The stable marriage problem and modern dating • Hacker News Board

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#191

Post by Shorel » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

ambicapter wrote: post #71

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #37

One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men. See for example: https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences/m... As such, male advantage is probably a lot lower in the real world, if (hyperbolic) every woman has a different man on nr 1 of their preference list, and every man has the same woman…

> One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men. That is addressed halfway through the post. Methinks you didn't actually read the article.

I agree with you and I can't understand why people downvoted you. Probably very few people actually reads the article.

The article is good enough to be read to the very end.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#192

Post by cupcake-unicorn » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

arvarik wrote: post #5

EGreg wrote: post #3

Why would having a larger pool make dating harder? I think the author is confusing the probability of a “stable marriage” with the probability of a relationship . What this says is you’d expect cheating to go up. As Chris Rock says, “you’re only as faithful as your options.”

Right, I should have made that a bit clearer. Modern dating is harder because the pursuit of a stable marriage is harder. Although this is all assuming people date to get married.

Hey there, sorry to comment hijack - I really enjoyed this article. Was not aware of the Stable Marriage Problem and the associated algorithm and real life applications with medical students/roommates. Appreciated the humor and memes as well :) I noticed thought you don't list any email or anything if I had further questions - is there a good way to get in touch? Thank you

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#193

Post by kennywinker » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:18 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #158

kennywinker wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contest is only an evolutionary advantage if the winners reproduce more, or more successfully, than the losers. So assuming you're not having babies with everyone you match with on tinder, having a large number of matches isn't actually an increase in fitness. I haven't seen any evidence that people who don't do well on dating apps don't actually end up reproducing... in fact it's possible less success in that real…

Evolutionary success isn't about stronger relationships, it's about having more sex with less birth control and a basically safe environment for childhood survival. A male in unstable relationships can have far more offspring than a man in stable relationship, as can (to a lesser exteny) a woman who is so unstable that her children are adopted.

I was meaning stronger relationships, as in ones that are more likely to get to "let's have kids". But I'll meet you at your point, is stability in a relationship a bad strategy?

My answers would be:

1. it's debatable

2. there are multiple viable strategies

3. any theory about what increases fitness needs testing and ones like this are very hard to prove or disprove since the signals are noisy.

> A male in unstable relationships can have far more offspring than a man in stable relationship

Theoretically can have, sure. But that doesn't instantly translate to that being a higher fitness strategy. For example - does that strategy work in practice, or only in theory? And if it does, what is the success of those offspring? An individual's reproductive success is only as good as their offspring's reproductive success. It's quite possible kids from stable homes are more likely to have more kids than those from unstable homes for a million subtle reasons.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#194

Post by warent » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:19 AM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #148

warent wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone said "Just because an apple is red, that doesn't mean it's a red delicious.", why would you reply "I'd say that's untrue if the apple is a red delicious."

I'm not sure what this is called, but your statement is basically just redundantly agreeing with me.

Edited for clarification.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#195

Post by Shorel » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

albntomat0 wrote: post #43

polote wrote: post #29

Could we solve the advantage towards men by removing the condition that there could be some unstable pairing ? (but not a lot), it is not like changing partner is a liquid market. What would be the percentage of people not being in a unstable pairing in order for men to not have any advantage over women ?

My understanding is the "advantage" men have over women in this article is due to the average man finding the average women more attractive than the average woman finds the average man, at least in the data used. Without removing that, and assuming everyone pairs up, the "advantage" remains.

No. According to the article, the advantage they have is they choose first because they start the interactions, while women wait to be approached.

As soon as women decide to also approach, this advantage disappears.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#196

Post by paulryanrogers » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #58

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #48

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.

I'm not so sure. Dating often only reveals a person at their best, most agreeable. I've known couples that needed years to discover they were in a marriage with someone who had deal-breaker qualities. Sometimes things don't manifest until time and pressure force them out.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#197

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 1:44 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #73

The article links to another article [1] at the same site for a description of the stable marriage problem. I don't think the description is right. Here is the description: > Find a stable matching between two equally sized sets of elements where each element has a preference ranking of all the elements in the opposite set. > A matching is stable if there are no unstable pairings. > An unstable pairing happens in the…

[deleted]

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#198

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #192

arvarik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I should have made that a bit clearer. Modern dating is harder because the pursuit of a stable marriage is harder. Although this is all assuming people date to get married.

Hey there, sorry to comment hijack - I really enjoyed this article. Was not aware of the Stable Marriage Problem and the associated algorithm and real life applications with medical students/roommates. Appreciated the humor and memes as well :) I noticed thought you don't list any email or anything if I had further questions - is there a good way to get in touch? Thank you

[deleted]

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#199

Post by arvarik » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 2:04 AM UTC

cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #192

arvarik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I should have made that a bit clearer. Modern dating is harder because the pursuit of a stable marriage is harder. Although this is all assuming people date to get married.

Hey there, sorry to comment hijack - I really enjoyed this article. Was not aware of the Stable Marriage Problem and the associated algorithm and real life applications with medical students/roommates. Appreciated the humor and memes as well :) I noticed thought you don't list any email or anything if I had further questions - is there a good way to get in touch? Thank you

Thanks! :) You can connect with me on LinkedIn which is linked at the top of the site!

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#200

Post by arvarik » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

wolfram74 wrote: post #153

arvarik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I should have made that a bit clearer. Modern dating is harder because the pursuit of a stable marriage is harder. Although this is all assuming people date to get married.

There's one simulation I'd have very much liked to have seen the results of, and that would be the female preference advantage under the paretto-normal asymmetry. When you have a normal-normal preference, you'd assume the advantage to be equivalent for whoever was reaching, but that assumption isn't as well grounded when the distributions aren't equivalent. TLDR: do the women have a similar advantage if they are the…

So there's two reasons why there is a male preference advantage here: 1) I ran the algorithm assuming the men make the first move and 2) Male/female normal/pareto correlation in attractiveness

Do you mean what would happen if the distributions were switched but men still make the first move? I could change up the script and run it again if that's what you mean!