0314: "Dating Pools"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:49 pm UTC

aetherson wrote:


Does no one else think he's assuming his variables are mutually exclusive?


That's why I used "actively seeking a partner" above. Increases the probabilities somewhat, but maybe to the point of having to look for only 40-50 years instead of 67. (And this also supports my thesis that men's "dating pools" are wish lists, and women's "dating pools" are queues.)

User avatar
aetherson
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:26 pm UTC
Location: Hand Basket...wait where are we going again?

Postby aetherson » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:49 pm UTC

lihan161051 wrote:Some of them even live in Austin.


QFT

Although statistically speaking, you of course aren't talking about yourself.
01001101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100001

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:53 pm UTC

Rilian wrote:
zenten wrote:I don't get why everyone is saying that 14 year olds can't date under this formula. Just look at it in terms of a smaller unit of time (say months, or days) and add 7 years under that unit, instead of just adding 7.


I don't see that that would be valid. A 10-year-old is 120+ months. Half of that plus 7 months is a 5- or 6-year-old. That's creepy.


Plus 84 months, not 7 months.

plunkettt
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:21 am UTC

Postby plunkettt » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:53 pm UTC

CatProximity wrote:
plunkettt wrote:I appreciate the solid guideline given by the Standard Creepiness Rule.
I was just wondering this week what my acceptable dating ranges were as I got older...


Is your name connected to a fabulous british movie, of which I just got a sadly, non-wide screen chinese DVD. It's perfect honestly, aside from the non-wide screeness...which angers me.


Robert Carlyle? Nope. Not related. :P
But my grandfather tells me I'm related to both St. Plunkett the martyr and the Plunkett who invented teflon...

Fenyx
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:48 pm UTC

Postby Fenyx » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:57 pm UTC

Prime's girl wrote:I know this rule! Except... I'm disobeying it, and hadn't realized. In fact, I'll be disobeying it for another 8 years... oops. (19 and 34)

Rules are made to be broken!! Or, I can just cope with being in a creepy relationship.


When I was 19 I dated a woman of 38 years. She was immature for her age and I was mature for mine. Perfect match! ;)

We met in person for the first time at the UO World Faire (before we started dating). We were together for about a year. But then I went off to college and didn't have enough time for MMOs anymore and we broke up. *sniff*

le_sacre wrote:you also have to factor in the increasing (with age) percentages of your eligible dating pool who are:

(a) single because they have Serious Issues and should thus be avoided,

or

(b) single because having been involved with people from group (a), they are now broken, bitter shells of human beings.

at almost 28 (and with a much reduced dating pool to start with, at an optimistic 10% of 50% of the population within my non-creepy age range), i try to hold out hope that there's a signficant number left in group (c): people who are just unlucky. but i'm also not sure how much longer it's going to take me to transition from group (b) to group (c).

le sigh.


I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".

Considering that we are on XKCD.com forums it's likely that any girl reading them holds a larger chance to fall in the latter category than a random selection of the population... So, any females on here fall in the range of [(25.992/2 + 7), (25.992-7)*2] who live in the Iowa or Minnesota and is looking for a date this friday? ;)

Actually on friday it would have to be [(26.003/2 + 7), (26.003-7)*2]...

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm UTC

aetherson wrote: 01001101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100001


Yeah, you know it. LOL :)

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

aetherson wrote:
lihan161051 wrote:Some of them even live in Austin.


QFT

Although statistically speaking, you of course aren't talking about yourself.


Given the length of my data shadow, it's easy enough to find out. :D

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Postby Rilian » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:08 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
Rilian wrote:
zenten wrote:I don't get why everyone is saying that 14 year olds can't date under this formula. Just look at it in terms of a smaller unit of time (say months, or days) and add 7 years under that unit, instead of just adding 7.


I don't see that that would be valid. A 10-year-old is 120+ months. Half of that plus 7 months is a 5- or 6-year-old. That's creepy.


Plus 84 months, not 7 months.


Then that puts the lower bound of the dateable age range for a 10-year-old at 12, and you haven't solved the problem you purported to solve.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:09 pm UTC

Fenyx wrote:I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".



From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results.

It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date?
Last edited by zenten on Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

TheKhakinator
the next small girl on KRNT radio
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:11 pm UTC

Postby TheKhakinator » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:13 pm UTC

Rilian wrote:
zenten wrote:I don't get why everyone is saying that 14 year olds can't date under this formula. Just look at it in terms of a smaller unit of time (say months, or days) and add 7 years under that unit, instead of just adding 7.


I don't see that that would be valid. A 10-year-old is 120+ months. Half of that plus 7 months is a 5- or 6-year-old. That's creepy.

He means add 7 *years* under that unit. 7x12 = 84. So the acceptable for a 10 year old is 60/2 + 84 = 114 months. So a 10 year old's lower limit is 114 months.

EDIT: Shit, screwed it up. should be 120/2 + 84 = 144 months, which still gives a negative range. FUCK.
Last edited by TheKhakinator on Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clerria
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:40 pm UTC
Location: Austin
Contact:

Postby Clerria » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:14 pm UTC

lihan161051 wrote:There *are* other geeks out there who enjoy the company of nerdy girls, some of whom find nerdiness a real turn-on. Some of them even live in Austin. :)


Don't make me blush... I wasn't referring exclusively to myself... *(Although I will openly admit that he's pretty high on my list of people who I think it would be fun to meet one day and who I would almost certainly have a blast with as a friend type.)

The Austin pool of potential is a very scary place. I'm not trying to lower my expectations so much as get rid of them altogether. Does the fact that I don't actively search for a romantic relationship make it more difficult to find one? Yes. I'll save my philosophy of relationships for another time, but I think on the whole I am incredibly content.

Data shadows? I should have tried harder to be anonymous maybe. My biggest concern is that I'll actually be forced to meet someone new and grudgingly admit that it wasn't as painful as I thought it would be. Please don't take that as an open invitation. That's why I troll this forum at work : )

User avatar
schrodingersduck
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:20 pm UTC
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Leodensia
Contact:

Postby schrodingersduck » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:32 pm UTC

My graphs (made with the US Census data) are somewhat less promising than those the protagonist made:

Image
(click to enlarge)

This one seems to spike at 27, although with the following caveats:
The data was discrete (and discreet) rather than continuous; as a result, I took the midpoints of each group, and when required, split the data sets assuming that the data within was evenly distributed (ie, if I needed to know the number of single 23-24 year olds, I just multiplied 20-24 by 0.4). The groups were 15-17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84 (I dropped the 85+ group because it was too sparsely populated - only 100-odd singles compared to 16000 single 20-24 year olds and had too wide an un-creepyness zone). I would make this into a nice frequency density histogram, but the graphing software I have access to is Excel, which won't do bars of varying width.

For completeness, here's links to a bar chart of the above and The number of singles in each group. Someone with better graphing software than me is welcome to make a better set.

Fenyx
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:48 pm UTC

Postby Fenyx » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:44 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
Fenyx wrote:I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".



From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results.

It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date?


I'd agree that "too crazy to date" factor does decrease in respect to age. When I referred to it as growing I was referring to it in respect to single people of a certain age. As I think more people are moving from the single group to the non-single group than there are moving from the crazy to the non-crazy group the percentage of crazy in the single group is increasing.

I feel to make the properly clear I should use some statistical notation... But I should also be working and I'm not doing that either. :P

Leliel
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:31 pm UTC

Postby Leliel » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:51 pm UTC

TheKhakinator wrote:
Rilian wrote:I don't see that that would be valid. A 10-year-old is 120+ months. Half of that plus 7 months is a 5- or 6-year-old. That's creepy.

He means add 7 *years* under that unit. 7x12 = 84. So the acceptable for a 10 year old is 60/2 + 84 = 114 months. So a 10 year old's lower limit is 114 months.


I still find myself more in the camp of "14 is the lower bound for dating."
In fact, I am now eagerly awaiting the day an xkcdian parent pulls this out to mathematically prove to their 12yr old daughter why she can't date until she's at least 14. :P


edit: and ironically, with my post to this topic I just hit my own age in post count >.< .

TheKhakinator
the next small girl on KRNT radio
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:11 pm UTC

Postby TheKhakinator » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:59 pm UTC

Oh I'm just showing the correct use of the formula. Nothing more.

User avatar
aetherson
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:26 pm UTC
Location: Hand Basket...wait where are we going again?

Postby aetherson » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:30 pm UTC

Clerria wrote:
The Austin pool of potential is a very scary place. I'm not trying to lower my expectations so much as get rid of them altogether.



Austin people aren't "scary" they're "interesting" :lol:
01001101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100001

User avatar
Clerria
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:40 pm UTC
Location: Austin
Contact:

Postby Clerria » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:40 pm UTC

Say hello to our local celebrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran

User avatar
Aperfectring
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:47 am UTC
Location: Oregon (happily)

Postby Aperfectring » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:41 pm UTC

I violated that rule for a period of 3 months. We were technically dating, but I don't know that most people would consider it that. Meh. My rule is generally age +- ceil(age * .15). (Still violated that rule for that relationship).

The problem down here in south Florida is the large number of bleach-blond cookie-cutter personality types down here. It dilutes the dating pool for those of us who don't like that.


And aetherson, you forgot to null-terminate your string... (Its still brilliant)
Odds are I did well on my probability exam.

User avatar
le_sacre
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:24 pm UTC
Location: stanford, ca
Contact:

Postby le_sacre » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:18 pm UTC

Fenyx wrote:
zenten wrote:
Fenyx wrote:I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".



From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results.

It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date?


I'd agree that "too crazy to date" factor does decrease in respect to age. When I referred to it as growing I was referring to it in respect to single people of a certain age. As I think more people are moving from the single group to the non-single group than there are moving from the crazy to the non-crazy group the percentage of crazy in the single group is increasing.

I feel to make the properly clear I should use some statistical notation... But I should also be working and I'm not doing that either. :P


yeah, once one hits late 20s, it is definitely no longer the case that craziness decreases with age. what you start to find is that all the non-crazy people have found each other and paired off (especially if you include in your definition of crazy those people who want to but are unable to commit long-term). you have to wait to find other people who have either been really unlucky and never found a non-crazy person, or have just recovered from being involved with a crazy person and haven't been snagged yet by another crazy or non-crazy person.

it feels like there should be a probabilistic ionized ideal gas law of some kind that should describe this situation. most people out there are bonded already by the time they've been hanging around this long. but some species form unstable bonds (because they're crazy), so you have to hang around them until the bond breaks and scoop up the stable member of the pair (after a refractory period of some kind...)

i agree the numbers are dismal. it's enough to make me wish i could turn straight.

by the way, it strikes me that everyone following this conversation might be interested in these two sites:

http://www.okcupid.com

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/geeks

Sandals
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Leicester, UK

Postby Sandals » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:30 pm UTC

i hit my "geeky relationship" a couple of months ago. (it is awesome!) But i always thought the whole acceptable range thing to be simplified to 5 years either way. but then having looked at some of the math here i realise that was pretty much just for those around my age bracket (about 25). it seemed to work, but the formula given here makes much more sense.

i think i fall into the 'not below 14' group, too. plus i have a mate who's gf is expecting, and i fully intend to share this with him for future use! :)

as an aside - first proper relationship at 25, is that sad or about normal? (Take into consideration i seem to fit in here, except the computer stuff, clueless around them! But i am a math teacher, does that help? :wink: )

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5940
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Postby Sprocket » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:35 pm UTC

I've had two truly geeky relationships. Jake McMillen, the mathematician to be (now getting his PhD) and my current code monkey, DSkippy. I like my geeks. Though they do tend to get me all comparing myself to them and thinking myself all worthless and stuff consequently.

http://turingcompletewasteoftime.blogspot.com/ here is his geeky blog. I did most of the camera work. Go me.
Last edited by Sprocket on Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:38 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
bookishbunny
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm UTC
Location: Lost in the Doll's House
Contact:

Postby bookishbunny » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:35 pm UTC

I guess I fell into the creepiness factor when I crushed on that 20-yr-old (I'm 33). But I'm very youthful. He's history, now, anyway, and I'm happily getting to know a 30-yr-old. Completely respectable!
~Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you push them down the stairs.

eclipse
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:10 pm UTC
Location: santa barbara, CA

Postby eclipse » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:43 pm UTC

that creepiness dating rule is from adam carolla on loveline a few years back. ive been using that for a while. pretty good rule.

dopplex
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Postby dopplex » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:46 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
Fenyx wrote:I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".



From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results.

It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date?


When I was first reading the comic, my criticism wasn't so much that there would be more "undateable" types at older age so much as that there would almost inevitably be fewer samples which exhibited highly desireable traits.

People exhibiting highly desirable traits (from a dating/mating perspective) are much more likely to not be on the market for long. So traits that are widely viewed as "desirable" (correctly or incorrectly - we're just looking at aggregate demand) are likely to be "on the market" for much shorter periods of time, so to speak.

Thankfully, there's often a mismatch between what the aggregate demand sees as desirable and what a geek such as you or I sees as desirable. (For instance, I've actually heard that some males are *intimidated* by females who are very intelligent and prefer not to date them. Whereas I probably wouldn't want anything to do with someone who was incapable of proving me wrong on occasion.)

So I think that as age goes up, demand will have further and further depleted the pool of particularly desireable individuals. (On average, at a large scale)

User avatar
McLurker
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby McLurker » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:47 pm UTC

I knew I could finally consider myself a grown-up at the moment in my mid-20s when I stopped being mostly attacted to women who were a bit older than me and started being attracted to ones who were a bit younger than me.

It is the true sign of maturity.

User avatar
UserGoogol
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:58 am UTC

Postby UserGoogol » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Of course, not only is creepiness a random variable, (in that there's some probability that some relationship might be more or less creepy than you would expect) but it is also a fuzzy variable, so in order to formulate any rule you also need to ask "exactly how creepy is creepy?" In that people have the option of lowering their standards (legal requirements notwithstanding) as their case gets more desperate that probably also increases the odds somewhat for people who are older.

(Of course, in order to be able to successfully lower your standards, you have to find an younger person who has also lowered their standards (in the other direction) and that is probably somewhat difficult, so that might be somewhat of an idealistic condition.)

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:53 pm UTC

Fenyx wrote:
zenten wrote:
Fenyx wrote:I'm going to have to agree that "too-crazy-to-date" variable needs to be taken into account when considering the available pool. Most importantly is it growing faster than the increase caused by the larger age range? Perhaps a more difficult one (but more important) would be "is-she-my-type" which would fall under an even smaller subset of the "not-too-crazy-to-date".



From what I've seen the "too crazy to date" factor actually decreases with age, as teenagers are pretty crazy. However, the "too sane to date them" factor does increase with age faster than that, skewing results.

It depends on if we're talking about people that would be good to date, or people that you would date?


I'd agree that "too crazy to date" factor does decrease in respect to age. When I referred to it as growing I was referring to it in respect to single people of a certain age. As I think more people are moving from the single group to the non-single group than there are moving from the crazy to the non-crazy group the percentage of crazy in the single group is increasing.

I feel to make the properly clear I should use some statistical notation... But I should also be working and I'm not doing that either. :P


Ah, right. See, I'm poly, and thus I don't tend to think in those terms ;)

User avatar
aetherson
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:26 pm UTC
Location: Hand Basket...wait where are we going again?

Postby aetherson » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:15 pm UTC

Clerria wrote:Say hello to our local celebrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran


Oh come on, but he'd make such a great Mayor! (j/k)

Aperfectring wrote:And aetherson, you forgot to null-terminate your string... (Its still brilliant)

Yeah...I should fix that...but i'm being lazy today...
01001101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100001

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Postby Axman » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:55 pm UTC

Hrm. I didn't notice anything about that being the dude rule, (n/2)+7.

From an earlier email thread:
> > girls have their own "how young is too young"
> > formula.)
>
> Curiousness. What is it? so that we can pass it along; have to make
> sure his calculations are right.

no less than 10% younger than the girl's age. (So when she's 25 the
guy could be 22.5; at 30 he could be 27.)
Max Slowik

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Clerria wrote:Say hello to our local celebrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran


Some of us aren't *quite* that "interesting". (Or are still interesting, but in somewhat subtler ways that are a bit more in harmony with the geek-nature.) :D

User avatar
Melkarion
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:39 am UTC

Postby Melkarion » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:09 pm UTC

Sandals wrote:as an aside - first proper relationship at 25, is that sad or about normal? (Take into consideration i seem to fit in here, except the computer stuff, clueless around them! But i am a math teacher, does that help? :wink: )


My guess? I think the geek/nerd population has an "age at time of first relationship" peak that corresponds fairly closely to that for the regular population, but has a wider standard deviation. I base this on what is often seen as the characteristic which defines a geek/nerd from just a strange person, namely the presumption of intelligence.

Below a certain age, this doesn't really apply as "relationships" are pretty much confined to play dates, throwing sand in the playground, or yanking pigtails. Past that, you run into two competing influences, which I think will contribute to a wider spread for the data among the nerd population vs. the general.

Higher than average intelligence corresponds, anecdotally I admit, with earlier maturity (at least in certain respects). Maturity is a somewhat vague concept, but this seems to be a fair statement, or at least seems to be perceived as one (which may be enough, since we’re concerned with significant relationships, not necessarily good or wise ones). So, some people who are nerds, or at any rate will become nerds when somewhat older and more socially defined, will be involved in relationships earlier because they're believe they're mentally capable of a relationship and have the proper framework to express that feeling, and convince the other person it's true. They've cut through the awkward uncertainty about what relationships are, and whether they want them, and so forth, and think they're ready to have one. Or one thinks so, and convinces the other to try. One or both parties may be incorrect, but we still likely have a recipe for what qualifies as a person’s first real relationship.

On the other hand, being a member of a subculture and, we've assumed, smarter than average will tend to raise your expectations for a relationship, leading to the competing influence that thickens tail above the mean. Among a limited number of people, whom I require to be the sort of person who I "get" and find interesting, how likely is it that they will find me reciprocally interesting? Why take the risk when (obviously) this is a huge deal? Perhaps I should make a flowchart...

Insecurity, essentially, as those nerds who aren't sure they meet their own standards (or, at any rate, the standards they'd expect of someone who meets their own, should those two disjoin), will be more likely to experience a first relationship later.

It's only qualitative, I admit, and certainly not very rigorous, but if you consider most people to have what you'd call their first real relationship in HS sometime (I'm assuming a certain amount of casual dating. flirting or awkward unreciprocated crushing is ignored based on the way you say that, so that seems to be a pretty reasonable to me), 25 would be about 1.6 sigma out on the nerd chart's peak, as opposed to something between 2 and 2.5 sigma out on the average.

My own first relationship was at 22. It went sour, as first relationships often do, but it was undeniably significant, and in certain regards very mature, though obviously less than enduring in others. I know a fair number of people who are definitely nerds, of a variety of types, and I can say that about 3/4 of them had had what they considered to be their first real relationship before myself, and a fair number could point to one at surprisingly young ages as having been very influential later on. Pitifully small sample size, of course, as I don't know *that* many people, but it did provide a rough benchmark for my guesses.

Long answer for a side note, I admit, but the question struck my fancy.
Last edited by Melkarion on Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:23 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.
"... for a man to understand what he himself says is one thing, and to understand himself in what is said is something else." -Soren K.

An ironic motto of sorts:
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. -W. Somerset Maugham.

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Postby Rilian » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:10 pm UTC

Leliel wrote:
TheKhakinator wrote:
Rilian wrote:I don't see that that would be valid. A 10-year-old is 120+ months. Half of that plus 7 months is a 5- or 6-year-old. That's creepy.

He means add 7 *years* under that unit. 7x12 = 84. So the acceptable for a 10 year old is 60/2 + 84 = 114 months. So a 10 year old's lower limit is 114 months.


I still find myself more in the camp of "14 is the lower bound for dating."
In fact, I am now eagerly awaiting the day an xkcdian parent pulls this out to mathematically prove to their 12yr old daughter why she can't date until she's at least 14. :P


edit: and ironically, with my post to this topic I just hit my own age in post count >.< .


There should not be a minimum age for being allowed to date. Personal freedom FTW

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:11 pm UTC

aetherson wrote:
Clerria wrote:Say hello to our local celebrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran


Oh come on, but he'd make such a great Mayor! (j/k)

Aperfectring wrote:And aetherson, you forgot to null-terminate your string... (Its still brilliant)

Yeah...I should fix that...but i'm being lazy today...


I was going to suggest "101001101010110000101011001000101100101010010000001010110010\
101101111010111010101001000000101001100010110111101011011110\
10110101101001000010", but I figured maybe that was a little *too* old school .. (who uses async anymore? LOL )

(Edited at request of other commenters, loses something in translation with the escaped returns but I believe it still gets the point across. Breaking the lines in the right places to preserve phase was tricky, and doing this pretty much gives away the punchline. But your horizontal scroll bars are now safe.)
Last edited by lihan161051 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Postby Rilian » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:12 pm UTC

Axman wrote:Hrm. I didn't notice anything about that being the dude rule, (n/2)+7.

From an earlier email thread:
> > girls have their own "how young is too young"
> > formula.)
>
> Curiousness. What is it? so that we can pass it along; have to make
> sure his calculations are right.

no less than 10% younger than the girl's age. (So when she's 25 the
guy could be 22.5; at 30 he could be 27.)


My limit is, can he carry on a serious conversation about sex? Then he's old enough.

User avatar
SimonSwift
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 5:06 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby SimonSwift » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:14 pm UTC

Unfortunately, it gets more creepy in older ages again. For example, a one-hundred-year-old man dating anybody is pretty creepy, but if he's dating, say, a fifty-seven-year-old, that would just look wrong. Someone that young could easily be a daughter.

Something must be done to fix this immediately. Not to mention fix the negatives when it comes down to smaller ages.

~Siswi
P.S. I hate you.
P.P.S. Apologies for the verbosity.
--------------------
This delightful post brought to you by Simon Swift.
Simon Swift: The new not-Simon Swift.

User avatar
bookishbunny
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm UTC
Location: Lost in the Doll's House
Contact:

Postby bookishbunny » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:16 pm UTC

Rilian wrote:
Axman wrote:Hrm. I didn't notice anything about that being the dude rule, (n/2)+7.

From an earlier email thread:
> > girls have their own "how young is too young"
> > formula.)
>
> Curiousness. What is it? so that we can pass it along; have to make
> sure his calculations are right.

no less than 10% younger than the girl's age. (So when she's 25 the
guy could be 22.5; at 30 he could be 27.)


My limit is, can he carry on a serious conversation about sex? Then he's old enough.


Thank you!

The older I've gotten, the looser my definition of "mature" becomes. If you can pay your own bills and maintain personal relationships, I don't care what computer games you play and if you still skateboard to work.
~Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you push them down the stairs.

User avatar
hendusoone
Mr. Dreambeard butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts butts. Butts.
Posts: 1570
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:30 pm UTC
Location: Spaceship
Contact:

Postby hendusoone » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:20 pm UTC

lihan161051 wrote:I was going to suggest
freaking long binary with no spaces
but I figured maybe that was a little *too* old school .. (who uses async anymore? LOL )

Please, for the love of my horizontal scroll bar, take care of that!

And an edit to include something other than a forum pet peeve of mine,
SimonSwift wrote:Unfortunately, it gets more creepy in older ages again. For example, a one-hundred-year-old man dating anybody is pretty creepy, but if he's dating, say, a fifty-seven-year-old, that would just look wrong. Someone that young could easily be a daughter.

Something must be done to fix this immediately. Not to mention fix the negatives when it comes down to smaller ages.

~Siswi

Easily a daughter, and only somewhat less easily a granddaughter. I do not think it is necessary to "fix" this formula. How likely is it for a relationship between anyone under 14 to be authentic and long-lasting? I don't see kids that young as having the mental/emotional maturity for it to seriously develop until they are a few years older. On the older end, the range does get quite large, but you have to consider - was this formula created with them in mind? Perhaps we can establish an upper bound somewhere around what may be considered "senior citizen," such that any senior citizen dating a non-senior citizen automatically qualifies as "creepy?"
Last edited by hendusoone on Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Jack Saladin wrote:Humanities salvation relies on us sending the Earth into a giant black hole.

lihan161051
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am UTC

Postby lihan161051 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Ah, right. See, I'm poly, and thus I don't tend to think in those terms ;)


Poly does complicate the math a bit, in slightly non-trivial ways, because it widens the pool somewhat by the overlap between "already committed" and "actively seeking partners", but it narrows it by requiring "poly-aware" and interest/consent of the poly's other partner(s), and introduces a whole spectrum of new role matchings to consider (are they seeking a secondary while you're looking to be more of a co-primary?, etc.) Truer to human nature, perhaps, but not as simple as the "traditional" binary logic.

I did cringe a bit when the word "morality" came up in http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend though. There are constraining social conventions, sure, but they're not at the level of "morality", regardless of what certain minorities (who correlate strongly with "incompetent people who multiply freely", unfortunately) tend to like to believe. And some of those social conventions aren't all that healthy, especially when enforced with zero tolerance ..

AkodoGilador
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Postby AkodoGilador » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:32 pm UTC

mikoangelo wrote:»Somewhere at the edge of the bell curve is the girl for me.«

That is… so beautiful *sniff*

Indeed.

I demand a t-shirt!

Alex

themuffinking
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:42 am UTC

Postby themuffinking » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC

lone_wolf wrote:Actually even with an increase dating pool the probability of finding the right girl is still quite low.

proof: http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_ ... Girlfriend


I see a problem with that. If you assume that you don't do blind dates, and you always know what people look like before you consider them for a date, then it's possible to negate the effects of the "beautiful people" percentage. Also, if you assume that you're not going to go a hundred miles for a date, then the total population size drops significantly. Actually, there's a lot of problems. Let's start it over:

Number of people you might ever have an opportunity to meet: 8,000,000
This is about the population of New York City. So, throughout your life, you might see this many people in bars or next to you at the bus stop or just walking past you. Hell, I'll make it 10,000,000, for those of you that don't believe me.

10,000,000 * .5 = 5,000,000
So you might see five million women throughout your life.

5,000,000 * .15865 = 793,276
This is how many women are 1 standard deviation or more above the norm. Using the 1-10 scale, this is probably about a 7 or an 8 at least.

So, ok. That's 793,276 women attractive enough that you will see in your life that you might want to talk to. That's what you should use as your population in this situation. I assume, of course, that you won't talk to ugly chicks with the goal of dating them.

793,276 * .4384 = 347,772
According to Facebook Network Statistics, this is about how many singles are in our population.

347,772 * .15865 = 55,174
This is how many women in our remaining population are 1 standard deviation above the norm in the category of "fun to talk to".

55,174 * .4 = 22069
This is how many of these women might like me.

So that's 22069 "Dateable" women out of 793,276, or 2.782%. So, let's see. You don't have to go on a date to figure out that a girl is uninteresting or single. You only have to talk to them for like 10 or 15 minutes, and you could talk to maybe 8 or 9 girls over the course of day. All these statistics don't even count the fact that females somehow connected to your circle of friends, your coworkers, or your classmates might be more likely to be interesting, beautiful, or single. So let's figure out what this means: 2.782% of women you actually go up to and try to have a conversation with are at least acceptable for a first date. So, you really only have to talk to like 50 women to find a girl suitable for that first date - that's about 1 a week, assuming you talk to 7 or so girls a day. So, in a year, you could have 52 first dates, assuming none of them are suitable for a second date. If 2% of first date candidates are suitable for a stable relationship, then that's one stable relationship per year.

See, it's not so bad, guys. Just go out and talk to people. Actually, today is free hugs day. Go out and hug someone. But don't be creepy.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, orthogon and 29 guests