
The Eligible Bachelor Paradox - jwt
http://www.slate.com/id/2188684/pagenum/all/
======
carterschonwald
The 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

~~~
rms
Steven Rudich has a good lecture on this:
[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/academic/class/15251/di...](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/academic/class/15251/discretemath/Lectures/dating.ppt)

<http://www.discretemath.com>

~~~
dominik
Good slides; He mentions that the "largest, most successful dating service in
the world" uses a computer to run the Traditional Marriage Algorithm. But
which dating service is the "largest, most successful dating service in the
world"?

~~~
rms
the medical residency program

------
vaksel
I think additional part of the problem is that men are starting to realize
that they really don't have anything to gain by being married. And they are so
afraid of having to go through a divorce that can wipe them out, that they
don't feel like trying. I mean a 50% divorce rate in this country, is pretty
much a coin toss on whether or not you lose everything.

Seriously the only thing to gain by being married is saving a few bucks on
taxes.

And you lose pretty much everything else. Every single married guy I know is
MISERABLE. The sex pretty much stops within the first couple of years. And the
woman gains mega weight, because now that they "got" you, they don't need to
keep in shape. And then the whole bitchy wife comes out treating the guy as a
second class citizen.

Marrying an American woman is pretty much the worst decision you can make. If
you really want to get married, go find a nice European girl to marry, unlike
American women, at least they know that marriage is not a one way street.

~~~
inglorian
I'm always surprised to see the extreme bitterness that comes out on these
threads.

>>Every single married guy I know is MISERABLE. The sex pretty much stops
within the first couple of years. And the woman gains mega weight, because now
that they "got" you, they don't need to keep in shape. And then the whole
bitchy wife comes out treating the guy as a second class citizen.

You do seem to know an awful lot of extremely unhappy couples. That's not my
experience at all. For example, my parents are in their fifties and still have
sex 3+ times a week, a fact I wish I didn't know. I know many other very
happily married couples.

Obviously, my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours...I don't see how
we can generalize that there is nothing to gain by being married.

The divorce rate is 50%...but the failure rate of startups is even higher.
Starting a startup and failing can also ruin you financially and burn you out
-- should we then assume that it is a stupid idea to start one?

>>Marrying an American woman is pretty much the worst decision you can make.

I am not an American girl, though I recently moved to the states. I am
European myself -- and I have met just as many cultured, intelligent, kind
American women as European ones. Why do you hate American women so much?
Perhaps by "nice European girl" you are imagining an especially submissive
woman? Perhaps your experience with American women only extends to suburban
princesses and soccer moms?

Either way, I can assure you that your explicit hatred of American women
ensures that you will never meet one that you will like.

~~~
vaksel
See thats the thing, your anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove my assertion, it
reinforces it. 40 years ago the women knew that for a successful marriage you
needed a mutual effort. I'm talking about modern women, who know that divorce
is a viable option, and that it is not worth trying when you have a big pay
day in front of you.

I know a lot of unhappy men, not couples. In those relationships women seem to
be fine. Why not? They sit on their asses doing nothing, while the man works
his ass off trying to get the relationship humming again. Do I know some happy
couples? Sure,but most of those have the european wife who wasn't raised on
sex and the city.

Except the startup thing is your own doing and you know what you are getting
into. With divorce, it can come out of nowhere, when you least expect it. And
do you think taking a risk at 25 to do a startup is the same as losing
everything you worked for at 30, 40, 50? At least with a startup there is a
payoff at the end of the tunnel, with marriage you either gain nothing or lose
everything.

Well maybe its just my personal experience, but the European girls seem to
bring a lot more to relationships than the American girls. And its not a
submissive thing, its more of a willingness to work things out.

The thing you need to realize is that the way the woman behaves when she is
single or dating, is COMPLETELY different from the way she behaves when she is
married. She doesn't need to hide who she truly is, because with the divorce
option on the table she hit the jackpot. You think any of my friends would
have married their wives if they acted the same way they act now? Hell
no....hell one of them married his wife for the sole reason that she
supposedly enjoyed having sex and couldn't get enough. That lasted exactly
until they had their first kid, at which point she completely cut him off. The
other, married his wife because she was supposedly the nicest girl he ever
met, with that one she acted like bridezilla before the wedding, and seemed to
have forgotten to turn that off afterwords.

Its not a hatred, its realism. I'll date American women, no problem. Because
during the dating phase, they act just fine. The problem is, that for most of
them its just an act until they tie the matrimonial knot, at which point the
real them comes out, who you are stuck with.

~~~
inglorian
Are American women so adept at hiding their "true" selves for so long? Perhaps
your friends are poor judges of character, or simply didn't date them long
enough to properly assess how they would function as a married couple.

Where I come from, it is taken as common knowledge that you should live
together for a significant amount of time before getting married (2+ years is
usual). Also, big extravagant weddings are not the norm -- most of my
immediate and extended family got married by signing papers in a courthouse,
or in a small ceremony at the most.

>>She doesn't need to hide who she truly is, because with the divorce option
on the table she hit the jackpot.

I find this surprising also. From what I hear, divorce is terrible for
everyone. I can't imagine that so many women marry into a relationship they
don't expect to maintain (emotionally and sexually), especially with the way
love and marriage are so glorified in the US.

~~~
vaksel
its not really being adept, they just hide who they truly are. They may hate
sex, but they do it, because they know that if they don't put out the guy will
leave. They go to the gym, because they know if they become a fat slob the guy
will leave. They act nice, because they know that if they are a bitch the guy
will leave. When they get married on the other hand, they know that the guy
can't leave anymore, so they can act how they want...and if the guy leaves,
they'll get a huge payday.

I'm not sure about judges of character, but most of the guys dated their wives
for 3-5 years and lived together for at least 2 years.

Divorce being terrible, mostly goes to the idea that the 2 people will end up
hating each other. But its much more terrible for guys, who end up losing
everything they worked for.

Yes, most women don't marry with idea of a divorce in mind. But its too juicy
of a consolation prize, not to keep in mind when the relationship hits the
rocks. Yes the idea of marriage is glorified in the U.S. and its part of the
problem. It convinces people that all you need to do is get married, and the
relationship will prosper all by itself

~~~
inglorian
It is possible that the women in these scenarios are entirely at fault, but
unlikely. Relationship problems usually stem from both of the people involved.

>>They may hate sex, but they do it

I don't know ANY women who hate sex itself. Perhaps the man has gotten lazier
as well, in regards to sex?

>>They go to the gym...if they become a fat slob the guy will leave

Women's bodies are not the only ones that deteriorate. Are all of the men of
your acquaintance perfectly fit as well? Furthermore, many women's bodies
change in unexpected ways after childbirth...it is entirely normal to take up
to a year post-breast feeding to recover, and that is provided that the women
has time away from the child to exercise.

>>They act nice

As another woman on the thread mentioned, it is not only women who can be
petty in relationships. Her "bitchy" behavior is almost certainly at least
partially the husband's fault.

Perhaps the husband began working more hours, which combined with childcare,
left the couple no time to be together?

It cannot be denied that marriage is hard. But it is far from impossible, and
far from unsatisfactory when done properly. However, it takes work on both
sides to maintain and adapt. I am not denying that the woman causes problems
of her own, but relationships are rarely broken just by the fault of one
person. You are probably getting a biased account because you are hearing it
from the husband's perspective. Their wives may have things to say that would
surprise you.

~~~
vaksel
Yes its a two way street, but from what I'm seeing, the guys are the ones who
are trying and the women are the ones who gave up.

No idea, but I do know that one guy hasn't gotten laid in 5 years, and the
other only gets sex on big occasions like his birthday. The rest just bitch
that they don't get as much as they used to.

The main ones: One I know is in the shame shape that he was in when they got
married. The other one has actually gotten better since he hides from the wife
at the gym. The other ones aren't as close friends so I don't really know what
they looked like when they got married but most of them are in decent shape.
Recovery thing also doesn't apply, since those are the older friends so they
had their kids 3-4 years ago.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'd side with the guys in this situation
since I know for a fact that they've been the ones trying in the relationship.

Nope still same 40 hour work weeks.

I disagree, if one person tries to fix things, while the other does nothing,
its the one who does nothing that is at fault for relationship deteriorating.

And yeah I may be biased towards my friends, but I met the wives too and
honestly I haven't seen an ounce of contradicting evidence in how they act
towards their husbands.

------
miked
It's been a while since I read his explanation, but an economist -- I believe
it was Tim Harford in _The Undercover Economist_, but it may have been Tyler
Cowan -- has already solved this, and with a very different answer.

Several factors are operating. First, due to a higher death rate among males,
the number of women begins to exceed the number of men (of a given age)
starting at age 23. Next, there are about 10 times as many men in prison as
women. Also, there seem to be rather more gay men than lesbian women. There
are far more women in large US cities, where articles like this are written,
than men (who are disproportionately rural). then, women like to "marry up",
whereas men are willing to marry down.

Now comes the key point. Even a rather small discrepancy between supply and
demand in an auction market can quickly drive prices thru the roof, or the
floor. Great example: recent oil prices. Back when the economy was going well
prices could shoot up rapidly as oil fields became exhausted and development
of new ones was blocked. When the economy talked and demand dropped just a few
percent, prices collapsed from $147 to $39, or some such. I read his account
too quickly to fully follow it, and I'm sorry I can't remember it, but small-
supply-imbalances-can-produce-huge-price-swings was the gist of it. Sorry, I
don't have the book available to check it.

>> This is how you come to the Eligible-Bachelor Paradox, which is no longer
so paradoxical. The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and
taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are
notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed).

~~~
ardit33
I think the author has never been Silicon Valley. It is a huge sausage fest in
here, everywhere. San Jose is called Man Jose for a good reason. Smart and
educated girls, that are also cute are rarely single.

I have so many great male friends that are single, and yet I don't know a good
looking/smart girl that is single.

This is my major disappointment with the SF Bay Area.

~~~
miked
How things change. Not so many years ago SF was a nightmare for single women,
thanks to the city's disproportionate number of gay men. I'm guessing things
have evened up a lot.

~~~
maxawaytoolong
Not so many years ago must mean 20 years ago. It's still a sausage fest and
has been since 1997.

It's probably still a nightmare for single women. I can't imagine that a dive
bar with a mid-range computer programmer is on the list of a woman's dream
dates.

On the other hand, SF is better than the rest of Silicon Valley.

------
critic
There'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.

~~~
geebee
I agree. The thing to keep in mind is that this works against men as well as
women, it just hits them at different points in their lives.

If women between the ages of 21 and 25 are interested in (and pursued by) men
between the ages of 21 and 35+, while men between 21 and 25 are limited to
women who are roughly the same age, then men will face a very difficult dating
"market" in their early 20s, and women will experience a favorable one. As men
and women age, the inevitable symmetry switches the situation - women between
35 and 40 are now competing for men who are pursuing women between the ages
of, say, 25 and 40.

This is something to keep in mind when you hear that the dating world is
unfair to women over 35. It's "unfair" to men too, just earlier in life.

~~~
old-gregg
You're right, life gets tougher for women after 30 but I am not following you
in where does this benefit men?

According to your analysis a larger pool of men 21-40 are _always_ competing
for a smaller pool of attractive women 21-30, so if you're a single male, the
ratio is always against you no matter how old you are.

And that's what I'm observing in real life. Perhaps I'm too young, but every
public gathering I go to features a disproportional number of guys. And if you
subtract overweight people from the picture, the ratio gets downright scary.

~~~
geebee
Some guys are like that. But in my example (or I guess you could call it my
model), I had guys interested in women at or below their age, and women
interested in men at or above their age. In reality, it differs for each
person, but average age preference is probably a right or left skewed bell
curve for women and men.

And of course, women probably aren't attracted to older men simply because
they are older, they're probably attracted to the life and professional
accomplishment, maturity, financial resources, and so forth - sorry bruddas,
but merely aging is not going to help things here.

On the flip side, the numbers really do start to look grim for single women as
they approach 40. A lot of women enjoy the dating scene when they are in their
early 20s, get married around 30, and stay happily married their whole lives -
and never really feel any of the frustration of being on the wrong side of the
dating equation. However, this means that most of the disadvantage gets
concentrated onto a fairly small number of women, who basically get the full
brunt of it.

------
wallflower
> 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).

<http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry>

~~~
cturner
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.

~~~
Spyckie
hmm is it romantic or pragmatic if you think of your spouse as a good
friend/cofounder you can split work with and help each other out?

I'm beginning to see no point in love - only solid, mutually beneficial
friendships.

~~~
tdavis
I think Alexander Smith put the "point of love" quite well: "Love is but the
discovery of ourselves in others, and the delight in the recognition."

You can love a friend in that sense to a point, and that may be enough for
many people. Obviously romantic love is an entirely different story:
irrational and perhaps less efficient than a work partner, but the sort of
thing that contrasts and enhances the purely logical.

------
lacker
A better explanation is that older men date younger women more often than
older women date younger men. So there are extra old women and young men. No
need for combinatorial game theory, just supply and demand.

------
spot
the Gale-Shapley algorithm requires an authority (like the medical school
establishment) to make it work. in real life, if you want to get married, you
face a much more amorphous situation: a series of prospects, and with each a
decision, "are they good enough"? i can't find it anymore, but iirc the answer
was, to estimate the length of the game (say 20 years on the marriage market)
and then just date for the first 1/e fraction of this time. and then say "yes"
to the next person as good or better than the best you could have had during
your trial/dating period. can anyone name the theorem or is this apocryphal?

~~~
wallflower
37% rule

> Estimate how many people you’re likely to date in your life, dump the first
> 37% but keep a photo of your favourite on your bedside table. Then, marry
> the first one after that who beats your sweetheart! Of course, every rule
> has exceptions and sometimes you get an offer that’s too good to refuse, 37%
> or not. Sometimes, mathematics doesn’t have all the answers!

> Using this process, we find that we can be successful in selecting the best
> from a group of N by letting approximately 37% of the available positions go
> by, then selecting the first choice better than any seen before about 37% of
> the time. And this is true no matter how large N is! This is a strikingly
> high probability.

<http://www.illuminatingscience.org/moving-house-part-i/>

<http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/Talks/PDFS/spouse.pdf>

------
acgourley
I'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.

~~~
three14
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.

~~~
acgourley
I don't know if you can assume early bidders are more devoted.

~~~
three14
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.

------
tyn
Why is it not the case that attractive men postpone their decision too, just
as attractive women do?

~~~
jcl
In isolated cases perhaps attractive men also postpone their decision, but I
believe that the idealization given in the article is pretty close to reality:
women decide and men settle for what they can get.

I recall reading about some research showing that overweight women actually
have sex more often than their peers, which seems to support this theory.
([http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/10/31/Overweight_women_h...](http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/10/31/Overweight_women_have_more_sex/UPI-68841225431194/))

