Saturday, April 29, 2006

Technical data- am I right?

Well, as my mum taught me, I must make sure I get all my facts right before I frame a theory.

I have found two Fionas who are decidedly dodgy, which while I can't yet think of any others I know still makes an 80% hit rate, with also a 100% miss rate from the ones I tried (or didn't even waste my time knowing the result..).

Then I decided to do a control name to see if it worked for any name. I chose Catherine/Katherine as that was the name with the most girls attached to it I knew, and here are the results:

Total names found: 17
From which top quality: 13
dodgy: 1

comparitive percentage: 76% (pretty close), while the other 3 were OK but not division one.

Then I tried Sarah, who was also a fairly popular target for me over the years but not so many generally.

Total names found: 9
Top quality: 6

Top percentage 66.6%

Alison: Total names found: 7
Top quality: 5

Top percentage: 71%

Caroline: Total (so far, probably more): 7
Top quality: 5 I think

Percentage 71.4%

Karen: Total (so far) 8
Top quality: 3

Percentage: 26.6%

There is my favourite name but only a small sample, which is Sophie but I can only think of four, all who were top quality. But at least I had a little success with one though it was at a party where we all swapped around officially so she was left with little choice!

So the system isn't perfect but still pretty spooky. I haven't fully checked all the last few names but it still seems some are connected and most of the others I don't think I know enough but will try a few more as this is a fascinating test, and one Tommy Boyd already did a rough version of a few months ago. It also keeps me out of trouble...


Anonymous said...

Nope, my female mind believes you are in error.

First off I do not put a lot of faith in this choosing relationships based on an affinity for a name. But if you really wanted to test it out then all you need to test for is your current positive association for a name.

Regarding your current data? Karen is a variant of Katherine so, imo, should be included in that category.

Also I counted 48 women that you identified as knowing 'well' enough to subject to a rating system.

Have you known all these women in person? What is your criteria for knowing them 'well'? Is it one date or 4 dates or dating them regularly for a few months.

Also, did you 'date' them at different times. If you dated a few of them at the same time? I suggest your data may be corrupt.

Perhaps another way to test your theory, which in reality is entirely subjective for you, is to use visualization exercises and record their results instead.

Imagine the ideal woman for yourself. Develop the fantasy until it is as close to reality as you can achieve. Like imagining she had hairy armpits once in a while and that being okay with you. Or imagine her with habits you don't like but still the two of you can 'work it out'.

Imagine arguments. Imagine her too thin, too fat, too tall or not even very pretty. Remember the trap some men fall into by staying with a woman just because she looks hot.

But the woman of your fantasy can be good looking just not 'model material'. She can also be hooker, angel, mother and witch. Most women are combo packages.

She just can't be perfect. She must be flawed but always a good fit for you for YEARS of companionship. (scary stuff!)

Once you've got a 'functional fantasy' developed you can then ask the question to gather data for your theory.

Ask yourself what you think her name is.

Repeat experiment as often as you like. Change anything about her and try it again. Imagine the worst case companion and record those names. Then take all those results and crunch THOSE numbers according to 'winner' or 'dodgy'! ;-)

Bet the results would be fascinating but then again it's just one of my 'wierd' ideas. lol

(also a variant of Katherine)

David said...

Thanks Kathleen, I'll certainly try that.
But my own theory is far from scientific,as coincidences have a science of their own, far more interesting and totally against logic. But present the data and it still works. Maybe I'll find the reason behind it but there's already a lot of circumstantial evidence, like a smoking gun.