Wednesday, 22 October 2014

The Horrendous Odds in Online Dating

The Horrendous Odds in Online Dating

Save enough time and money to buy a Rolex
Save enough time and money to buy a Rolex


Back in May I wrote about a survey of 5,000 British women that showed some rather unflattering statistics.  I did a quick calculation that showed of the 5,000 women, only 2.44%  would meet all 3 criteria that I picked from a list of 25.  One of my readers recently came across my article and took the math several steps further, and the odds are even worse than I first calculated.  The reader's letter (uneditted) is as follows (in bold italics):

A few months back, +Canadian MGTOW put up a post where statistics from a UK magazine were gathered and used to illustrate the rarity of qualities one would expect from a decent human being. I recently enjoyed reading the post quite a bit. However, I feel a bit more could have been done to drive the point home. The article can be found here:    http://mgtow1.blogspot.ca/2014/05/27-statistics-about-fairer-sex.html

In the post, +Canadian MGTOW selected three qualities based on his personal criteria and arrived at a 2.44% (0.32 x 0.17 x 0.45) chance of finding a woman with said qualities. However, this percentage is mistakenly presented as the likelihood of finding such a woman. It is in fact the likelihood of finding such a woman PER finding attempt. In order to actually calculate the likelihood of finding such a woman, +Canadian MGTOW would have to take into account the number of attempts he's willing to make.

Let's suppose +Canadian MGTOW wants his odds of finding such a woman to be scientifically significant (i.e. a confidence interval of 95% or more). In order to achieve this he would need to repeatedly make attempts until at least one or more of the attempts proved successful. We can calculate this by using a geometric probability distribution.

Let p = 2.44%.


Let n be the number of attempts.


Let the probability of finding such a woman be represented by x.
We want to know n when x=95% (i.e. scientifically significant).


Let q = 1 - p
(i.e. the likelihood of a failed attempt)


Then q^n is the likelihood of failing n times consecutively in a row.
The opposite of failing n times consecutively is to succeed at least once in n attempts. We want to know n when 1-q^n = x.


Starting with 1-q^n = x,
we deduce q^n = 1-x,
which implies q^n = 5%,
which implies n = log(5%)/log(q)
which implies n = log(0.05)/log(1 - 0.0244),
which implies n = 121.271879909,
which implies n ~ 122.


Thus, in order for +Canadian MGTOW to find a woman fitting his selected criteria in a scientifically significant manner, he needs to go on about 122 dates/finding-attempts.

Assuming our good friend only has time available on the weekends and goes on 4-6 hour dates costing at least $50 CAN each, he will have confidently spent roughly $6100 (122*50) CAN and 448 (122*4) to 732 (122*6) hours. ( +Canadian MGTOW needs about 700 hours to qualify for Canadian unemployment insurance).

All of this would happen over the time span of 61 (122/2) weeks or just over a year and two months.

What happens if we want psychological significance (i.e. x=99%)?
Going through all of the steps again, we get 186 dates/finding-attempts.

Some of you might look at this and think, "that ain't so bad". At this time I'd like to point out just how little +Canadian MGTOW was asking from these women.

i.e.
- trusts their partner
- don't carry around a life changing lie
- don't lie to get out of lovemaking


Also, we made one major assumption, it only takes one date to tell if a woman has all said qualities. If we assumed 3 dates, then n would be multiplied by 3.

In my own personal calculations, I took in more criteria and also factored in whether I met the woman's criteria (I assume they want to marry the top 1%), and whether we were likely to be 'compatible' (assumed 50% chance). Each and every single time my calculations for n jumped to the tens of thousands and my money estimates jumped to about $200K CAN (i.e. sounds like a divorce settlement amount, eh?).

In short, I would like to see a rewritten version of this article, because I believe this approach will likely kill the desire of young men and boys to pursue relationships. This approach clearly illustrates why PUA is a waste of time and money. More importantly, it encourages an analytic approach to how their time is spent.

Keep up the good work : )


My own key take-aways


The main thing for those blue-pill guys out there looking for their 'soulmate' is that my calculations were based on only 3 general criteria.  There were several other criteria that I left out so that it didn't look like the odds were bad because of a perceived laundry list of requirements (as seen in a lot of women's profiles).  Some of the criteria I didn't include were avoiding the following:
  • 49% women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man.
  • 50% would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.
  • 38% say they would marry purely for money
  • 31% say they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease.
Getting back to the reader's calculations; he calculated I would have to go on 122 dates minimum, and assuming I could get 2 dates each weekend, then it would take 61 weeks.  Realistically there is no way you could tell in one date, or even EVER if the date had the 3 criteria I was after.  How could one tell that someone was carrying around a life-changing lie?  How could you tell if your partner trusts you?  If your partner says, "Not tonight, I got a headache", how can you tell she's telling a lie? It's a crap-shoot.

Realistically it would take much, much more than 61 weeks to find the 1 woman that met the 3 basic criteria, and even then you won't necessary hit it off.   I recall that when it comes to online dating, a response rate to your messages of 5% is considered GOOD.  If you are average looking, like me, it was around 2%.  From my experience it was easy to be sending out 50 messages before getting a favorable response!  Following 'expert' advice, each message had to at least give the impression that you read the woman's profile. That takes time!   Let's for now say 5 minutes to read a profile and craft a short but customize message referencing something in her profile.  Take 5 minutes x 50 profiles = 250 minutes.  Now just because you get a response, doesn't mean you get a 2nd response. I'd estimate out of every 10 responses, I might get ONE coffee date.  Some women will message you for weeks and disappear as soon as you suggest meeting in person.  I'd say at least half never respond back to a 2nd message.  Regardless, it translates to 2500 minutes of INITIAL messaging to get that ONE coffee date. If you wasted 8 hours during the work week messaging, that would equal one coffee date every FIVE WEEKS.  So 122 dates x 5 Weeks = 610 weeks (or 11.73 YEARS).   What an utter waste of time!! That's an awfully long time for your potential 'match' to be riding the cock carousel, before she even meets you.

Save your money, but more importantly save your TIME.













Post a Comment