The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
slate.com
The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
1–10 of 119 posts
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#2I'm a bit bothered than there is no objective evidence - just a claim that "everybody knows" followed by a loose application of game theory.
But, if he is right, then as a man you should be holding out.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#3I'm a bit bothered than there is no objective evidence - just a claim that "everybody knows" followed by a loose application of game theory. But, if he is right, then as a man you should be holding out.
Especially since he explicitly eschews "reductive" biological evidence.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#4I'm a bit bothered than there is no objective evidence - just a claim that "everybody knows" followed by a loose application of game theory. But, if he is right, then as a man you should be holding out.
That doesn't follow - presumably the desirable men are also getting what they want, less desirable but more devoted women. After all, the idea of the linked article is that a woman who does marry a desirable man would be likely to get a less desirable mate if she were to compete directly with other women.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#5I'm a bit bothered than there is no objective evidence - just a claim that "everybody knows" followed by a loose application of game theory. But, if he is right, then as a man you should be holding out.
That doesn't follow - presumably the desirable men are also getting what they want, less desirable but more devoted women. After all, the idea of the linked article is that a woman who does marry a desirable man would be likely to get a less desirable mate if she were to compete directly with other women.
I don't know if you can assume early bidders are more devoted.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#6The author is actually indireclty referring to the stable marriage problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem , don't bother reading the paper the slate writer links to, it has no substantive content), in which you have two sets of agents which we label the "men" and the "women". Each agent has a preference ordering of the members of the other gender. It is really easy to prove that you can then find an equilibrium arrangement by iterating the following procedure i = 1..n:
have each man propose to the i'th woman on his list (if he's not currently matched, otherwise he does nothing). the woman accepts if she's not matched yet or if the man ranks higher on her list than the previous guy she accepted.
if you think for a moment you can see (and prove) that this equilibria favors the men.
Also curiously enough, this exact algorithm is used to match med students with residency programs
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#7> Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.
I think this one quote from the article is important.
> What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make great dads.
2nd quote from linked article in original piece - an interesting Lori Gottlieb article entitled "Marry Him!" which I'm considering forwarding to a few of my 30-ish single and still serial-dating female friends (considering the negative repercussions).
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't follow - presumably the desirable men are also getting what they want, less desirable but more devoted women. After all, the idea of the linked article is that a woman who does marry a desirable man would be likely to get a less desirable mate if she were to compete directly with other women.
I don't know if you can assume early bidders are more devoted.
I'm assuming that early bidding isn't what's working for the less desirable women. It's a self evaluation that they can't compete directly, so they don't. Instead, they concentrate their resources on one mostly-desirable man. Bidding early is one part of the equation, but bidding more is another, probably more important part. If the article is supposed to reflect real life, the timing isn't likely to yield a real advantage, since society discourages women from getting married until relatively late anyway.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#9There's a simpler explanation than appealing to math the author admits not understanding: male attractiveness ages better.
A 40 year old man can be attractive to 20 year old women, but a 40 year old woman is rarely attractive to 20 year old men.
In other words, women past their prime who restrict themselves to mates their own age will may be in relatively low demand.
Re: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox
#10> Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness . I think this one quote from the article is important. > What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make…
Good read.
"What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime."
I smiled as I read this because that's my exact choice of words when describing what I'm interested in.