Intuition

A little over a week ago, I emailed Tim Harford regarding if a study had ever been done that asked the following question of the participants:

"How many times have you asked someone out (on a date) and have been surprised at their response (also indicate whether they responded yes or no)?"

I was asking Tim about how intuitive we (humans) are at interpreting signals and variables from other people in terms of realtionships.  In business, I have witnessed questions being asked of other parties even though the questioner knows what the answer will be.  Most of the time, the questioner asks in order to fulfill some sort of requirement of asking from their superior.

Tim replied to my inquiry:

Alas, I've never seen such a question. Fascinating subject, though. Sorry not to be able to help.

One can only wonder what it takes to apply for grant monies to make these studies happen.  Nevertheless, you have it from me that I will do what I can to find more on the topic.

Asked for Advice on Dating/Signalling

A question comes to me:

Mike,

If you have asked a girl out, and she doesn't respond to it, but still talks to you, what is the proper signal to take away?

Amazing this question came to me because I have experienced such singals recently, and before, but I have some more perspective now. Let us look back on how I discussed signaling over a year ago. I wrote:

Simply put: I’m signaling _______ because _______ is what I want

....

Not only that, but we need to remember that actions speak louder than words. Just like how an economist would say, “They voted with their pocketbooks.”

Sad to say to my questioner, but this means that chances are, you are not whom she is looking for. And that of course assumes that she is looking in the first place.

However, let us try to gain sime more perspective.  As Bella DePaulo has been writing of late on the Psychology Today Blog, the young woman you are asking out may actually be in touch with her own single-ness. Psychologically speaking, DePaulo surmises that our society gets caught up and trained into the thinking that we need to be married, or that our own selves are defined by a relationship, or by who we are with someone else.

So, one would hope that the person you seek to form a relationship with has a well defined sense of self.

Unfortunately, as an economist, this does not change the fact that you need to spend time with this woman in order to form the bond that two independent people could form if they find their common interests, personalities, and goals. While the psychological underpinnings might be up in the air in terms of the possibilities of a great relationship, the economics so far says that the person you wrote of does not have the time, or is not willing to concede the time to do so with you.

But, take heart; maybe this will allow you the time to reexamine your own personal utility function. What are the items that matter most in your life? How would you prioritize those items, and do you see any of them as something that could ever be sacrificed? Or, how about your own personal thoughts on what a relationship is. Do you even think that it’s necessary to have to sacrifice something?

As DePaula points out, when we are comfortable with ourselves and accepting of who we are without being identified in a relationship, we can actually make better decisions about ourselves and relationships. Otherwise, if you are not honest with yourself, or her, any contract and form of signaling you do would only lead you to not filling your part, or never being satisfied with what you were expecting.

Long story short, a few notes:

- Life is not going to stop, and I would hate to think you would stop yours while someone else continues with theirs.  So, don't give up on your own goals and ambitions, and don't be afraid to be inspried and get new ones.
- Try to keep a good sense of yourself, and who you are as you go through these signaling and contracting phases.

Engagement Ring Trading

A few days ago, a good friend of mine emailed me with a query on two things: (1) what to do with an old engagement ring, and (2) if he had an idea of a new market.

This is what he wrote me:

...apparently you typically get 10-25% the original price when you resell an engagement ring. So reselling it is like the worst thing you can do. And then you take your crumby resale value and put it towards a new ring.

So I got this idea. What if there was a site where guys like me who still have an old engagement ring can swap them with each other? So neither guy's girlfriend winds up getting a ring from his ex and he doesn't get screwed on resale value. It winds up just like getting a used, discounted ring which people do all the time and women never care about.

It's not about what I paid for the ring and making it back or what I would pay for a new ring because an engagement ring by nature has more perceived value than actual value. I'm more interested in the ability to simultaneously cut ties with a bad memory, create a new, positive meaning for someone else, and giving them the opportunity to do the same for you. There's something terribly empty about reselling the ring to a jeweler and buying a new one. It starts your new experience off with a bit of bitterness, a reminder of what you lost, instead of a feeling of helping someone in the same boat as you.

I understood his query, or, at least I thought I did. The intrinsic value my friend spoke of clouded my judgment.

I decided to get some professional help, so I wrote Tim Harford, and this is what Tim replied to me when I proposed the question to him:

I am not sure this solves the problem. Why not sell the ring on eBay? And if resold engagement rings sell for a cheap price, well, why not buy the replacement on eBay too? Not sure what the additional value of the exchange is.

If the exchange is valuable, it's a variant on the kidney exchange market set up by Al Roth and others; sometimes you can swap but not buy. But I am not convinced that the parallel is very strong.

I gave my friend Tim’s opinion, to which he agreed was the most sensible answer. He and I both admitted though, that the perceived intrinsic value of the ring clouded our judgments in terms of the proper course of action. The idea was that we could somehow reinforce another’s intrinsic values with their rings in the exchange.

However, when reading Tim’s response, the intrinsic value is essentially already there. You can only imagine that someone has had to go through something emotionally similar if they have to resell such a ring on eBay, as well. So, in the sense that the intrinsic value of the ring is there, the market that my friend spoke of (ex-engagement rings) is there too.

True Wisdom Isn't Conventional

“Economists often like startling theorems, results which seem to run counter to conventional wisdom.” - Joseph Stiglitz

Consider all the diet books ever written, all the dating books ever written, or anything published within the self help section of the bookstore. Now look at the recent research from economists who have started to “break away.” Books like Freakonomics, Logic of Life, and Myth of the Rational Voter all take an intuitive approach to some of the latest economic and social policy questions.

What is unfortunate about this is that a dichotomy has been provided where the authors of the aforementioned books are judged as providing something different while they gather an ever larger following.

Even research papers that discuss dating dynamics, which are used in these books, when conversed in the public, or with friends, immediately receive the scoffing that we deem necessary upon “the world is flat” Christopher Columbus meme.

What ends up hitting me right in the face like Columbus hitting North America is that this is just another reminder that conventional wisdom holds its sway, and it will not let its grip on the general public go. At least, a significant portion of us know when we've traveled to a different hemisphere, rather than the Indian coast.

The hope is for a realization that what we are hitting upon now is not just startling theorems, but a return to reason. In light of a paradigm shift, we normally cling to our conventional wisdom much as a religious fundamentalist clings to scripture. All new information, which shows counter, is wrong, misguided, or deliberate misinformation as part of a new conspiracy.

What we, as the public, do get instead, is massive amounts of rhetoric. Grandiose wording, “-isms,” and quick hit self affirmation guidelines that do little to look at our real problems, but instead make us feel good about a short term decision. You want proof right now? Just look at our election coverage. Obama, who has actually run, by most pundit standards, a different campaign, and whom I respect as a candidate, has espoused claims that are grandiose and near to impossible, such as, "I believe in our ability to perfect this nation," when all evidence shows that if there is anything to be cynical about, it is the idea of there being some sort of end goal in sight for democracy. A nirvana of democracy, if you will. In reality, there is no end goal, but rather a constant struggle.

But we fall for this rhetoric more often than you would think. And we as a people apparently need to hold on to this type of quick-hit, simple thinking. Almost two years ago now, I tried to invoke something different into the debate. The new paradigm centered around two ideas. First, that one need not be a super model to have stringent standards, especially when considering that a long term relationship is the end game. Second, was the idea that for two people to like each other, it takes a myriad of variables to come together in a proper manner.

What Passey had done for all of us at the time was show that it's important for us to be honest with ourselves when it comes to relationships. Otherwise, we end up committing the same mistakes over and over again, living some sort of horrible relationship soap opera where the same story line gets repeated constantly, but with simply a new partner.

And that brings us full circle. Notice that it's the intuitive, simple approaches, and honest answers that have now come to create the most trouble against conventional wisdom.

MBAs on Policy; Economists on Dating

If I had a nickel for every time a psychologist has written a column falsely pigeonholing economists with other MBA and business graduates, I would be rich. Let alone, the money I would make from having a nickel every time these two disciplines got something wrong about each other.

In this post from Psychology Today, this is what was written regarding economists:

Only economists would be so blind.

I think that's a bit of an overshoot. From the abundant literature that we are seeing from economists today (e.g. Freakonomics, Undercover Economist, The Logic of Life) an economist would not make the error Kanazawa explains. A mid level manager, or another business discipline would make the error described below.

So, what was the error? Well, let us proceed to the part where I, and most other economists, excel beyond your typical business graduate. By the way, before you start writing your hate mail to me, let me first state that an economist would not do a litany of other things as well as other business graduates. I'm sure those graduates have plenty of examples, so go ahead and fill the comment box if you so please.

The error came in a policy implemented for customer service sake at a supermarket. Essentially, the cashiers were supposed to start making eye contact with the customers while thanking them for shopping at that particular supermarket. However:

However, the policy backfired when the employee was female and the customer was male. When the female employee gazed deeply into his eyes, smiled, and thanked him by his name, the male customer “naturally” assumed that she was attracted to him, and started harassing her by following her around on and off work. In other words, many of the male customers turned into Beavis and Butt-head. Eventually, five female employees had to file a Federal sex discrimination charge against Safeway to force it to stop this policy, which the supermarket chain did when it reached an out-of-court settlement.

So, where am I being proven right? My so called "pessimism" on the ease of dating and asking complete strangers out for a date. What a crock. As much as I hate to admit it, New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman goes through the same thing with his op-eds. Krugman had been warning of asset overpricing in housing (real estate) for a while, but people merely scoffed at him as "pessimistic" when he was just stating observations on facts. Just as mortgage companies would scoff at people who wanted a fixed rate mortgage and reply, "Get an adjustable rate mortgage. It looks scary now, but you could always just refinance this loan later. The value of your home will only go up."

Just as people and friends scoffed at me when I would speak to them on the game theory possibilities of dating. Unfortunately, no one would listen when I would explain to them how having a relationship was like making a personal contract with someone. Nor would they listen when I explained that the market for finding people out there is not as easy as it sounds. People everywhere are looking for things specifically, whether it be no relationship at all, or a relationship with the most stringent qualifications ever made. It's these intricacies that make online dating sites, such as eHarmony, so popular. Essentially, the website is supposed to sort through all those variables for you.

When I posted about those stringent qualifications before, I was lambasted for being so self-deprecating. While the humor was self-deprecating, that is/was not the issue. The issue is that everyone, in their own personal quests for optimism, simply for the sake of optimism, fails to see the intricacies that make life the adventure that it is. It is those intricacies that make economists able to write entire books on items that we identify and write off as everyday life. And it is those intricacies that make people so selective about whom they will choose to spend the rest of their lives with, let alone one night for a date.

So, there are economic parallels with dating. And it is true, as Kanazawa explained above, that men can easily get the wrong signals from women, which would mean that obviously economists have a better knack for thinking about how life works. Maybe that's because economists aren't afraid to delve into other specifics of academia, such as psychology, neurology, and biology.

I mean seriously, what other profession would have the guts to tell you that an engagement ring is simply a non-refundable deposit to be worn on the ring finger? I mean, that is what it is, right? Either that, or we all have some explaining to do about how and where true love is represented.

Algorithms for Dating

Tim Harford helps explain.

Games and Perception

Dating has many variables in which each person plays in different ways whether we think about those decisions consciously, or sub-consciously. One specific type, I have linked to before thanks to Ben Casnocha.

What Casnocha did not know at the time was that his observation and reading of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, by Neil Strauss would gain more notoriety even to the point where Stephen Dubner at the Freakonomics blog would make mention of it as well.

Dubner wrote entirely on the concept of “negging,” which Casnocha mentioned, but did not go too far in depth because he was writing an entire book review. Negging essentially is Neil Strauss’ term for providing what is not exactly an insult or a compliment per se, but rather an accidental insult, or a back-handed compliment. I dare anyone who is not a practiced pick up artist to try that.

According to Strauss and others, negging works. In fact, in the post Dubner wrote, he also cited research that showed many males will flat-out insult their partners in what is described as some sort of “mate-retention.” That is to say, the men make derogatory comments or insults so that their female counterparts will not (or never) have the confidence to leave them.

We can assume that any sane woman (please, don’t start writing me that there is no such thing; that joke has been done ad nauseum) would proclaim that “negging” is not something she would enjoy having done to her. On the other hand, the problem with that assumption possibility is that women like playing the game as much as men do, and would therefore want to be disarmed and “negged” to a certain extent.

As much as you can try, the game is never ending.

Also, how we look, and how we see ourselves concerns almost everyone. This post from Megan McArdle describes that we are not as hot as we think we are.

A cognitive scientist at the University of Chicago explained why to me last winter. When we look at ourselves in the mirror, in any given session we tend to anchor on the time slice image that makes us look our best. That, we decide, is the "real" us.

…

You're also biased by the fact that no one ever tells you you're ugly. It's not merely that people inflate what they tell you (they almost certainly do); it's also that people who think you're ugly tend to drop out of the sample. They may not cultivate an acquaintance with you, and those that do will probably not spontaneously let you know that they find you kind of repulsive.

You're stuck in a web of cognitive biases and a positive feedback loop. It's a wonder anyone does get married.

This phenomenon, believe it or not was discussed by musician, Mike Doughty, while looking at some self-portraits. He wrote that while he eyed over the photographs he wondered what had happened to the man whom he saw in the mirror.

Within our relationships, the differing perceptions and games played that come from you or other people continue to play pivotal roles no matter what their intended lasting value.

An Economists Night Out

A very good friend of mine is getting married in July, and many of his friends (including me) got together to go out in celebration. However, this was not planned to be the proverbial bachelor party. That is to say that there would not be a stripper. To put it simply, it would be a night out with friends.

Throughout the night everyone (not me personally, everyone else) made our good friend wear a shirt denoting him to be “THE BACHeLOR.” (Sic) On the back of said shirt was a “Grope-Me-Ometer” (sic) so that anyone who groped him would be able to sign their name on the back of the shirt.

So, there’s your setup. While I would never do this to my friend, or anyone else for that matter, I decided that in order to spend time with my friend, a tradeoff of my friend embarrassing himself was allowable.

While we made a first stop at a bar that was not too busy, the group thought it better to move to another establishment. Better yet, a bar knowingly to everyone as having only homosexual patronage.

Unfortunately, they failed to realize that their plan didn't have a "let's allow Mike K to wait somewhere else while this goes on" contingency. Now you may say, gee Mike, "why so scared of being in a gay bar?" Well, I'll tell you why...

This blog post from Emil Steiner, which I read just two days prior to our adventure, gets to the heart of the matter.

From Steiner’s post:

In her opinion, deputy tribunal president Cate McKenzie found that "allow[ing] large numbers of straight men and women and lesbians into the bar could 'undermine or destroy' the convivial atmosphere that the Peel Hotel sought to create for gay men."

Now, I agree with what Steiner writes on later in his post, in that the ruling might be interpreted as saying that different lifestyles can’t co-exist with each other, and that is a bad message. But back to my point…

What the article told me was that our group’s presence at this bar might not exactly be appreciated. Soon after our arrival, irony decided to show its way through the door with a bachelorette party, and as serendipity would have it, they were our age. (If you read the post from Steiner, you’ll see that in theory the bachelorette party might not help our situation). But, you might still be thinking to yourself though that I’m just making this problem up. Well, let me try to refute that very reasonable argument.

I can’t tell you how many times we were suggested that another bar was a much more happening scene that particular night. But being that I don’t drink alcohol, I was able to see under the “signaling” that the bar patrons were trying to coax us out of their establishment and get out of their hair.

I guess I can now say that I have, in fact, lived out one of the story lines to an Electric Six song.

We soon left for another bar. As luck would have it the bachelorette party arrived there as well only minutes after. Having another group of ladies there that our group had befriended is vital to the real economics for the night.

Sitting next to my friend, let’s call him George; he had started conversing with one of the members of the bachelorette party; the sister of the bride / maid of honor to be exact, and a very pretty lady if I do say so myself. Another one of our friends lets call him Richard, showed up, and the conversation immediately had gone over from George to Richard. I was pretty amazed at how quickly this was done, but it wasn’t new to me. I had known Richard actually from a few years ago when I was in college, and I had observed his personality and charisma first hand. Richard has always been a magnet for women since I’ve known him. What surprised me was that he was able to take the conversation away from George, whom I think is a stand up guy, so quickly.

Well, needless to say George was surprised…to say the least of his reactions. What was the crux of the economic issue though? Well, first in terms of an overall market perspective, Richard operates like a monopoly. Actually, that may be too much of a stretch. Let’s say that Richard operates more like Microsoft, and someone like George is like Apple/Linux. That is to say, Richard already has a girlfriend, and yet he can still attract more clients / women. Why? Well, we can deal with that in another post.

Backing off from the market perspective, how was I able to have such a different reaction then George? The answer comes to us from looking at things as an economist again. Now, a communications major might say, “George felt that he had lost face.” As an economist, I won’t disagree with that, but I’ve been able to cope with Richard and the reaction that women have to Richard by simply realizing that this is the market operating.

If a woman were to be talking to me, and then start talking to Richard after only ten seconds of his arrival, I could get mad as I used to when I was a naïve freshman in college. However, what I’ve found out is that Richard has most likely one of two things: a great personality like mine, or an even better one. That is to say, Richard produces either as good a product that I produce, or better. It is, in fact, that simple. Now, when I say “better,” I mean “better for girl x.” It’s really just a better product for her, so she’s making that choice as a consumer.

There’s another way to look at this as well. Essentially, if and when you’re talking to someone whom you’d like to “court” (I have no other way of nicely saying, “Someone you have the jones’ for”) you’re starting the beginning of contract negotiations and looking for signals. Now, at what point in the relationship someone says “Let’s not entertain anymore contracts” (i.e. let’s be exclusive to each other) is up to the couple. So, technically, if Richard’s lady friend (remember I said he was seeing someone) sees his actions as a breach of contract, then maybe they’ll have to restart negotiations.

Tim Harford did a great job explaining this:

In 1920s America, courts would enforce ”breach of promise” suits for ladies who had been promised marriage, slept with the cad and then been dumped... Courts no longer do this, which is why it became traditional to supplement such proposals with non-refundable deposits, to be worn on the ring finger.

So, while George can be mad that Richard stole the conversation of our new lady friend, I had to marvel and take comfort in how the market works. The lesson is, in the beginning of contract negotiations we can’t help if the other party entertains other offers, or ends up taking them. And with Richard in particular, while he may have a relationship of his own, he hasn’t given his lady a “non-refundable deposit to be worn on the ring finger,” as Tim Harford put it, and technically he might be allowed to entertain other offers if his current contract allows him to (i.e. his girlfriend says it’s okay to talk to other women in bars).

Also, maybe for another blog post, we can talk about the different interpretations and possibilities of what “entertaining other offers,” means. Also, we might be able to discuss at what part of the contract “due diligence” is required and completed. There’s a lot of grey area in there, and in the end, the two contracted parties involved in a relationship are the ones who set and enforce the rules for each other.

I should start bringing textbooks to bachelor parties.

Not Getting the Signal

In terms of relationships, when we start out we usually deal with asymmetric information. That is to say, I truly don’t know what the other person is thinking. It’s kind of like contract negotiations.

So, the best anyone can do is to look at the signaling to try and receive the best information. So, as far as I understand it from my economics classes in college, I have to ask:

• How much effort (or cost) did it take for me to receive this signal?

• What would make this signal not important? That is to say, at what point do I or the other person each get a better offer that we would then take?

• Do I trust this signal?

I believe those are the questions for signaling.

So, when a friend of mine tried to tell me that one of his wife’s friends was someone whom I should go out with, I had to think about this like an economist.

What were the signals? Well, none. All of those questions above revolve around some kind of intent. Simply put: I’m signaling _______ because _______ is what I want. I had met her a few times before in a friendly setting, and from all the signals I was seeing, I had nothing that this girl wants.

Not only that, but we need to remember that actions speak louder than words. Just like how an economist would say, “They voted with their pocketbooks.” The market will tell you what people want. And from my friend’s short telling of this young lady’s history, I could tell I was not the catch she envisioned. It happens; people want different things.

Even my good friend Will - well versed now in psychology - told me:

It all comes down to what one finds attractive. If, in this point in her life, she finds someone attractive that you’re not or don’t plan to be it’s not going to work out.

It seems as though my friend has a different idea of what his wife’s friend needs despite from what she wants. It doesn’t take a graduate degree in psychology or economics to figure out I is not the product she’s in the market for. But it’s important that we give these small economics lessons to ourselves and our friends.

Females Sharks Don't Need Males

Well, for those that scoff at my fear of never finding a wife as irrational…they are probably right. But it still doesn’t take anything away from this piece of science news.

The takeaway:

Research on the perished pup found that it had no paternal DNA. Additionally, it possessed half of its mother’s genetic diversity. Combined, the data indicates the mother gave birth through a non-sexual mode of reproduction known as automatic parthenogenesis.

It may be, in fact, only a matter of time before I become outdated. Thanks for nothing, Darwin.

Working Wives Enjoy Lasting Marriages

Working wives enjoy lasting marriages. Well, at least it’s correlated for sure. Whether they are happier or not is a different story all together.

The takeaway:

The main shift was away from breadwinner-homemaker marriages to what the authors call "egalitarian marriages." In them, husbands and wives share decision-making power more equally and housekeeping and child-care duties more equitably.

…

Indeed, some studies have found that marriages in which the wives work aren't necessarily happier even if they are more stable.

That last part I made sure to include because there is also some research out there that shows while families are happy that they may have a child, the next child they have doesn’t necessarily make them happier.

Pick Up Artists

Well, because I’ve talked about dating before, this post from Ben Casnocha is very intriguing. I dare you to not read the post. And while mentioning Ben, his blog is always worth reading.

On Social Networking Sites

In this article from The Washington Post, we find that social networking sites have a problem in dealing with libel.

About one-third of the searches yielded content used to deny a job, the survey said. The legal hiring market is very competitive. What could tip the balance is the appearance that a candidate is a lightning rod for controversy, said Mark Rasch, a Washington lawyer and consultant who specializes in Internet issues.

If I understand that above quote properly, I feel the need to ask why people still love Ann Coulter. Wouldn’t her countless bouts of controversy all but eliminate her standing as a legal expert? I guess this is why she is a professional pundit. But, I still digress; I would not find it unimaginable if at some time in the future, a Republican candidate or congressperson would seek her legal counsel on something.

So, this is my conclusion: controversy is bad for a new hire. But, if you’re a pundit and controversy makes money for your or your publisher, then well, say whatever you want. However, another caveat… The person who was damaged in the Washington Post story had things written about her; it’s not like the firms who didn’t hire her weren’t happy with something that she wrote. Yet another example of why I continue to be wary of social networking sites in how they’re used, who uses them, and how they’re treated as truth machines (For example, Wikipedia).

More Dating Market Specialization

From Stephen Dubner at the Freakonomics blog; even farmers have their own dating market.

Response to eHarmony Comment

My last post left me with this comment from the eHarmony blog that linked me to this post on the eHarmony blog.

First, let me just address how the comment was written:

1 in 500? Check your figures again. :)

Firstly, it’s not my figure. In addition, the tone of that comment makes me believe that they’ve set up a Google search for anyone who links to the Scientific American article and then automatically post that comment. I’m simply speculating on how and why eHarmony would post a comment on my blog because my blog is simply not trafficked.

Fine, I’ll let the eHarmony blog take away the statistic, but before I do, let me just say a few more things. Another reason why I think they have a Google alert or a bot set up in searching for the comment is because it doesn’t even seem that they read my entire post because the statistic, while I thought important, was not really the point in my writing the post. My post was about how online dating is not the complete savior it’s cracked up to be. It still has its own drawbacks, which the eHarmony comment obviously did not address.

Also, while were on statistical analysis, don’t get me started on how different entities can use statistics differently to come up with findings for different points of view. Let us all just take a look at climate science. Robert Samuelsson touches on it here, Arnold Kling here, and Robert C. Balling Jr. here. So, let those links show that trying to argue on statistics won’t get us very far anyway in terms of climate, and I would venture the same goes for dating thanks to the Scientific American article.

Once again, it’s clear that the gist of my post was also simply inarguable because it was pretty much a wholly personal opinion on the Scientific American article, except for the statistic that eHarmony blog contests. They don’t contest any of the other research that I’ve posted on my blog here, here, and here.

Moreover, is there a retraction from Scientific American?

Why doesn’t the eHarmony blog address some of the drawbacks that Robert Epstein mentions? To generalize it: the lying, of which my favorite example that Epstein cites is where one woman uses pictures of women who are obviously not her.

You’ve got my attention eHarmony blog, and because you say the statistic is invalid, leave me another comment and show me the retraction from Scientific American.

More on Online Dating

My good friend, Matt Huggins, emailed me this article by Robert Epstein from Scientific American.com that discusses online dating.

Epstein touches on some ideas that I’ve mentioned before. Once again proving that money matters in dating showing that income can make up for a lack of other attractive characteristics.

What Epstein writes really articulates though are the pros and cons of online dating, and while he tries to surmise that online dating could have a wonderful future ahead of it, I personally cannot get over the glaring drawbacks that are attached to the venture of online dating.

According to Epstein, the good news is that online dating is continuing to grow and in some ways getting better. Unfortunately, participants still have to deal with the lying of age, weight, and sometimes, flat-out lying about your own picture. Those are tough things to stomach for me, let alone the staggering odds that I might find a mate online.

In 2005, using eHarmony's own published statistics, a team of credible authorities--among them Philip Zimbardo, a former president of the American Psychological Association--concluded in an online white paper: "When eHarmony recommends someone as a compatible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you'll marry this person.... Given that eHarmony delivers about 1.5 matches a month, if you went on a date with all of them, it would take 346 dates and 19 years to reach [a] 50% chance of getting married." The team also made the sweeping observation that "there is no evidence that ... scientific psychology is able to pair individuals who will enjoy happy, lasting marriages."

Also, Epstein goes on to mention that we still face a “false negative problem” where the matching from a dating service takes away people you might never meet, but “who would adore each other.”

I think for myself to make a current judgment on the reading material for online dating, I would have to say that it’s simply just another market, a dating market. And just like the real life dating market, online dating deals with its own pitfalls. Deception, people (or computers) setting you up with whom they think is a good match, and the sheer effort and will it takes to put yourself out there and figure it out are all items that can make it difficult. In the end, the common sense logic is right, online dating is still dating; we’ve just changed the initial communication medium.

****Update: I respond to the comment left by the eHarmony blog.

Dating Tactics

According to this latest tidbit of news, the opposite sex will find you more attractive if the people around you are smiling. If only I were a comedian.

Single Fans of Formula One

First, let me state that as much as I like to cite other writes and/or bloggers who have actual credibility -- as opposed to my crazy man with a keyboard credentials -- there are times (like now) where I like to write solely based on my crazy (truthfully put, incoherent) opinions. As this article from Grand Prix.com talks about, when you put the shoe on the other foot (or however that saying goes) things don’t necessarily work out better.

In order try and garner a different demographic, the promoters of this past year’s Australian Grand Prix tried to provide incentive to their female population. Unfortunately, it seems as though their incentive scheme worked about as well as it would trying to provide the average American male a more enticing reason to go to the ballet. (Other than full-on nudity, I’m not sure if you could find any other way to make guys to go to the ballet. And by the way, the men would still have to be clothed.)

Similar interests – not just interests, but hobbies – I think probably make a huge contribution to a good relationship. Now, I’m not saying this because I have sure-fire proof or personal knowledge, but rather, everyone I know has told me this.

So, I wonder if the problem lies within there being a shortage of female Formula 1 fans and a shortage of male ballet fans. I would very much love to say yes, but I’m half-way on this. I think deep down, media and culture driven gender roles inhibit what could possibly be someone’s natural tendencies to like certain sports and activities.

As much as I want to believe that there are more Danica Patrick’s and Katherine Legge’s out there, I don’t think anyone is holding their breath. Although, in terms of media and culture driven gender roles, maybe Formula 1 itself is part of the problem. No one will deny that it’s a boy’s club (even Bernie Ecclestone has issues with women in the sport). As long as there’s no impediment, if women are good enough, there’s no reason why any female shouldn’t be picked up by an F1 team. If Bernie changes his tune, then obviously the sexist tone won’t make women as fearful to take a drive in F1.

But, there are a few other things working against F1. First, pride. Pride is such a factor in Formula One that the organization would probably do a lot to shy away from women drivers because F1 would hate to be seen as doing something for purely promotional concerns (although many conspiracy theorists would argue to the counter saying that the FIA has secretly helped Ferrari in the past for media reasons). Also, almost every other form of motor sport is male-dominated, and the pool of women to choose from is quite small.

Nevertheless, I still want to thank the promoters at the Australian Grand Prix who put in the effort to create a sort of social singles scene, even if it did fail and it was only done to promote ticket sales. But who knows, maybe if one-day females have their own incentives to watch Formula One racing when women start competing in it.

Another Way to Think About Dating

Tyler Cowen has another way to think about dating. From the previous comments I’ve seen here, I would venture to guess that for a few people out there, the question would be whether people want any intimacy right now and would then date many people hoping to find the right one (English Auction).

Also, as I previously saw from the commenters who called me “whiny,” to them I would then fall into the “Dutch Auction” category. According to their observations, I set the “bar” high, and then work my way down taking the first bidder that bites. While I practically have no intimacy ever, I do like not having to go through breakups.

I really have to thank Tyler for giving me (and hopefully some of you) a different way of looking at dating. I’m also sorry I didn’t come to think of it on my own.

Dating Game Theory

It’s unfortunate that I didn’t think of this sooner in such context, but Tim Harford lays out the idea of game theory in dating very well:

The economist using game theory cannot pretend to hand out advice on snappy dressing or how to satisfy your lover in the bedroom, but he can fill some important gaps in many people's love lives: how to signal confidence on a date, or how to persuade someone that you are serious about them, and just as importantly, how to work out whether someone is serious about you.