Some numbers about finding a dual

[SquidlessBrain]

If I did some calculation wrong, please tell me. But this is what I have found:

Lets say your dual represents 1/250 of the population. Then the likelihood of you finding a dual in a random meeting with a single person is 0.05. If you want to find one with at least 99% likelihood then:

the probability of not finding a dual in a single meeting = 0.995

now the probability of (not finding a dual after n meetings) = (0.995)^n, n = 0, 1, 2, ...

We want the probability of finding one to be at least 99%, then 1 - (0.995)^n > 0.99

Then n > log(0.01)[base 0.995] = 919.

This means you need to talk to 919 people to have at least 99% of likelihood of finding an ordinary dual. Which is more realistic than expecting to talk to 250 people to find one.

-----

Now, Lets say your dual represents 1/16 of the population.

then n > log(0.01)[base 15/16] = 73. Which means you only need to talk to 73 people to have at least 99% of likelihood of meeting an ordinary dual. Which is more realistic than talking to 16 people and hoping to find one.

It means that if your dual is more likely to be found than average, you need to talk to less than 73 people to have at least 99% of likelihood of meeting him/her.


Notes:

-these numbers work like a worst case scenario, because you could, for example, have the luck of finding 2, 3, 4 duals among those people. But you are 99% sure of finding at least one.
-for a type of 10%, you would still need to meet 44 people, because you kinda want to make SURE (or be 99% sure) of finding at least one.
-finding a dual is not the same as noticing them. so I'd suggest changing "meeting" to "getting to know" for better results
-noticing them is not the same as liking them. in this case, there's not much math can do about it, at this level of simplicity at least.

[Sol]

Lets say your dual represents 1/250 of the population.

~1/16 , most possibly
in general group of people alike: women + close age + close IQ
in general public places. in places relating to interests and skills common for types - there can be higher or lower chance

The more problem is not to notice duals (we exclude here that you'd need to identify the types), but to choose a human which fits good to be your _friend_ , not just sexually attractive and decent in social sense. And then to do a life-long work to allow deep feelings in you to that "good for you" human, to inspire feelings in him, that you both cared about thoughts, feelings, interests of each other so both felt good together in pair, alike you'd joined your minds and life as equals parts of one. Generally, people choose without serious taking into account of friendship abbility and don't make serious efforts to get personally close relations in pairs. So even when people have a dual near and notice he is personally pleasant and also notice a girl with more attractive body - they often prefer 2nd, and this approach is harder to lead to _long_ good relations, it leads to more emotionally not good pairs which break with more chance. There are a lot such pairs and most seems pass through several of them during the life - because of the said above approach.

Duality is only _one of_ important factors for good relations and love. Just to make a pair with a dual and then do what happens in average in pairs is doubtful way to get good pair. People have no good friendship and love in pairs, in common. With a dual (and good IR) do get this is significantly easier, but will not happen without significant efforts. Also you may achieve more than in worse IR as there are limits for your abbilities.

2nd problem is that you need a luck to get a dual near you, who see near for significant time: live, study, work near. So there was a time to understand the human better as a person and to get feelings. For example, I do not remember that had duality woman of near age near me; but noticed semiduality and activation, what is relatively good too, but not duality. 1/16 is not so much, taking this situation. Dating/meeting/social network sites should reduce this problem in the future, where people say status as "open for new relations" and share own videos, not only a couple of photos, - this is better to understand personal traits, relating to friendship possibility. Since mid of 2000s Internet and common devices allow this technically, but people post different info, hundres of photos and no videos, at least with good seen faces for significant time. The culture needs a time to absorb new technology, - photos exist for long and people have adopted to show this.

[cactagon]

Logic and probability have nothing to do with being a loser. This was literally lol worthy. Use Socionics to determine where your dual will most likely hang out. Se in your vital track? Join a sport/gym. Fe in vital? Go to a social gathering. Te? Go to H&R block and hit on the taxes person. As Jung would implore, too much of any 1 element is bad.

[SquidlessBrain]

Logic and probability have nothing to do with being a loser. This was literally lol worthy. Use Socionics to determine where your dual will most likely hang out. Se in your vital track? Join a sport/gym. Fe in vital? Go to a social gathering. Te? Go to H&R block and hit on the taxes person. As Jung would implore, too much of any 1 element is bad.

I mean, the math is the same, just the distribution would change, and the number of people you would need to talk to would fall drastically. So I agree with your point.
I also dont know what do you mean by "being a loser", if you could explain I would appreciate.

[cactagon]

The Cambridge English dictionary defines a loser as "a person or company that is at a disadvantage because of their particular situation," and in this instance, it would be the author's failure to understand that rather than using logic to compute a probability on finding their dual human, they should take action and go outside. The "numbers about finding a dual," don't tell you that the math is indeterminable since human behavior is unpredictable. I literally copulate with my dual ALL the time. I don't need to meet 900 or 250 people. It's very easy when you put the book on mechanics away, and embrace organic relations is what I was trying to say but came off a lil terse cuz its like dude cmon

[Computer Loser]

--make a google ads for ur dual

--gather all ur duals on an isolated island

--have them fight to the death

--winner gets all

[SquidlessBrain]

The Cambridge English dictionary defines a loser as "a person or company that is at a disadvantage because of their particular situation," and in this instance, it would be the author's failure to understand that rather than using logic to compute a probability on finding their dual human, they should take action and go outside. The "numbers about finding a dual," don't tell you that the math is indeterminable since human behavior is unpredictable. I literally copulate with my dual ALL the time. I don't need to meet 900 or 250 people. It's very easy when you put the book on mechanics away, and embrace organic relations is what I was trying to say but came off a lil terse cuz its like dude cmon

I don't see much substance in your post. You're implying I'm at disadvantage even when you know nothing about me. LOL

Who told you I haven't found duals IRL?
Who told you I'm not taking action?

Also
It's just a simple math. I mean, this logic is pretty simple and it took me less than a minute to get to these results. I didn't do anyone any harm. Rather you should learn to interpret numbers and see beyond what these simple numbers are telling, which you probably can't because you are too worried about teaching others. Alright go have fun, and don't waste time trying to teach losers LOL . I mean, do you really care about me?

Have a nice day, stranger.

[SquidlessBrain]

--make a google ads for ur dual

--gather all ur duals on an isolated island

--have them fight to the death

--winner gets all

nah, I'm not so important. And there are others like me who could take benefit of the duals too.

[cactagon]

I don't need to "know" you to understand that your overuse of logic is what creates your disadvantage in finding your dual. No element is greater than another. I never stated what your questions are asking me. It's funny that you write "you should learn to interpret numbers and see beyond what these simple numbers are telling," since my point in commenting was to help you understand computing a probability of finding your dual isn't as easy as you think it is, despite all your awesomely perfect logic. Do I care about you? Inasmuch as you're another human being, for sure. Add to your presumed human quality your knowledge of typology and your presence here on this forum (this abstract tangible connection we share) of course I do! I love everyone, until I get to "know" them. Then a bifurcation occurs: to love or not to love?

[oath of solitude]

why did you start with 1/250?

[sbbds]

In spite of how typology sez INFx males are supposed to be rare unicorns who stay at home and huff bath salts, I don’t think I meet theoretically dateable male duals that infrequently. I can think of 10 or so just off the top of my head, who I’ve met irl throughout my life. I’m only 26 so that’s not too bad; one IEI a year from mid-teens on average to focus on if I actually wanted to lol. I’ve met many more than that but they were gay, taken, outside age range, or otherwise undateable/repulsive. I’m sure if I actually put effort into targeting IEIs through dating apps or whatnot I could increase that number as well.

Finding someone who you really like and get along with is supposed to be hard and difficult and rare though. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be worth it. That’s how our brains attach value to things, unless you are crazy.

[Lord Panda]

I'm like extra heavy on the Ti and even I'm saying these numbers mean nothing. I have to agree with @cactagon here. It's a misuse of statistics (even this can be argued to be statistics.) Increasing your odds might be useful for gambling. But human interactions involve so many more variables than the ones in a casino. Millions of things form impressions on your mind on a regular basis and a large number of our actions on a daily basis are beyond our control.

And what are you saying here, that if you meet 1000s of people, one of them will be your dual. Yes, that's obvious. What's the point of this statistics anyway?

I've said this before. Manufacturing authentic, real attraction is not possible, not even with socionics. My advice would be to give non duals a chance as well, because who knows. You can easily waste years of your life looking for a magical unicorn that doesn't exist. Misuse of socionics can create a false image of a non existent person in your mind. Imo, just forget about it. If Socionics is right about ITRs, then you will naturally find your dual if you just follow your attractions. Going out, looking for something where you only have text descriptions in your mind of some poorly translated Russian articles taken out of their historical and cultural context is bound to lead you to failure.

The whole point of Socionics is to put in objective terms things that are subjective like personality and attraction. If you subjective-ize it further, you're defeating the whole point. The socion doesn't lie, so you will find your dual if you're being authentic about your own expression of personality. There's no point in trying to manufacture the odds. It will not work

[SquidlessBrain]

In spite of how typology sez INFx males are supposed to be rare unicorns who stay at home and huff bath salts, I don’t think I meet theoretically dateable male duals that infrequently. I can think of 10 or so just off the top of my head, who I’ve met irl throughout my life. I’m only 26 so that’s not too bad; one IEI a year from mid-teens on average to focus on if I actually wanted to lol. I’ve met many more than that but they were gay, taken, outside age range, or otherwise undateable/repulsive. I’m sure if I actually put effort into targeting IEIs through dating apps or whatnot I could increase that number as well.

Finding someone who you really like and get along with is supposed to be hard and difficult and rare though. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be worth it. That’s how our brains attach value to things, unless you are crazy.

Two things:
-IEI aren't as rare as one might think (1/250 is very unrealistic, but I chose it because I like to be pessimistic)
-These numbers are about likelihood. It means that you can be 99% sure of finding at least one. I mean, it works for 99% of people that they find at least one given certain distribution
-IEI are indeed rare, but you somehow were able to increase that likelihood by going to places where they're more likely to be present, thus increasing the distribution among the "population"

[SquidlessBrain]

why did you start with 1/250?

I was assuming there can be places where a certain type may be extremely rare

[Adam Strange]

I was assuming there can be places where a certain type may be extremely rare

Yeah. Well, you are right. ESI’s in my bed are extremely rare.

[SquidlessBrain]

I'm like extra heavy on the Ti and even I'm saying these numbers mean nothing. I have to agree with @cactagon here. It's a misuse of statistics (even this can be argued to be statistics.) Increasing your odds might be useful for gambling. But human interactions involve so many more variables than the ones in a casino. Millions of things form impressions on your mind on a regular basis and a large number of our actions on a daily basis are beyond our control.

And what are you saying here, that if you meet 1000s of people, one of them will be your dual. Yes, that's obvious. What's the point of this statistics anyway?

I've said this before. Manufacturing authentic, real attraction is not possible, not even with socionics. My advice would be to give non duals a chance as well, because who knows. You can easily waste years of your life looking for a magical unicorn that doesn't exist. Misuse of socionics can create a false image of a non existent person in your mind. Imo, just forget about it. If Socionics is right about ITRs, then you will naturally find your dual if you just follow your attractions. Going out, looking for something where you only have text descriptions in your mind of some poorly translated Russian articles taken out of their historical and cultural context is bound to lead you to failure.

The whole point of Socionics is to put in objective terms things that are subjective like personality and attraction. If you subjective-ize it further, you're defeating the whole point. The socion doesn't lie, so you will find your dual if you're being authentic about your own expression of personality. There's no point in trying to manufacture the odds. It will not work

-You said meeting 1000 is obvious. What about 73 people, is it obvious?
-I have noticed that people are really misinterpreting these numbers. You can meet a dual at any circumstance and the odds are not going to change that. What I mean is about certainty, since there's so much uncertainty in this world, I'm giving some sort of "mathematical absoluteness" If I can call it that way
-You don't really need to know anything about Socionics to experience this. 99% of people will fall in love before age of 21, that's the same idea here.
-These numbers are important if you are the kind of person who likes to invite someone home (friends of friends, coworkers, coworkers friends) in order to find someone compatible.

btw, I've already heard all this stuff you guys are arguing before, and I totally agree. I can totally see your guys point. I'm not blindly looking for duals either

[sbbds]

I'm giving some sort of "mathematical absoluteness"

Two things:
-IEI aren't as rare as one might think (1/250 is very unrealistic, but I chose it because I like to be pessimistic)
-These numbers are about likelihood. It means that you can be 99% sure of finding at least one. I mean, it works for 99% of people that they find at least one given certain distribution
-IEI are indeed rare, but you somehow were able to increase that likelihood by going to places where they're more likely to be present, thus increasing the distribution among the "population"

Why are you talking about mathematical absoluteness, then in the above post you put THREE things on a list of “TWO things”?....

[Adam Strange]

Why are you talking about mathematical absoluteness, then in the above post you put THREE things on a list of “TWO things”?....

Perfect.

[SquidlessBrain]

Why are you talking about mathematical absoluteness, then in the above post you put THREE things on a list of “TWO things”?....

I started with 2 ideas, then in the middle of writing I had another thought but I didn't remember I had written "2 things" so...
The mathematical absoluteness means just that it's not relative, and doesnt' depend on peoples opinion.

It's like saying that if you meet 17 people, at least 2 of them will have the same type. No matter the circumstances, nor your personal opinion.

[Adam Strange]

I started with 2 ideas, then in the middle of writing I had another thought but I didn't remember I had written "2 things" so...
The mathematical absoluteness means just that it's not relative, and doesnt' depend on peoples opinion.

It's like saying that if you meet 17 people, at least 2 of them will have the same type. No matter the circumstances, nor your personal opinion.

I commented that @sbbds's reply was "perfect" because it was a 4D Se person, 3D Ti creatively noticing a Ti flaw in a statement.

I wasn't being critical. This thread is good.
,

[Rebelondeck]

People who are looking for N-types will have a lower probabilities and to a lesser extent, T-types aren't as common as F-types so relative success becomes somewhat obvious although not as accurate as 0.995. The chances of running into a compatible dual is even more remote because personal baggage can be way harder to tolerate. It's a little easier to find people where both can tolerate each other's baggage but even that would be far from a slam dunk. Rather than use type as a search engine, use it as a tool to understand one's partner because type dissonance is often minor when compared to other potential problems.

a.k.a. I/O

[sbbds]

I started with 2 ideas, then in the middle of writing I had another thought but I didn't remember I had written "2 things" so...
The mathematical absoluteness means just that it's not relative, and doesnt' depend on peoples opinion.

It's like saying that if you meet 17 people, at least 2 of them will have the same type. No matter the circumstances, nor your personal opinion.

Still though, why do you care about being absolute when like others said, 1/250 seems arbitrary?

[SquidlessBrain]

Still though, why do you care about being absolute when like others said, 1/250 seems arbitrary?

1/250 works like a threshold. By assuming this value I can get to a threshold of how many people you need to come into contact to be 99% sure of meeting bla bla bla

Once you know the most accurate distribution of types you can get to a better understanding of the environment. But for instance, I'm only in the mathematical realm, where it's not really necessary to know the actual distributions, given that they are reasonable.

Notice that a type with 1/16 occurrence is still not very common, and you get to the idealistic number 73. This is gold really

[The Reality Denialist]

In spite of how typology sez INFx males are supposed to be rare unicorns who stay at home and huff bath salts.

I saw one today because I was dragged with them. People were whispering to each other "He is gay, isn't he?" He actually had a job where he could be flamboyantly IEI and talk about aristocrats in history while sucking their lollipops in unicorn land. I think you should go to a place where some important people had servants and it is a museum nowadays. Lots of potential beta NFs in those places.

[Adam Strange]

I saw one today because I was dragged with them. People were whispering to each other "He is gay, isn't he?" He actually had a job where he could be flamboyantly IEI and talk about aristocrats in history while sucking their lollipops in unicorn land. I think you should go to a place where some important people had servants and it is a museum nowadays. Lots of potential beta NFs in those places.

Quoted for posterity.

[Lord Panda]

-You said meeting 1000 is obvious. What about 73 people, is it obvious?
-I have noticed that people are really misinterpreting these numbers. You can meet a dual at any circumstance and the odds are not going to change that. What I mean is about certainty, since there's so much uncertainty in this world, I'm giving some sort of "mathematical absoluteness" If I can call it that way
-You don't really need to know anything about Socionics to experience this. 99% of people will fall in love before age of 21, that's the same idea here.
-These numbers are important if you are the kind of person who likes to invite someone home (friends of friends, coworkers, coworkers friends) in order to find someone compatible.

btw, I've already heard all this stuff you guys are arguing before, and I totally agree. I can totally see your guys point. I'm not blindly looking for duals either

Does not compute. Can someone help @sbbds do you understand this? I mean, mathematics itself is Ti, but even with my STEM degree and working in a math heavy field, i still don't understand your use of statistics in this way.

If I have to guess at what you're getting at:

1) stats don't apply to individuals. Just because a coin toss gives you 50% chance of getting a head, it doesn't mean you will absolutely get heads half the time. Worst case scenario, you could toss a coin 1000 times and still get a 1000 tails.

2) mathematical absoluteness is impossible when it comes to stats.

3) i don't see what 99% of people falling in love has to do with anything.

4) HOW is something like this helping you? How has this helped you or anyone else in the search for love? What do you do with this info? Do you type every person you meet to determine the frequency of occurrence of your dual? Do you just mass email socionics tests to all your tinder matches? Do you just scan your local bar looking for available women and sociotype them all in your head and be like, "that one there looks like an ESI."

So let's say that one in 73 people i meet is an ESE. What then? How does this help me? Howwwwwww

Help me here dude, I don't understand. I'm spending too much time thinking about this.

[SquidlessBrain]

Does not compute. Can someone help @sbbds do you understand this? I mean, mathematics itself is Ti, but even with my STEM degree and working in a math heavy field, i still don't understand your use of statistics in this way.

If I have to guess at what you're getting at:

1) stats don't apply to individuals. Just because a coin toss gives you 50% chance of getting a head, it doesn't mean you will absolutely get heads half the time. Worst case scenario, you could toss a coin 1000 times and still get a 1000 tails.

2) mathematical absoluteness is impossible when it comes to stats.

3) i don't see what 99% of people falling in love has to do with anything.

4) HOW is something like this helping you? How has this helped you or anyone else in the search for love? What do you do with this info? Do you type every person you meet to determine the frequency of occurrence of your dual? Do you just mass email socionics tests to all your tinder matches? Do you just scan your local bar looking for available women and sociotype them all in your head and be like, "that one there looks like an ESI."

So let's say that one in 73 people i meet is an ESE. What then? How does this help me? Howwwwwww

Help me here dude, I don't understand. I'm spending too much time thinking about this.

This is somewhat close to the idea of the law of large numbers and chebyshev's inequality. I'd suggest you reading about them if you haven't yet and if you are really interested. I won't explain any further.

[sbbds]

1/250 works like a threshold. By assuming this value I can get to a threshold of how many people you need to come into contact to be 99% sure of meeting bla bla bla

Once you know the most accurate distribution of types you can get to a better understanding of the environment. But for instance, I'm only in the mathematical realm, where it's not really necessary to know the actual distributions, given that they are reasonable.

Notice that a type with 1/16 occurrence is still not very common, and you get to the idealistic number 73. This is gold really

Ok but your choice of 1/250 is still arbitrary or based on your own subjective sense of an appropriate value.

[Dr PissBender]

--make a google ads for ur dual

--gather all ur duals on an isolated island

--have them fight to the death

--winner gets all

You are my conflictor but this made me lol lmao

[Dr PissBender]

I saw one today because I was dragged with them. People were whispering to each other "He is gay, isn't he?" He actually had a job where he could be flamboyantly IEI and talk about aristocrats in history while sucking their lollipops in unicorn land. I think you should go to a place where some important people had servants and it is a museum nowadays. Lots of potential beta NFs in those places.

Lemme suck on your lollipop daddy

[Dr PissBender]

As an IEE, i have no fucking idea where you can find guys like me. But I know a few and they're all great musicians (myself included ). I don't know if IEE men are that common, just like SLI women. I've seen more EII men and LSE women though.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Lolz, if I take Socionics descriptions seriously, LSIs sound the absolutely least appealing to me romantically. I often question my type because of it. And the constant paranoia and control issues that I seem to elicit from this one type bewilders the living crap out of me. They, in turn, bring out the worst in me.

What do you not like about the LSI descriptions?

[FreelancePoliceman]

"They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time. Even when LSIs do not have firm, unchanging viewpoints, they may parade their current opinions with brash conviction, as though the logic of their thoughts is sound and irrefutable. "

This always seems to be the biggest point of contention. I tend live in the grey area and often consider conflicting viewpoints simultaneously. This seems to trigger LSIs. Weirdly I tend to have no issues with either LII or ILI.

LSIs tend to be confident in their opinions because they've invested much thought into them. And honestly, most people don't really think about most things. The LSI mindset is that since they've invested time and effort into thinking about something, then they're probably right, and further debate is a waste of time, especially with people who haven't thought about the problem -- and, if they're wrong, someone else will just tell tell them so, regardless of how they act about it. They're usually open to revising their opinions if they're shown to be predicated on false premises. And LSIs do have a heart; it's rare for them to be intentionally cruel or abrasive, even if they can be so unintentionally.

I can't speak for ILIs, but if LIIs are more open-minded, it's not because they're less sure of their reasoning, or because they respect other people more than LSIs do; they just have different priorities.

[Computer Loser]

LSIs tend to be confident in their opinions because they've invested much thought into them. And honestly, most people don't really think about most things. The LSI mindset is that since they've invested time and effort into thinking about something, then they're probably right, and further debate is a waste of time, especially with people who haven't thought about the problem -- and, if they're wrong, someone else will just tell tell them so, regardless of how they act about it. They're usually open to revising their opinions if they're shown to be predicated on false premises. And LSIs do have a heart; it's rare for them to be intentionally cruel or abrasive, even if they can be so unintentionally.

I can't speak for ILIs, but if LIIs are more open-minded, it's not because they're less sure of their reasoning, or because they respect other people more than LSIs do; they just have different priorities.

this is 100% spot on. i never throw out an opinion I haven't thought about at least a million times in my head lol... it's never "I think" this is so and so because so and so... It's usually "IT IS" so and so because so and so... and sometimes I know it comes off as arrogant, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do sometimes

[Computer Loser]

1) I was never quite sure about my ex but he seemed ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED he was LSI. Other people more versed in socionics seemed to think so too. The second person was an extremely rigid, detail-oriented, black and white, business lawyer who seemed to value status, power, hierarchy.

2. Of course, I have some bias but doesn't everyone? I am not perfect by any means. At least from where I was standing, both my ex and old business partner would lash out if their feelings got hurt instead of clearly communicating it. It was almost as if they expected others to read their minds. They then made assumptions about people without verifying it and then when the expectations weren't met, they would get angry and lash out.

What would you consider the typical LSI response?

I guess it depends on the nature of the situation... I remember a friend/coworker was trying to bust out a racial joke in front of all my coworkers and i EXPLODED lol looking back that was the most excessive (+ I feel kinda stupid about it looking back) I've been but its like when u hear the same jokes for 32 years u gotta use fire sometimes to put it out. And the thing is the joke wasn't that bad, i didn't really care, its just the fact it was in front of everyone that gave it more oomph.

Other times when someone isn't doing what they're supposed to (and they know they aren't) I just give them the "stink eye" or "look of disapproval" and that clears it up usually. Or I'll simply say "Don't do that again" and they usually know. If it's a person that deserves a witty come-back I'll go that route as well.

[oath of solitude]

"They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time. Even when LSIs do not have firm, unchanging viewpoints, they may parade their current opinions with brash conviction, as though the logic of their thoughts is sound and irrefutable."

This always seems to be the biggest point of contention. I tend to live in the grey area and often consider conflicting viewpoints simultaneously. This seems to trigger LSIs. If i even attempt to poke holes or point out contradictions, they hulk out on me. Weirdly I tend to have no issues with LII, ILI, SLI in this regard.

How do you feel about SLEs and IEIs?