flavor.

[Anonymous No.5575294]

>>5575189
Actually its Half

Yes or No OP L2math

[Anonymous No.5575295]

>>5575288
>Thats 96% of the female population before selecting out the poor characteristics.
where the fuck did you get that number?

[Anonymous No.5575298]

>>5575288

If you've ever tried to get someone to not be fat and/or smoke you'd realize its a waste of time and energy.

[Anonymous No.5575301]

>>5575293
there are other things you ignore though
for example, you are much more likely to find someone who fits into this description in a city, and even more so at say, a hackerspace or a university course, than you are in the midwest
stop being a pessimistic idiot, your chances are not that poor

[Anonymous No.5575302]

>>5575232
>* you will actually talk to her (0/infty)
i lold hard

OP your criteria suck. There are so many factors missing that your data is useless e.g. why only american chicks? Your data about religion is wrong, you leave out intelligence but include globaww warming.

Just get onto some hookup website and get your shit wet

[Anonymous No.5575304]

>>5575244
>Ones fat AND smokes
they are the single most disgusting kind of women

[Anonymous No.5575305]

>>5575298
stop being upset by "curvy"?
I find skinny bitches gross anyway

[Anonymous No.5575317]

>trying to find a suitable mate like some kind of high being
>my dad fell inlove with a highschool 420 dropout (though she stopped smoking after she got with my father), still together and happy
>lel

But seriously, do you want to find a bitch for the sole purpose of procreation or do you want love with an "ideal" person?
Just think about that, you might get luckier than just searching with those deadlines.

[Anonymous No.5575338]

You're not going to remember any of this shit when and if you find somebody you actually love.

[Anonymous No.5575558]

>>5575338

But you will recall this merciless calculus when, tossed out onto the rocks of fate, reassess your chances.

[Anonymous No.5575559]

>>5575301

>there are other things you ignore though

This is a baseless objection. Of course there are things one ignores when making a model. It is necessarily a limitation.

[Anonymous No.5575560]

>>5575302
>Just get onto some hookup website and get your shit wet

I also forgot to mention:

Percent of population with HPV:
Percent with HIV
Percent with Hep C
Percent with Jungle Herp-derp

Etc...

Is the model ever going to be refined enough for you twats?!

[Anonymous No.5575561]

being the kind of person that enjoys facts, thanks for getting me motivated. <3

[Anonymous No.5575567]

Okay, opposite thinking here:

You have low standards. You don't care if the person is fat, smokes, has cancerous tumors all over, and invert genitals.

You now have a world of tossers to mess with. However, they also have standards. If you are in fact a VERY desirable bisexual stunning 10/10 beautyface, your odds of finding a sexually transmitted disease (like pregnancy) hovers around 100%.

Evolution HATES SMART PEOPLE. It hates selective people. Case in point: IQ condenses around an average of 100. Why? Because sex is "Idiot-proof" and ignorance is bliss.

The outlier of intelligence is the single most meaningful refutation of intelligence being an adaptive trait in the eyes of natural selection.

[Anonymous No.5575587]

>>5575567
i thought IQ condensed around 100 for the same reason water boils at 100 in celsius.

[Anonymous No.5575591]

>>5575189
>-Must not be religious

there's your problem

[Anonymous No.5575594]

>all of these factors are independent

[Anonymous No.5575595]

I wouldn't stress the religious stuff so much
In different parts of the world, it can mean different things
like, say a Chinese Catholic or whatever. For them, Catholicism=liberal values, maybe an old family affiliation with the guomintang, outward lookingness, foreign language skills, etc. So you can have a hot chinese engineering chick who is a "catholic" but isn't a fucking nutbar about it, and whose catholicism in fact aligns her closer with whatever putative values you associate with atheism. just food for thought

[Anonymous No.5575597]

>>5575189
You have to understand, that these variables depend on one another. At least, the "attractive one." I am pretty sure a woman who say, is an athiest, a dog-person, and athletic, will seem far more "attractive" to you than someone who is seen as "smoking" yet is a chubby cat-lover/fundamental Christian.

Global warming and religious belief are correlated, if she is an intelligent Atheist I am pretty sure she is a fan of peer-reviewed papers and understand global warming.

Also, you don't live in a vacuum and resort to randomly selecting human females from the United States. You have the internet, friends, and other methods of meeting and filtering the population before you meet.

If anything, use your erudition and try using your network of friends and family. 50 people looking are more effective (in most cases) than 1 person looking. And who knows, you might be surprised. In my experience, it is the woman who is NOT your type which can entrance you the most.

Also enjoy the random .gif