Heisenberg's princ. + dating women

Clausius2

Here's one of the last thoughts which arised in my mind.

I have discovered there is some mathematical logic in the relationship between a man and a woman.

And I have experimented this fact the last days.

Let's call [tex]\Delta F[/tex] as the uncertainty about the friendship between a man and a woman. Also, let me call [tex]\Delta S[/tex] as the probablity of sucess when trying to pick up seriously with her and have a serious romance.

Then, this two variables are relationed as something similar to Heisenberg Principle:

[tex]\Delta F\cdot \Delta S > C[/tex]

where [tex] C[/tex] is some finite constant.

Proof: when you have a great friendship with a woman, you know, you have little secrets with her and viceversa, she laughs a lot with you and you laugh a lot with her, then the uncertainty about your friendship is 0:

[tex]\Delta F=0[/tex]

and so [tex]\Delta S=\infty[/tex], therefore you have no idea if it would be a great idea to flirt with her with the hopeness of sucess.

On the other hand, when you know little about a woman [tex]\Delta F=0[/tex], all of us are sure we are not going to have sucess with her [tex]\Delta S=\infty[/tex], but also it could happen I try to join her and in few minutes I get sucess.

Interesting, isn't it?.

Danger

I don't know a thing about math, but the verbal explanation pretty much matches reality.

arildno

I don't think C is a constant; it depends on the size of your..wallet?

Moonbear

Here's my thought on it. The more time you spend trying to write equations to explain women's preferences for men, the more likely it is that [tex]\Delta S[/tex] = 0.

jma2001

Oooh hooo ... and for her next act, Moonbear interviews Star Wars fans for Comedy Central.

fourier jr

what you do is perform so-called "secret tests". since straight-up discussion about where the relationship is taboo or off-limits for some people they have to use these secret tests. sometimes they're used to see how interested the other person is, just for the sake of knowing, or to feel more secure, etc. they're used most often though when going from friends to more-than-friends. examples are:
-- ask the target's friends what he/she thinks
-- direct questioning (usually done by guys, & sometimes "off-limits")
-- "trial intimacy moves", seeing how much or what kinds of physical contact the target will put up with; spilling your guts hoping the other person does the same (reciprocate); or introduce the target to friends as boyfriend/girlfriend & note the reaction
-- "taken-for-granted" tests like joking around about hooking up, etc; ignoring the target eg. if they just return from a long vacation & you purposely don't call them to see if they call 1st; self-putdown where you purposely put yourself down & note what nice things the target says about you; flirt with the target & note the reaction, "...assumes that tacit social knowledge will be brought to bear in interpreting its use"
-- endurance tests, basically if the relationship is made costly to the target & they still don't leave it shows their level of committment. there's forced choice where you see, say, how far the target is willing to drive/walk/etc to be be with you; physical separation (obvious); & last there's testing limits, seeing how much **** the target will put up with despite your actions
-- jealousy tests like describing your other boyfriend/girlfriend back home & seeing the reaction of the target; or actually involve a real competitor, make sure the target finds out about all the other girls/boys your having fun with & see the reaction

cronxeh

I think you missed a few things there, here try this:


[tex]\Delta F\cdot \Delta S <= \int_{-humor \ level}^{amount \ of \ alcohol} \int_{-pick \ up \ line}^{smell \ of \ perfume} \int_{-physical \ appearance}^{amount \ of \ capital} IQ \ dt \ d \psi \ d \phi [/tex]


Here is the experimental setup based on the model:

Clausius2

Norway, twelve points.

Probably, but you have to admit my theory is right.

Good reply. I had tried yet some of your thoughts. I spent a large time being impolite and rude with her, but surprisingly she does not felt angry with me. I think she is doing some similar test with me also.

Cronxeh, I have laughed a lot at your explanation .

plus

I disliked your proof because you say that a certain number [tex]=\infty[/tex], which is not really rigorous mathematics. Much worse though, this was not just a normal real number, this is a number which is supposed to be a probablilty - which is clearly rubbish as a probability has to be bounded above by 1.

However, it was funny to read. If only you could amend this theory to come up with the correct formula.

One formula which I observed is:

Amount you give women * Amount you get out of them = Constant.


This formula applies (only very roughly) on a person to person level as well as on a macro nationwide level.
Amount you give them includes how much respect you give them, as well as things such as feminism. The amount men get out of women has dereased rapidly since feminism, and note also that the islamist men get much more out of their women than the western men.

arildno

"Amount you give them includes how much respect you give them,"
Does it also include wallet size?

Joel

I've never learned to define my variables, but this is something I remember about boys and toys: [tex]\Delta P\cdot \Delta C > K[/tex] Anyone?

plus

No financial gifts are generally excepted in this formula..

However, in the socialist states of western and northern continental europe, finance is less important as the lazy and the criminal have almost as much cash as the diligent, intelligent and hard working. You see women being attracted to money is something which is inherently good, despite it being shown as something bad in the media, as it provides an incentive for people to work to produce things.

Clausius2

Ehemm.... you are being too formal, aren't you?

According to you if I don't give anything to a woman I would hope to obtain everything from her. Do you agree, Moonbear?

Moonbear

Some people try to live by that rule, but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Astronuc

Are you kidding?

I met my wife through friends - I just happen to show up concerts or friends' parties, and kept running into her. At the parties, we'd eat good food, and sit around listening to music (several folks played guitar) and chat about any subject - similar to GD in PF.

My wife (who was a total stranger to me and the best friend of my friend's girlfriend) and I used to sit and talk off to the side. I met her summer of 1980. I saw her periodically at friends parties, and then had a first formal date during a spring holiday (spring break) in March, 1981. We lived in different towns about 90 miles (145 km) apart, but I would often visit town to see her. In June of 1981 (3 months after we started formally dating as boyfriend/girlfriend), I asked her to marry me. We got married May 1982 (less than one year engagement) at the end our undergraduate programs - and we have been married 23 years.

How did I know she was right? We talked, and we listened to one another.

My wife was the first woman to whom I could open my mind (and heart and soul), and I was the first man with whom she could share her mind (and heart and soul). She also liked the fact that I cooked and helped cook and clean at the parties. She also liked my family and they way we interacted as a family - and that is the kind of family she wanted to make with me.

When I met my wife, she had given up on marriage and decided that she would never have children. I changed that to definitely getting married and likely having children. We have two kids.

My mother's parents were married for 45 years when my grandmother died from a misdiagnosed illness. My father's parents were married for 52 years, when that grandmother died. My parents will celebrate 50 years of marriage next year. My parents and grandparents are among my role models.

fourier jr

ok but there must have been a time when either you or her wanted to test the waters & see if the other one felt the same way. after you decided you wanted to be with her you must have done something to find out what she thought, or vice-versa. that list came out of a mainstream communication journal & was listed in the chapter on relationships in adler's "looking in looking out".