4 ms·

Entering my thirties still single, I think about this a lot. First read about it in Algorithms To Live By.

moontear 4y ago
Seems like you haven’t found the right secretary yet.
hayst4ck 4y ago
I've also thought about that. At first N seemed daunting, but then I added in a bit of the drake equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) style thinking. Humanity has 33 bits of entropy. So with 33 pieces of information about a person that don't depend on each other can very likely uniquely identify any person. Individually a person is likely to meet 10000 different people in their life, that's 14 bits of entropy if you start there. Male/Female, College educated/not, looks, substance use, desire for children, compatible hobbies, compatible diets, compatible cultures, compatible monetary beliefs, compatible sexual preferences, my own level of attractiveness. Each hard preference has a corresponding reduction in dating pool size. Clearly I am also single.
- throwaway98797 4y ago
  this made me chuckle, i too think like this and yes im single
- svnt 4y ago
  This is why the old dating app approach was so powerful — you’d answer dozens if not hundreds of questions, and rank them in relative importance to you as well as the relative importance and allowable values of your partner’s answers. I immediately threw out anyone below 85-90%. My dating pool in a dense urban area over a period of months was tens of people. Once filtered for attractiveness and mutual interest, I was down to single digits. I married the first 99% I went on a date with. Unfortunately (for others) I don’t know if that method is still available anywhere but the app I was using got acquired and reduced to swiping left and right.
andrei_says_ 4y ago
I heard a talk by Esther Perel (recommend her TED talks, numerous interviews and podcast appearances) where she spoke about the differences in mindset when choosing a partner between 30-40 years ago and now. “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Now (culturally), one expects to find the absolutely perfect person/flavor and have everything worked out at the time of selection. You can see how such an attitude would drastically limit the choices. Another difference is that nowadays partnership is expected to include that person being the perfect lover, perfect co-parent, best friend, partner in crime, sometimes therapist etc. while in the past the expectation that the romantic partner would also be someone to entertain us or always understand us or share hobbies etc. was much much lower. obviously not absolutes but more of a cultural slider which limits choices and puts more stress on relationships.
- darkwater 4y ago
  > “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make it work", even if in the end was just a toxic relationship, where couple in their 60s or 70s plainly hated their spouse.
  - fyhn 4y ago
    And like in all things, there is probably a better middle ground. Don't commit forever to a horrible partner, but also don't look for the "perfect person" with whom there will be no difficulties. Neither is good. Look for the "good enough" partner and really try to make it work.
    - darkwater 4y ago
      Absolutely. And don't be afraid to end a relationship that's not working, learn from it and be a wiser/better partner in your next one (if you are interested in having a relationship again).
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Seems like marraige (and to some degree the employment form) would complicate matters because both sides are looking for the optimum. What happens if the secretary you decide to hire is just using you to calibrate their search for what a good boss looks like? Feels like there would be some interesting maths in that.
- alcover 4y ago
  It's seemingly solvable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
  - aesthesia 4y ago
    Interestingly, the traditional algorithmic solution is inherently asymmetric: it gives better outcomes to one gender than the other.
    - greenail 4y ago
      Are you basing this on math or history?
      - qbit42 4y ago
        This is a mathematical statement, see the end of the Wikipedia section "Algorithmic solution", where it states "Among all possible different stable matchings, it always yields the one that is best for all men among all stable matchings, and worst for all women."

Seems like you haven’t found the right secretary yet.

I've also thought about that. At first N seemed daunting, but then I added in a bit of the drake equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) style thinking. Humanity has 33 bits of entropy. So with 33 pieces of information about a person that don't depend on each other can very likely uniquely identify any person. Individually a person is likely to meet 10000 different people in their life, that's 14 bits of entropy if you start there. Male/Female, College educated/not, looks, substance use, desire for children, compatible hobbies, compatible diets, compatible cultures, compatible monetary beliefs, compatible sexual preferences, my own level of attractiveness. Each hard preference has a corresponding reduction in dating pool size. Clearly I am also single.

throwaway98797 4y ago
this made me chuckle, i too think like this and yes im single
svnt 4y ago
This is why the old dating app approach was so powerful — you’d answer dozens if not hundreds of questions, and rank them in relative importance to you as well as the relative importance and allowable values of your partner’s answers. I immediately threw out anyone below 85-90%. My dating pool in a dense urban area over a period of months was tens of people. Once filtered for attractiveness and mutual interest, I was down to single digits. I married the first 99% I went on a date with. Unfortunately (for others) I don’t know if that method is still available anywhere but the app I was using got acquired and reduced to swiping left and right.

andrei_says_ 4y ago

I heard a talk by Esther Perel (recommend her TED talks, numerous interviews and podcast appearances) where she spoke about the differences in mindset when choosing a partner between 30-40 years ago and now. “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Now (culturally), one expects to find the absolutely perfect person/flavor and have everything worked out at the time of selection. You can see how such an attitude would drastically limit the choices. Another difference is that nowadays partnership is expected to include that person being the perfect lover, perfect co-parent, best friend, partner in crime, sometimes therapist etc. while in the past the expectation that the romantic partner would also be someone to entertain us or always understand us or share hobbies etc. was much much lower. obviously not absolutes but more of a cultural slider which limits choices and puts more stress on relationships.

darkwater 4y ago
> “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make it work", even if in the end was just a toxic relationship, where couple in their 60s or 70s plainly hated their spouse.
- fyhn 4y ago
  And like in all things, there is probably a better middle ground. Don't commit forever to a horrible partner, but also don't look for the "perfect person" with whom there will be no difficulties. Neither is good. Look for the "good enough" partner and really try to make it work.
  - darkwater 4y ago
    Absolutely. And don't be afraid to end a relationship that's not working, learn from it and be a wiser/better partner in your next one (if you are interested in having a relationship again).
- itsoktocry 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Seems like marraige (and to some degree the employment form) would complicate matters because both sides are looking for the optimum. What happens if the secretary you decide to hire is just using you to calibrate their search for what a good boss looks like? Feels like there would be some interesting maths in that.

alcover 4y ago
It's seemingly solvable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
- aesthesia 4y ago
  Interestingly, the traditional algorithmic solution is inherently asymmetric: it gives better outcomes to one gender than the other.
  - greenail 4y ago
    Are you basing this on math or history?
    - qbit42 4y ago
      This is a mathematical statement, see the end of the Wikipedia section "Algorithmic solution", where it states "Among all possible different stable matchings, it always yields the one that is best for all men among all stable matchings, and worst for all women."