Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: old power, Short Vectors Versus Long Vectors
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 16:42:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v18uh3$236s3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v06vdb$17r2v$1@dont-email.me> <v0rbck$2jor1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0rhce$1itj$1@gal.iecc.com> <v0rk4c$2lnd6$4@dont-email.me>
 <v0s5gd$1mk0$1@gal.iecc.com> <v10mdk$krs$1@dont-email.me>
 <df75c399d37898bab65453d6f3871209@www.novabbs.org>
 <v11mme$b3hb$1@dont-email.me> <v13l16$onc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <ebed4559bf2176f10d7a88208e4df03f@www.novabbs.org>
 <v16d5g$1eedr$1@dont-email.me>
 <b77f216a814c2c5ee4e3eeb1a192ed1e@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 23:43:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc08dcaf13314637553bde0ccb7c7647";
	logging-data="2202499"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+8oZP9DWQEaUbdEATN7EQgbHDdQBBeX/k="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aUmUwWsAFc66/dzDSwFdTqrDhB4=
In-Reply-To: <b77f216a814c2c5ee4e3eeb1a192ed1e@www.novabbs.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5032

On 5/5/2024 1:38 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
> 
>> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>>> BGB wrote:
> 
>>> If you are anything like a normal male, you are compatible with about
>>> 1% of women of your age group. Likewise, 1% of any given women in your
>>> age group will be compatible with you ±.
>>>
>>> So, you (and her) will have to pass over 10,000 of the others to end
>>> up with a compatible partner. 
> 
>> Even assuming that the numbers are true (far too low, IMHO), the
>> calculation assumes that both quantities are uncorrelated.
> 
>> If it were really true, humans would long since have died out
>> (unless "compatible" means something else :-)
> 
> The 1% number is for me. {smart enough, pretty enough, frugal enough,
> sane enough, low maintenance.} I know of more typical male/females where 
> their number is closer to 20%.
> 


Yeah, seemingly for neurotypicals, it is "pick someone at random, good 
enough", and for them, apparently, the biggest concern they have here is 
for the possibility of ending up with someone that it not also neurotypical.


> 1% may be a "little high" for BGB and whomever might be mutually 
> acceptable.
> 
> There is one thing worse than being alone--and that is being with 
> someone you seriously dislike.

That is a factor in my evaluation.


There is a lot of factors that need to be balanced:
Compatibility in terms of ability to communicate and interact;
Relative interest in physical contact (or lack thereof);
Balance between emotionally oriented and information oriented thinking;
Being within a roughly similar intelligence range;
....


But, yeah, I am also in a camp that thinks that conventional mainstream 
ideas about "romance" are likely hopelessly misguided at best (and, to 
some extent, more something for people to use to repeatedly shoot 
themselves in the foot, and create needless emotional pain, both for 
themselves and for others).

However, from other observations, it is seemingly something that most 
people can't escape either (their social behaviors and emotions 
seemingly not being something they can turn on or off depending on what 
is most optimal for the situation). So, one also can't blame them for 
the damage they inflict on themselves.


But, at the same time, better also to try to interact in ways to 
hopefully avoid causing pain, or to lead to them causing pain to 
themselves (as there are times when the alternatives are worse).

Though, I have noted that females often seem to use similar strategies, 
though the underlying motivations and behaviors seem to be different.

More often motivated out of disinterest than concern, and usually 
respond by "stonewalling" rather than by allowing for switching to a 
more direct communication style. Though, it has not usually had much 
effect on the results, as in the rare cases where this has come up, they 
are not really able to communicate on equal terms (and will seemingly 
not understand even if an attempt is made to explain it to them).

In my case, I am more often on the other side of these sorts of 
interactions, but it is not like I can't relate to their position 
either. Though, at least this part seems to work fairly effectively at 
what it does.


If anything, they could win points with me, if they could communicate 
with me on my terms, but they generally can't, so it is what it is. I 
don't really get why it is such an issue though, like it is not exactly 
like I am trying to be mysterious or opaque or something.

....