3 ms·

I'd guess it depends on how narrow or wide you define the "desirable" group. Research from dating sites often conclude that women select for the top 20% of men

by fleddr 5y ago

I'd guess it depends on how narrow or wide you define the "desirable" group. Research from dating sites often conclude that women select for the top 20% of men whilst largely ignoring everybody else. I imagine such a "top" man to be handsome, sociable, strong, economically successful or at least stable, funny, and whatever other quality women select for. The chance for such men to go unnoticed and unclaimed until they are 30-40 y/o has to be close to zero. Almost all female attention is channeled to them, and they're unlikely to be passive themselves. The market should be efficient here. Do you know of any hot successful men that are single due to not being discovered? If you widen the selection criteria to the best 50% of men, you're likely right that some of them in their 30s go "undiscovered". Yet it's questionable whether this is so in large numbers as time still matters: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profi... In the age group of 30-49, 27% of men are single. Half of them want to be single and are not on the market, so that leaves 13.5% of remaining "supply". So a single woman in this same age group looking for a man finds 86.5% of men unavailable or not interested. Did the market perfectly select the "best" 86.5% already? No, human affairs are complex, but we also should not look away from basic dynamics. Nature finds a way, whether we like it or not. In my country (Netherlands) already from age 20, only 20% of men is single. It's unlikely that all remain with this same partner for life, but this is to point out that selection start early, and almost all "supply" is immediately taken. I don't know if the market is efficient, but it sure is fast. When trying to find your first partner in your 30s, you're a decade too late if you have high standards. In your 40s, most people have a family with kids that might be up to 10 years old, so "late" doesn't even begin to express it.

bumby 5y ago
I think I'd question some of your analysis here. >The chance for [handsome, sociable, strong, economically successful or at least stable, funny] men to go unnoticed and unclaimed until they are 30-40 y/o has to be close to zero. No doubt it's a smaller pool, but close to zero? I would be skeptical about such an absolute claim unless there's actual data. The pew research article doesn't speak to this point specifically, and I'm not such how one would quantify it. >So a single woman in this same age group looking for a man finds 86.5% of men unavailable or not interested This is based on the assumption that the entire pool should be the denominator. I don't think it should, and the single men looking for a desirable mate are in the a similar situation, where over 60% of women are unavailable. If one was a highly desirable female, it would seem to they can still align with a highly desirable male because both pools are dwindling. It's not like every single female is competing with every other female. As the number of available mates goes down, so does the number of competitors, albeit at differing rates. I would expect those different rates to have an impact, but not so much that the effective ability to find a comparable mate to be driven to zero, at least not for someone in their 30s-40s. To circle back to the economist train of thought, if alignment isn't happening it could be attributed to inefficiencies (e.g., there isn't a market that allows for relatively frictionless meeting between players) or there is a misalignment of expectations that prevents agreement between players (e.g., I can't get junk bond returns at AAA bond prices/risk).
- fleddr 5y ago
  I'm not going to be able to provide a scientific justification for the "close to zero" remark, I'm basing this on common sense. Handsome men stand out. They are desirable and attract attention wherever they go. As such, they can't be overlooked. If you then combine this favorable quality with great social skills, not only will they be discovered, it may be that man doing the discovery. If said man is also successful, not only will he be even more attractive, success is often visible, so the chance of being overlooked becomes practically impossible. But I'm sure it's not an absolute zero chance, I accept it to not be hard science. You're absolutely right that using the entire pool is a simplification. In NYC, at age 30-40 there may be plenty of attractive mates left, as there's simply a lot of people in a small place and the career life style is the norm. Meanwhile, in the small rural town there may be no mate at all, or very few. In the original example, highly educated women in their 30s-40s being single, I think it's a case of mismatch. Being both late and demanding (if we are to follow the stereotype) whilst supply is both low and low quality. Again, local exceptions can apply. I do believe another complexity or nuance is the massive difference between being in your 30s or 40s. This decade is the time frame where almost everybody settles, many already in their mid twenties. Early 30s you may still stand a chance, in your 40s...really not the same thing. You're middle-aged and still have to start "life". Family planning may start to become an issue. Life starts at 20, not 40.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >This decade is the time frame where almost everybody settles I think this gets to the heart of it. Nobody wants to "settle", meaning there is a mismatch between expectations between two parties. To extend your original phrasing (which I disagree with), a desirable man would not be single in his 30s or 40s. But by the same logic, neither would a desirable female. The latter point being underscored by the stereotypical premium put on youth and biological pressure due to age. So that analogy (which I disagree with) leaves you with a less desirable single female expecting to land a highly desirable male. Of course, this will lead to frustration and they will be, as you say (which I disagree with), forced to settle. I would argue they will be forced to make sure their expectations match reality. If your hypothesis holds, they wouldn't be single if they were truly highly desirable. I don't agree with that but I don't see why that same logic doesn't apply to both sexes, outside of market inefficiencies (which technology has heavily eroded). Is there a particular reason why your original comment focused only on men? If anything, the reduced pressure to settle down due to a lower threshold of biological constraints seems to provide a basis for it to be less applicable to men, not more.

by fleddr 5y ago

bumby 5y ago

I think I'd question some of your analysis here. >The chance for [handsome, sociable, strong, economically successful or at least stable, funny] men to go unnoticed and unclaimed until they are 30-40 y/o has to be close to zero. No doubt it's a smaller pool, but close to zero? I would be skeptical about such an absolute claim unless there's actual data. The pew research article doesn't speak to this point specifically, and I'm not such how one would quantify it. >So a single woman in this same age group looking for a man finds 86.5% of men unavailable or not interested This is based on the assumption that the entire pool should be the denominator. I don't think it should, and the single men looking for a desirable mate are in the a similar situation, where over 60% of women are unavailable. If one was a highly desirable female, it would seem to they can still align with a highly desirable male because both pools are dwindling. It's not like every single female is competing with every other female. As the number of available mates goes down, so does the number of competitors, albeit at differing rates. I would expect those different rates to have an impact, but not so much that the effective ability to find a comparable mate to be driven to zero, at least not for someone in their 30s-40s. To circle back to the economist train of thought, if alignment isn't happening it could be attributed to inefficiencies (e.g., there isn't a market that allows for relatively frictionless meeting between players) or there is a misalignment of expectations that prevents agreement between players (e.g., I can't get junk bond returns at AAA bond prices/risk).

fleddr 5y ago
I'm not going to be able to provide a scientific justification for the "close to zero" remark, I'm basing this on common sense. Handsome men stand out. They are desirable and attract attention wherever they go. As such, they can't be overlooked. If you then combine this favorable quality with great social skills, not only will they be discovered, it may be that man doing the discovery. If said man is also successful, not only will he be even more attractive, success is often visible, so the chance of being overlooked becomes practically impossible. But I'm sure it's not an absolute zero chance, I accept it to not be hard science. You're absolutely right that using the entire pool is a simplification. In NYC, at age 30-40 there may be plenty of attractive mates left, as there's simply a lot of people in a small place and the career life style is the norm. Meanwhile, in the small rural town there may be no mate at all, or very few. In the original example, highly educated women in their 30s-40s being single, I think it's a case of mismatch. Being both late and demanding (if we are to follow the stereotype) whilst supply is both low and low quality. Again, local exceptions can apply. I do believe another complexity or nuance is the massive difference between being in your 30s or 40s. This decade is the time frame where almost everybody settles, many already in their mid twenties. Early 30s you may still stand a chance, in your 40s...really not the same thing. You're middle-aged and still have to start "life". Family planning may start to become an issue. Life starts at 20, not 40.
- bumby 5y ago
  >This decade is the time frame where almost everybody settles I think this gets to the heart of it. Nobody wants to "settle", meaning there is a mismatch between expectations between two parties. To extend your original phrasing (which I disagree with), a desirable man would not be single in his 30s or 40s. But by the same logic, neither would a desirable female. The latter point being underscored by the stereotypical premium put on youth and biological pressure due to age. So that analogy (which I disagree with) leaves you with a less desirable single female expecting to land a highly desirable male. Of course, this will lead to frustration and they will be, as you say (which I disagree with), forced to settle. I would argue they will be forced to make sure their expectations match reality. If your hypothesis holds, they wouldn't be single if they were truly highly desirable. I don't agree with that but I don't see why that same logic doesn't apply to both sexes, outside of market inefficiencies (which technology has heavily eroded). Is there a particular reason why your original comment focused only on men? If anything, the reduced pressure to settle down due to a lower threshold of biological constraints seems to provide a basis for it to be less applicable to men, not more.