Live data from Hacker News

The stable marriage problem and modern dating

arvarik.com

141–150 of 224 posts

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#141

BTW What's up with Tinder granting for free global in discovery settings? I am the only lucky one? Never have I had an opportunity to swipe on so many single mothers 3000km away. I think I will start to charge Tinder for my time...

It’s an aknowlegment from Tinder that not enough people are using it in your locality. In order for you to not loose interest, they give you that.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#142
post #40

Having worked on a dating app startup with a 2m seed (it's since pivoted to a brewery run by active gang members), I can say the problem of dating is looked at horribly wrong. People assume dating is about finding the person "most compatible" with you. Compatibility is an illusion. Most people tend to date until they have an idea of "what they don't want". Once they know and they find someone who checks the boxes, th…

People who are in stable relationships are people who want to be in stable relationships. This is readily apparent when most find their spouse, significant other, love of their life or other half of the walnut in their small town, neighborhood, school, or place of work. People like me, who have been dating forever, fool themselves when they think the issue is compatibility, not having found the right person, or other pedestrian rationalizations. The simplest and more likely explanation of the dating-forever syndrome (or pleasure, because I had a great time dating) is that consciously or sub-, we don't want to be in a stable relationship.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#143
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh? log(2^x) == xlog(2) which is linear?

if y = 2^x then taking logs of both x and y we have log y = 2 ^ log x, still an exponential relation. so it depends on whether "log enough scale" applies to both axes... Then there's functions like n -> 2^2^...^2 with an exponential tower of height n. That's doesn't become linear with any finite number of logs...

If y = 2^x, then log y != 2^log x because of Jensen's inequality. You can take log of both sides to keep the equality, but applying the transformation inside of 2^() results in the equality turning into a strict inequality.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#144

There are a ton of papers on the properties of stable matching under random preferences. The classic paper (Pittel 1989 https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0402048?journalCode=s... ) calculates the average rank of men and women for their partners under male-proposing Gale Shapley. They find the men's average rank is O(log(n)) and the women's average rank is O(n / log(n)). Depending on how you calculate percent adv…

The difference based on which side proposes turns out to be a knife-edge result for balanced markets! For imbalanced markets, the short side gets average rank `O(log(n))` in every stable matching and the long side gets `O(n / log(n))`

Edit: reference is Ashlagi et al (2015). "Unbalanced Random Matching Markets: The Stark Effect of Competition" http://web.mit.edu/iashlagi/www/papers/UnbalancedMatchingAKL...

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#145
post #131
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the primary requirement for making a relationship work is that both parties are committed to making it work. The problem is: we're not, because we've been fed fairy tales about True Love and we keep looking for a Mr/Mrs Perfect that doesn't exist. Finding out what you don't want is definitely important too. Some people figure that out quickly, some go through a lot of drama before they finally figure it out.…

My wife and I talk about this occasionally. There's also a sort of prisoner's dilemma that disappears when you have both credibly committed to making it work. Suddenly each disagreement is... lower stakes(?) because you know that the other person is acting in good faith to solve it as well. Committing to make it work makes it easier to make it work.

This right here. Married for 16 years and took me a while to figure out the iterated prisoner's dilemma is a game with no winners in a marriage. We also call this game "why did you do it that way" and again there are no winners. The only way to win the game is ... (struggle not to make the War Games reference) for both parties to cooperate all the time. Therein lies the problem. Some people do not have the integrity to not take advantage of a spouse who is always cooperating. We call those people "not marriage material".

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#146
post #131
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the primary requirement for making a relationship work is that both parties are committed to making it work. The problem is: we're not, because we've been fed fairy tales about True Love and we keep looking for a Mr/Mrs Perfect that doesn't exist. Finding out what you don't want is definitely important too. Some people figure that out quickly, some go through a lot of drama before they finally figure it out.…

My wife and I talk about this occasionally. There's also a sort of prisoner's dilemma that disappears when you have both credibly committed to making it work. Suddenly each disagreement is... lower stakes(?) because you know that the other person is acting in good faith to solve it as well. Committing to make it work makes it easier to make it work.

That's been my experience since getting married also. Disagreements are now low-stakes, time away from each other is low-stakes.. things are just way more chill because we've suddenly got all the time in the world and a belief that the other person is in it for the long haul.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#147
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any data to back that up that you can share? I don't mean to call you out, it could very well be the case, people date in rather not-understandable ways to me. What you're saying does not match my experience though. Quite a few friends of mine have dated only very few people before getting married. Anecdotally, the marriages that seem to do the best are the marriages in which both partners did not have a…

It doesn't have to take that many dates to find out what you don't want.

On the other hand if you date around a lot, you''ll discover you have hard limits you'd never even imagined previously.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#148
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

definitely see this in my scene. the most attractive guys have many partners while the lesser ones don't have that many. more attractive guys are fought over and rifts are created because of it. It's really funny because a lot of them consider themselves anarchists politically...yet the few attractive men seem to dominate.

I wonder how much of this is perception vs. reality. Many women trip over themselves around me, but I'm monogamous and have only chosen to be in a couple of relationships because finding a match is really hard. Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends.

>Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends.

I'd say that's untrue if you're participating in a fairly healthy poly community.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exists: https://www.eventsandadventures.com/ The downside is there's a lot of overlap between "people who are online dating" and "people who aren't good in group social settings".

eventsandadventures are scum. please do not even give them clicks. Source (among many): https://www.complaintsboard.com/events-and-adventures-possib... some examples: if you end up "not single" you cannot cancel your membership and are obligated to keep paying through the agreed term, BUT are not allowed to participate in any events as they are "for singles only".

If they were upfront about that, I actually think it's a good thing. One of the big conflicts of interests for dating apps is that if they're too effective it's bad for business. They have a vested interest in keeping you on the platform as long as possible, but with this sort of payment process the company isn't punished for you finding a relationship.

The apps are particularly bad at this. Bumble in particular heavily promotes the profiles of people who are traveling. So when I go on vacation I get the dopamine hit of 10x more matches than usual, but with a decreased chance of actually forming a lasting connection. On the flip side when I'm not traveling probably 15% of the profiles I see are people at the nearest airport or flight attendants who live in other cities.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#150
post #40

Having worked on a dating app startup with a 2m seed (it's since pivoted to a brewery run by active gang members), I can say the problem of dating is looked at horribly wrong. People assume dating is about finding the person "most compatible" with you. Compatibility is an illusion. Most people tend to date until they have an idea of "what they don't want". Once they know and they find someone who checks the boxes, th…

I think there's an unwarranted assumption in most dating theory that some kind of psycho-social compatibility, whether pro- or anti-, is a primary decider of anything.

What if it's yet another illusion that the conscious mind is in control and, in fact, it's not really related?

The attractiveness to women of differences in major histocompatibility complex genes is a documented thing, for example [1], More loosely we've all known people who were most attracted/committed to people who, intellectually by lists of criteria, etc., even they'd agree made no sense for them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odour_and_sexual_attracti...

Post reply on HN