# Thread: The soulmate equation

1. I asked Google. These were the results.
The typology approach:
Finding-Your-Soul-Mate-Helen-Fishers-Formula-for-Romance

The mathematical approach:
Finding-your-soul-mate-a-statistical-analysis

2. I got as far as "males have disintegrated minds."

3. Originally Posted by KDude
This is retarded. Why do I even come to this site anymore? Can you figure out the equation to that?
Originally Posted by Orangey
That one is easy.

Self-loathing + OCD routine + boredom = regular TypeC use
I thought that it was because my extraocular muscles needed a workout from time to time

(I was actually reading about eye muscles earlier today while trying to recall which humor was aqueous and which was vitreous... I'm so excited to get to use my knew eye muscle vocabulary! )

4. I prefer to apply drake's equation

for mee
mmh
a quick unprecise one based on personal empirical observation.
I tend to be most attracted to intelligent, heterosexual females, most often western, educated rather than not (but frankly that's an over simplification).

pop x fraction of females x (fraction of 'western' women among these + 50% to add some variability) x fraction that isnt engaged x fraction that is between 18 and 30 x fraction that is within the top 3% in terms of most common psychometrics x percentage i could be attracted to assuming the other factors are in (say 10%) x ...
lets just use these

• 2 million people
• 25% of females (i wont go into the details of the demographics, and assume they represent heterosexual women as we're not using super precise stats here)
• a bit below 1/3 rd between 18 and 30 (higher amonst expats, though, so lets say 40%
• again expats are different, lets say 50% of that age group arent engaged
• about 15% with most likely to fit education level
• then again, simplification but 3% with most likely to fit problem solving abilities as correlated with intellect
• 5% of mutual attraction (personality, physical etc., pheromone stuff, absence of daddy issues...) factor based on the above parameters
• lets say about 10% which fit usual ethnic preference + 5% (points) to add some variability into that particular soup
• +10% on the total to account for people coming and leaving
and i left out a few filters. so that makes

(2,000,000*0.25*0.4*0.5*0.15*0.03*0.5*0.15)*1.1
= 11

yeah.

I'd rather not end up with a loser / someone who doesn't fit.
in other terms: my answer to"Fred, why don't you date? But Fred, you have pretty eyyeess"

basically i'd have better luck dating typec members. fun times.

edit: ouh, got a number wrong, wrote 0.5 instead of 0.05
so 1.1 person
(tries to picture .1 person)

5. Boobies.

6. Originally Posted by Vilku
thats right, you read the title right, i think ive figured it out.

Considering if youve typed yourself all correctly, then i predict your soulmate is..

Mbti: AAAA + BABB
instincts: Xy Zy + Wy Xy or Zy Wy depending which feels more appealing.
Enneagram: XwY + YwX
gender: male + female (females are more attuned to minds integration and feelings no matter type while males tend to have disintegrated minds, thus disconnected from feelings, this creates the roles of females helping males in this section while same gender males would find the other not helpful in this way and females the other as not needing their special help, so yeah im saying theres psychological blockage for same gender relationships ever feeling fulfilling, sadly.)

thats my results after analyzing by both my mind and scanning each options for what attributes ive found the closest to my heart, then just combining them together for the virtual representation of perfect fit.

I would also like to mention that same mbti type relationships can be fulfilling, but there will always be that lingering thought nagging you its not quite perfect......

Well.. These are my results for dwelling into the realm of psychology, anyone has anything to say?
I would also say there are six types of cultures, each dominated by their respectable instinct, but thats kinda off topic and for fine tuning your life into culture of your instinct. Ahh, isnt it nice how psychology helps in finding a more fulfilling path to live your life with? hHhmniyh!
I get what you are saying, and I'd agree with it about halfway.

The MBTI part, I'd say that works for the Perception-Doms, but for the Judging-Doms it would instead be AAAA+BBAB.

.....and the thought on gender might hold if you are talking more like Gender-Stereotype, but with a broader concept of gender it doesn't quite hold up.

7. For romantic purposes, same judgement functions.
For working purposes, same perceiving functions.

8. Originally Posted by Jennifer
Well, you're going to get a lot of flack for dismissing same-sex unions by your own simplistic code of male/female, I'll tell you that right now. I mean, obviously they ARE fulfilled in those relationships or they wouldn't get involved in them; secondly, men and women are a mix of masculine and feminine assigned traits, so you can have men with feminine traits and women with masculine traits, and this creates a lot of opportunities to mix and match, gender wise, even if your idea that the relationship needs a total balance of masculine and feminine to work well makes sense.

People are very different, the codes are likely to not be helpful to a large segment of readers, etc. I'm glad the system fits you and what is "closest to your heart," but for the last fives years we've been running threads here that show a multiplicity of partnering outcomes that don't conform necessarily to what works for you.

I'm not sure how else to respond.
those roles i presented are soul level in depth, not charasteristics. And this equation isnt entirely based on heart, but also mind analyzing what accounts for most satisfying results, like the same gender dismissing, its not something you notice easily, but it definately ruins it long term wise.

Aka why ive dismissed same gender long term options for myself, even if everything else was on spot, that one soul level flaw would be haunting in the back of my mind for eternity.

If people just followed whims, we'd have plenty of failed relationships. But oh, thats exactly what we have..

Its something ive been pondering. Why do people go for those relationships? I can see those failing in my minds simulation before it even started, yet those are the relationships people pick.

Maybe those who pick these relationships just never even knew what could be so they take the short straws.

9. You should start a dating site.

10. Originally Posted by KDude
This is retarded. Why do I even come to this site anymore? Can you figure out the equation to that?
a boring life plus a psychology forum = .. Psychology forum addiction =)

Originally Posted by bologna
Well, there's e.g. this

and this:

What do I think personally? Well,
thats nonsense rambling, ever spent time with an isfp? Only an estj would have all the weird items they constantly ask if you have, like i would sacrifice my personal hygiene if i had.

Originally Posted by Standuble
You could solve this problem ISTP style and go out and rob a bank and get caught whilst in possession of drugs. Then you can play an exciting game of "dodge the prison shower daddy" twice a day for several years! What fun! Truly an exciting decade you could enjoy if you make the right decisions.

As for the topic creator:

Did you create this before or after you consumed the mushrooms? It quite clearly is far too simplistic an equation, taking no heed to the fooking huge number of variables that exist in attraction. If the equation was as simplistic as you claim, then surely you would have an enormous number of soul mates that exist. There is no guarantee you will even like a person who fits that criteria.
a person who fits my criteria will act exactly the way i want my perfect other to act, and has exactly the mental resources and similar goal to life as i with an approach which happens to complete mine, and ill love anyone whom i find useful to myself, so then it would equate id love one like this a plenty.
Whenever i meet people who are close to it, i love the parts which are but then they never have quite had it all.

Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity
I get what you are saying, and I'd agree with it
about halfway.

The MBTI part, I'd say that works for the Perception-Doms, but for the Judging-Doms it would instead be AAAA+BBAB.

.....and the thought on gender might hold if you are talking more like Gender-Stereotype, but with a broader concept of gender it doesn't quite hold up.
its about the libido, females also biologically have _higher_ self communication abilities than males, leaveng males feeling too dry for me.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO