Sunday, November 19, 2006

Buona Domenica!

Alright, so its been nearly a week since I updated my blog, and I thought a nice recycled idea would JUST fit the bill. I found the following quite amusing and shared it with a couple of people who thought it was too. So now I am going to post it and hope I don't bore you all silly with it.
The following is a man's explanation of why he thinks the "Women are complex, men are simple" thing is completely off base.
Men are extremely complex. The area we are most complex is in the interaction with women. This is because we:
1. Know what we what,
2. We know you know what we want,
3. We also know it is much better than sweet corn (this is an in-joke).
We have usually built up a fairly decent amount of data as to how women will react to certain things. At any time where a response on our part is expected we immediately plug the possible responses into our data matrix and calculate how that will affect the probability of us getting what we want. Then we also calculate how that response will affect the woman's expectations in the future and the resulting effort on our part it will take to meet those expectations. At this point we have to take into account our willingness to extend that effort and the ability to change to the point we can meet those expectations.
So now we have a three variable polynomial. However you must realize that this is derived from empirical data and is not an absolute formula. Therefore the situation could be looked at as just another experiment to gather data which will be used for future decisions.
There are, of course, other terms that we must take into consideration. We know that timing and the immediate past are very important to the calculation. An improper response can destroy all the effort we had put in previous to this moment.
I'm still at a loss to explain this fact, but then I'm not a woman.
Now I could go on, but explicating the rest of the variables would be tedious and they are of less importance, and frankly men often discard them in the interest of time. We know that we have to reply after it seems we have considered the issue (which I think I have proved that we do, just not the way women might think) but before the point a woman gets annoyed and thinks that the man has been ignoring her.
This is an amazing feat of number crunching even disregarding the data collection that has gone on in the past. Only after this analysis do we give the response which we think maximizes the probability and at the same time minimizes our effort.
So I think that you can't say that men are simple by any stretch of the imagination. It just surprises me given the tremendous effort that goes into each response we give that we are so often wrong.

Note: all people who are sticklers for mathematical rigor should not read further.
First the formula then the explanation.
P(Sigma Epsilon Chi) = 1 - [(A/X) + (B/X^2) + (C/X^3) + ... + (N/X^n)]
While not specifically statedin the original description arose what men are really calculating is a probability.
Therefore we have the standard probability formula of the form P=1-Y. The choice of Sigma Epsilon Chi as what we are calculating the probability of should be obvious. There are limits placed on this formula. As the probability of anything cannot be more than one or less than zero (given standard definitions) therefore the variable term must be bounded by one and zero. This leads to the limitation of X, which is the actual variable in the equation, to be greater or equal to one. The terms A, B, C, up to N are constants. All the constants are in fact derived from previous encounters. These have a fair degree of stability.I have defined A as the inverse probability of Sigma Epsilon Chi for a certain response determined in the past. In other words there is a probability of Sigma Epsilon Chi for "yes dear", "I love you", and "get back in the kitchen and make me some pie". The greater the probability for Sigma Epsilon Chi given a particular response must be subtracted from one to arrive at A. Therefore a response with a large probability would decrease the A/X term and maximize the probability for Sigma Epsilon Chi if all other terms are held constant.The B term is defined as the delta of future expectations. While at first glance this would seem to have nothing to do with the probability of Sigma Epsilon Chi it actually does influence it. Men know that women always want to raise the bar even if they are continually disappointed with their effectiveness at doing so. So if a given response would seem to raise the bar for future romantic efforts it increases the probability of Sigma Epsilon Chi. Men want to hold this bar down (see explanation of the C term) so they strive to minimize the delta. Ideally the delta would be zero but the perceived delta would be very large.The C term is the total willingness and capacity to meet those future expectations when the bar is raised. In an ideal world for men they wouldn't have to do anything to achieve a probability of one for Sigma Epsilon Chi. Since this is obviously not the case effort must be expended. Men also know that they cannot over-promise for the future in order to receive Sigma Epsilon Chi unless there is no plan to be involved with the current controller of Sigma Epsilon Chi. Which I must point out is a very bad practice because it throws off the calculations of every subsequent man involved in the future with said controller.Now there are obviously N constants associated with this calculation. Since it would be tedious to catalog them all I am going to dispense with that exposition. However we are still left with the most important term in the calculation. That is X. X is an unknown. That is because it cannot be determined with certainty until after the response has been given. X is of course the woman's inclination to Sigma Epsilon Chi at a given time. This would obviously be completely unknown to the man. Men must project what this X will be for a given response. While some X's are fairly certain (the use of the B word is almost certain to drive X to near one) the higher values are very difficult to arrive at. The higher values are the ones which give the greatest probability of Sigma Epsilon Chi.At the end though the whole probability devolves to 0.5 because as we all know either it happens or it doesn't.

P.S. Here is the medical scoop, many thanks for all your prayers and well wishes.
My auntie had surgery and it seems to have gone really well.
She may not even require chemo!
We'll know more when the test results are returned in a couple days.


lime said...

it's sunday evening and that sort of math made my brain sweat....

VERY glad to hear your auntue so far seems to be having good results. praying for a good recovery..

Stephanie said...

I don't know why but this makes me think of your "boys are stupid ... let's throw rocks at them" post.

S said...

Say what?

Good news about aunty! XX

Anonymous said...

Such good news about your auntie. Hope all is going well for your mommy too. xo

Sar said...

Now I really need coffee, my brain be hurtin (even though that was quite entertaining)! ;)

Kidding aside, Logo, I'm so happy to hear your Aunt's surgery went well. My thoughts have been with you and your family. Keep us posted.

egan said...

It's all greek to me.

The Grunt said...

I was worried about your aunt, and I hope your mom gets better too.

You already throw rocks at me, meanie;)

Seamus said...

That's great new about your aunt!!!

You lost me at "complex"! ;)

Anonymous said...

I am so glad to hear your aunt's surgury went so well.

I had no idea my husband put so much thought into his "Yes, dear" answers to me. Makes me look at him differently; D

C said...

It took me a while to remember what the Greek letter Chi is represented by. (dangle, dangle goes the preposition) I'm not at my best today, LOL!

Great news about your auntie!! Hooray!

egan said...

I'm happy to hear about your auntie as well. Hope things are going well for you.