Quantifying Compatibility

TheRavingRedditor · 2016-03-11T15:07:38+00:00

Does calculating the hypothetical number of "compatible" women in your city really accomplish anything of value? Either way that number is set and either way you will run into a certain amount of them throughout your daily life. Recognize when you see them and approach, simple as that. I don't really see the point of this.

larrythetomato · 2016-03-11T16:29:42+00:00

Gender ratio tells us about ~53% are female Marriage rate is about ~40% Lesbian is about ~10% Obesity/overweight rate is ~66% Age range (18-44) is about 40% nationally

Well multiplying the odds you get ~5.3% (taking the complimentary values when appropriate), you could divide your population by 20 to get a rough idea.

ChairBorneMGTOW · 2016-03-13T16:01:08+00:00

I know some have criticised the question, but it's interesting to me as an intellectual exercise if nothing more.

It's personal too. I would have criteria other guys wouldn't, and be flexible on some things others would insist upon. But here's my math:

Women in Ottawa between the ages of 25-44: 125,775

http://archive.is/A79R3

46.11% of the total population of women over 15, are single. Thus, inferring that women between 25-44 are single at an average rate, that means that within the 25-44 demographic there are only 58,003 single women.

58,003

Of these, how many are moms? I don't want kids, so we'll overlook these. Well, eliminating females being in a lone-parent situation (single moms, 30,790 for all ages over 15), we can infer that by the time women are over 44, their likelihood of child-rearing diminishes. Why? Because the kids eventually turn 18 and become legal adults themselves. So, we can conservatively estimate that at least 75% of these single moms fall between 25-44. So that's 23,092 less, resulting in 34,911 single childless women in Ottawa within my demographic.

34,911

How many of those childless women want kids? Turns out the majority do. Only one in five women choose to remain childless throughout their lives.
http://archive.is/kaB5H

So we can infer that 80% do want kids. So 7,841 of those who don't have kids yet won't want them in the future.

6,982

I'm an athiest, it's fair to say that most religious women won't want to have too much to do with me. 13.3% of the population declares no religion.
http://archive.is/DxYqT

So that leaves 1,043 single women between 25-44 who don't have kids or want kids who'll be totally cool dating an atheist.

928

38% of Canadian households own a cat. I'm allergic to Cats. https://archive.is/pGEdw

576 remain.

34% of homes have dogs. I'm allergic to most, but not all dogs. Let's figure that of 20% of households without a cat have a dog that I would be allergic to - this factors in households with dogs and cats, and would account for homes with either no dog, or hypo-allergenic dogs; a conservative estimate?

Down to 461.

I take fitness seriously. I won't date a woman who's obese or overweight. http://archive.is/J6Fzp Given that 58.6% of Ontarians are overweight or obese, now we're down to:

191

23% of women between 25-44 smoke. I won't date a regular smoker. http://i.imgur.com/OQXeTpG.png

147.

I want a woman of at least above average intelligence. So let's cut that number in half.

73.

I have to be attracted to her. Assuming a correleation between unattractiveness and obesity, a large proportion of the unattractive is probably already accounted for. So while I would normally go for women of at least above average attractiveness (a 6+ out of 10), I'll be a little more forgiving here. So let's only discount another third - 33%.

49.

I can't deal with a mentally unstable woman. Prevalence of mental lllness in Canada:

http://archive.is/3Ont

Unipolar depression, 4.6% Bipolar disorder, 0.6% Dysthymia, 3.1% Schizophrenia, 0.3% Anxiety Disorders, 12.2% Eating Disorders, 2.2% Total: 23%.

Remaining total: 37.

I'm debt free, and while I could date a woman who has personal debt but a way out of it, I would prefer to not involve myself with women who keep sinking deeper in debt. Given that only 32% of Canadians actually know how to stick to a budget, and only that only 47% of people even spend time considering their finances. So let's eliminate another half.

http://archive.is/KnDaF

Down to 19.

Health Canada reports that 9.3% of females are "heavy drinkers." Let's double that number for 18-40, considering that youth drink more than the elderly.

http://archive.is/Qd9PW

Down to 17.

I won't get romantically involved with current drug users. See the same link above. That's 11.4% less.

Only 15 now.

I'm a political libertarian, who appears conservative in many issues. Optimistically, I estimate that one third of Canadians hold my political viewpoints. Now I can accept those who disagree with me, but I find leftists less accepting of 'politically incorrect' thinking. Let's say one third of women can accept a right wing man. So given one third of the non-drug using, non-alcoholic, sane, debt-free, non-smoking, fit, attractive 25-44 year old single childless women with no cats or dogs to whom I'm allergic, there's five.

5.

That's it. Five women I could see myself getting into an LTR.

MentORPHEUS · 2016-03-11T16:05:09+00:00

Interesting idea, rather like the Drake Equation.

Check city-data dot com for demographic stats. Real estate sites sometimes also have census stats.

The trouble with this type of calculation is, virtually ALL of the starting figures are estimates or outright guesses. The amount of error-stacking in the calculations gives a final figure with an error margin so large as to make the number meaningless.

Even if you COULD make a fairly accurate calculation of how many available women, relationships and availability change on a day to day basis. There may be a running average number of single women over time, but WHICH INDIVIDUALS are available at a given moment is fluid.

If it's just a curiosity, that's fine; I live in Los Angeles so the number could be 5-6 figures easily. If you're doing this to diagnose problems, the actionable conclusions are limited. Low number, "Gotta get out of this town." High number, "My game must suck worse than I realized!" I'm concerned people might use statistically shaky results and focus away from manageable changes they can make and onto ones they can't. "I'm stuck in this town for two more years, can't change anything about my situation."

One of the biggest divisors in the calculation is the final one. "Out of all the potentially compatible women in your area, how many would actually consider dating YOU?" This is virtually impossible to calculate in a general way; one must churn through many to find the compatible and interested ones.

Bottom line: Finding sex partners is a numbers game that you have to GO OUT to play. Time spent calculating how many are nearby is time taken away from seeking them out.

ClimbingTehLadder · 2016-03-11T16:23:38+00:00

I live in a city with population 9000 where having kids is trendy on Facebook and the women generally date way above their SMV because there's so much fat (literally) that guys either drop their standards or go on long dry spells between post-drug addict single moms. A unicorn in this shithole is a woman who is skinny, single, and childless.

I have a great job so I'm MGTOW until I move. Not worth the effort. I wouldn't say I've given up complete, I'm always working on self improvement / raising SMV, but pursuing women is absolutely wasted effort. Any women with the unicorn qualities listed above is a narcissistic cunt, because she can be.

MattyAnon · 2016-03-11T17:08:30+00:00

Marriage rate is about ~40% / Lesbian is about ~10%

Like the other stats, these two are fairly independent ... ie some of the lesbians are married (both to men and to each other)

So we have:

Pop * 0.53 = female *0.9 = female hetero *0.6 = female hetero not married *0.37 = female hetero not married not fat *0.4 = appropriate age range.

(Total factor = 0.042)

Pick a small town of 150k, that's 6300 available women.

Things that make this even worse:

Single mothers are a fucking pain, and are not yet accounted for in the above
Lots of women are mentally undateable
You're also competing with married men
Also remove the butterfaces

Things that make this not nearly as bad as it sounds:

Married isn't a dealbreaker
Lesbian isn't a dealbreaker
Single women tend to lose weight (this correlation works in your favour, as she intends)
Single women do stuff to increase their availability and visibility (eg leaving the house, going on Tinder, wearing a low cut top)
Is the marriage rate 40% in your target age group? It's probably lower for younger women.

As regards your actual hunting: the old, young, men and fatties can be removed on sight. That means that given that you see an attractive woman (common occurance), there's a roughly 50% chance she's not married or lesbian.. and the fact that she's slim slightly increases the chance she's single, and has left the house further increases the odds.

50% of attractive women being non-married and non-lesbian sounds much better than 4% of the population is an option.

Also... look at it this way... most men are beta, married, shy, out of shape, lazy, boring or stupid. (Which is why the world is as it is). If you know what you're doing and you're in shape, the sexual odds are better for you than for her.

It's harder for you (burden of performance)... but you actually have more and better sexual options than she does (if you're hot), because all the above stats apply to her as well but she's also got to discount the 80% betas.

Big_Daddy_PDX · 2016-03-11T21:15:30+00:00

This type of calculation takes time away from lifting & serves no productive purpose. All it does is increase head games about how few women there might potentially be.

colucci · 2016-03-11T23:27:25+00:00

There are other things to consider. Lesbian, obesity and marriage rate are not mutually exclusive. Maybe all of the fat chicks are married lesbians, which leaves you with a decent pool of potential partners.

Furthermore, the places you frequent do not have the same demographic make-up as your city. If you go clubbing, you don't expect to find 10% lesbians, 40% married women, 66% fatties and 60% elderly women. Most clubs have 18-25 year old single women, and some women in relationships. It depends on the bars, but most bars usually have women between 20 and 35. Wealthy neighbourhoods have a lot of elderly and professional, married women while neighbourhoods around colleges have far more single women between 18 and 28. In short, you shouldn't be worried about demographics like that because the population isn't evenly distributed throughout the territory.

0xdada · 2016-03-12T01:43:10+00:00

There's a variable in there that's missing: race.

Everyone has preferences, and they have a huge impact on the numbers. If you live in any major city that is diverse, you are going to have crappier odds than if you were somewhere homogeneous.

Then you need to be in the top %20 either physically or financially, lifting and a positive net worth achieves that. If you are top %10-%5 in both, it helps.

Entropy-7 · 2016-03-12T10:24:16+00:00

It's not about how many potential mates you have, but either how to find them or move yourself somewhere else with better odds.

I live in China but I am not even bothering to look for play in the city I live in (Shenzhen). So I will move in a few months.

I have done similar calculations before, but they are - at the end of the day -just mental masturbation because you can't be bothered to jacking off for-real.

Entropy-7 · 2016-03-12T10:30:42+00:00

Actually, the only value I see in this is checking it against other "advice" that you get online or elsewhere.

In a friendly discussion one guy said that if you want a young, quality girl with a low notch count to wife up with, then target rural towns.

Well, America is largely urbanized so that cuts your prospects. Arguably, the quality girls GTFO. And once you account for race and age (18-34 or whatever) your chances are reduced to that of proton decay.

Title	Quantifying Compatibility
Author	bsutansalt
Upvotes	17
Comments	17
Date	March 11, 2016 2:21 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/49yz3r/quantifying_compatibility/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/quantifying-compatibility.56910 https://theredarchive.com/post/56910

Comments