| | OctoberTens Dec 17, 2012 |
| | Sushibitch Dec 17, 2012
They'd just go to another site. |
| | pseupseudio Dec 17, 2012 except that they're fat latex-clad polyamorous goth wiccans and this is the only site that will take them. |
| | Sushibitch Dec 17, 2012 Nonsense; I can think of two or three sites off the top of my head which revel in fat latex-clad polyamorous goth wiccans. |
| | pseupseudio Dec 17, 2012 grosssssssssssssssss to tubby goths with synth dreads and vinyl bustiers |
| | OctoberTens Dec 17, 2012 Is the solution to the secretary problem also applicable in this context? For both men and women? 37% chance success seems better than an unknown percentage. May be. Perhaps, the game is the thing. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
|
| | OctoberTens Dec 17, 2012 Is the solution to the secretary problem also applicable in this context? For both men and women? 37% chance success seems better than an unknown percentage. May be. Perhaps, the game is the thing. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
|
| | pseupseudio Dec 17, 2012 what is the secretary problem? |
| | SillySmartie Dec 17, 2012 ^ This. I've never heard of the "secretary problem." |
| | pseupseudio Dec 17, 2012 oh, it's some game theory hogwash and not as i suspected anything to do with james spader. |
| | SillySmartie Dec 17, 2012 Well how fucking disappointing. The Maggie Gyllenhaal/James Spader angle is much more appealing. |
| | pseupseudio Dec 17, 2012 somebody who can math needs to restate it as an iterated exercise, like an actual candidate search, and calculate the cost of interviewing candidates against the benefit of receiving more options to determine an actionable rate of return. game theory problems are interesting to consider but so rarely practicably actionable that i view them as little more than clever diversions which are neither sufficiently clever nor sufficiently diverting to be of much real world use. |
| | Sushibitch Dec 18, 2012 The secretary problem assumes it's a one-way decision, right? That whichever secretary is offered the job will definitely accept it? In which case you really can't apply it to dating, which is absolutely _not_ a one-way decision. Although it sometimes seems as though an awful lot of people are outraged that it isn't. |
| | OctoberTens Dec 18, 2012 Normally, I would agree that dating is not a one-way problem. But I question if it still is true when the men substantially outnumber the women. Also, sending a message to someone nee is done, mostly, by men. The traffic, for the better part, seems to be one-way. Men flowing toward women. Wouldn't the women have the power to chose whom to respond to and whom not to respond to? That seems to reflect what is actually happening. Women receive applications (a message from a new contact) and then filter or screen the applicants, dismissing the bad while looking for the best match. |
| | OctoberTens Dec 18, 2012 Correction: New not "nee" |
| | Sushibitch Dec 18, 2012 That may be how it seems from a male perspective; it's not how it seems from a female perspective, or at least not for all or, I suspect, most women. |
| | OctoberTens Dec 18, 2012 That's fair. If we could disect the analogy, may be there is something to be learned. What portions seem to be skewed by male-ness and what would either make them less skewed or otherwise skewed toward female-ness. |
| | Sushibitch Dec 18, 2012 ^ I'm not sure I understand your question; what portions of what are skewed by male-ness? |
| | pseupseudio Dec 18, 2012 but there are issues of timing, reversibility, and as sushi noted acceptance by the applicant which make the secretary thing inelegant as analogy. particularly in multi-point, asynchronous communication. if you want to extend the game-type thinking: i use my one message the first day to contact the most desirable person. she doesn't log in that day to take action. i use my message the next day to contact the second most desirable person. she doesn't log in that day. the next day, the first person approves me. i accept her approval. that same day, the second person approves me - but i must reject her. |
| | OctoberTens Dec 18, 2012 I am asking about the female perspective. What particular parts of: "when the men substantially outnumber the women. Also, sending a message to someone nee is done, mostly, by men. The traffic, for the better part, seems to be one-way. Men flowing toward women. Wouldn't the women have the power to chose whom to respond to and whom not to respond to? That seems to reflect what is actually happening. Women receive applications (a message from a new contact) and then filter or screen the applicants, dismissing the bad while looking for the best match." suffers from male bias. And, what would correct the bias or adjust the bias toward a female perspective? It's not that I have any doubt about your assessment;
rather, I lack the clarity to distinguish the issue(s) relating to
gender bias. |
With fewer immediatley available suitors, would a woman be more or less inclined to respond to hum-drum messages? Certainly, it depends on the woman.
Truly, I believe it was best said earlier: the proposed system, essentially, is directed at altering male behavior and likely unfair to women.