Cupid's Underperformance: how much market inefficiency would you estimate there is in the relationship market?

Saint_Chad_of_Mercia · 2017-03-25T22:30:44+00:00

people who are good relationship prospects-- that is, they're happily capable of long-term commitment and all it entails and want to be in a relationship-- tend to find each other at a young age. they might not get married right away, but they have generally met their future spouse or long term partner by age 23 or 24 at the latest. there are exceptions, of course, but this is a general rule.

this leaves people who are not good prospects for whatever reason (they're unattractive, they're overweight, they're awkward, they have emotional baggage, they're promiscuous, etc.) to date each other. as a rule, people can recognize the traits that make a person a poor prospect in other people better than they can recognize them in themselves. so you have a lot of people who think they're good catches who, for whatever reason, can't find any quality people to date.

cxj · 2017-03-25T23:05:29+00:00

Hm, very interesting question. I have several points to make here:

(1) The dating market cannot be judged in isolation, especially from the housing and the job market. That many people don't have a match must not mean ineffinciency (as you said yourself that might be efficient). These non-matches might be caused by the fact that due to job/family/language reasons an acceptable match for these loners is not feasible.

(2) If we claim that a market is inefficient, we need to pinpoint in which way. I see 2 theoretical elements that are in play for potential inefficiencies in the dating market: search frictions and adverse selection. Search frictions are kinda self-explanatory, however it is hard to reduce them (have a central matching mechanism, better technology eg Tinder maybe), while adverse selection comes from the fact that one cannot observe hidden qualities of matches (are they cheaters, good parents, serial killers) and thus there is less effort excerted to discover new matches. Both frictions would be very hard to reduce in my opinion. A classic measure against adverse selection would be a guarantee issued by your match: in this case basically your wife would have to pay you for lost time and trouble when she cheats/hits your children etc. Such contracts are not really legal at least in the US (you can do pren-ups, sure but only if you marry and many of them are not watertight).

(3) In my personal opinion I don't see any easy to heal inefficiency that is completely obvious. Search costs are to a certain degree given by nature because one needs some time to figure out if the match 'fits' regardless how much information one has beforehand. So my intuitive answer to your question would be: probably not a lot. To reduce possible frictions you would want to have as much (relevant) information ex-ante and find a way to get a guarantee from your match that he/she is not a lemon.

If anyone has read all of this, I appologize.

IamTheWalkingMenu · 2017-03-25T22:37:51+00:00

Why is every thread in here about LTRs and marriage? My reading of TRP makes both of these undesirable at best, and yet every other thread refers to these themes as the goal.

OurThrownAwayDreams · 2017-03-25T23:03:31+00:00

a marriage based on necessity can be attained relatively easier than a marriage based on passion. if you want to reduce human beings to the likes of baseball cards. i'm pretty sure there's no problem for cupid to play apples to apples, so to speak.

so i feel like marriage back in the days was mostly like that. on top of it, you dont have that much options to begin with. in chappelle's latest stand up on netflix, he made a joke about moving 11 miles away and starting a new life because there was no internet back then.

then technology happened. people became more independent, or u/KoennonTiger lamented in a thread yesterday, "This atomization of life is killing us all." couple that with women now having equal rights, and sometimes even out earn men. people begin to abandon the idea of marrying out of necessity. if they can survive on their own, there is absolutely no reason to settle for less. now marriage based on passion is the new gold standard. so all of the sudden it would seem like a lot of people have failed to find a match. or the "invisible hand" is no longer there.

but in my opinion. a marriage based on passion should take a lot longer to find. i think it's safe to say that not a lot of people know what they truly want at an early age. some people dont really know who they truly are until they are in their 30s. if i remember correctly, there're statistics out there suggesting that older couples have a lower divorce rate. so with that in mind, people need time to grow, to develop, to find themselves in order to be truly ready for a partnership that will last a lifetime.

more and more people are waiting longer to get married. unless we magically undo all the progress, both cultural and technological of the past 30 years. it's probably going to keep going until marriage as a concept dies out.that is IF the pendulum swung all the way far left. eventually it will swing right, but i cant tell if it's starting to or not.

shortnstrong · 2017-03-26T06:09:40+00:00

I honestly think a lot of people are just flat out scared of a long term relationship that requires work. The idea that they have to be vulnerable and be accepting of someone else's flaws is mind boggling.

Also have to include there are those who are not trying and those who don't have the necessary social skills to develop a romantic relationship.

[deleted] · 2017-03-26T00:14:45+00:00

The idea that there are matches out there hoping to find each other is bullshit. There's a ton of people any one individual made happily be compatible with and people actively looking for a relationship often find one. People not looking for relationships, or purposely making a bad effort of it because they're not sure if they truly want/deserve a relationship, and relationships failing are not market failures.

purpleppp · 2017-03-27T02:44:52+00:00

I think dating apps make the market pretty efficient, as far as distance allows at least.

One inefficiency I've noticed from PPD is actually that women don't have a good way to judge if a guy is good in bed. There's no good socially accepted way to determine if a guy is going to make them orgasm or not before you have sex with the guy, which is already considered an investment from the female perspective. There was a thread a while ago ranking face/body/dick and apparently dick is very important to a lot of women, but there's a stigma against sending dick pics.

[deleted] · 2017-03-25T23:32:34+00:00

I don't think there's a way to fix the problem. Assuming there is someone for everyone in the single dating pool such that there is a one-to-one correspondence, the likelihood of that person being close by is almost nothing. Most people wouldn't be willing to date someone who isn't in their area, let alone move for them.

Even that assumption is a hefty one to make since a lot of people are shallow and don't want to date someone who is like them in terms of attractiveness.

Battle-Scars · 2017-03-26T01:09:16+00:00

Good post. The SM is completely inefficient and will remain so indefinitely no matter how many attempts to make it sensible are tried. It's a crapshoot at best. I can get laid with a rando with very little effort but that is no longer fulfilling since I have a high BC. The challenge is to find someone that challenges and intrigues me along with my pre requisites for a relationship. The only solution is to maximize your SMV and go meet a lot of women. That process is not for the weak at heart.

despisedlove2 · 2017-03-26T05:27:21+00:00

It is a good question.

My observation is that many men settle in their late 30s with women that they have no business being with. He is desperate. She wants to lock a man down no matter how much she despises him. Then they spend miserable lives together, with plenty of cheating and paternity fraud. Is the market working - yes, but is it really efficient? No. Such a marriage doesn't enhance her happiness, and later his happiness when he discovers the hard way that she is never going to love him.

Single men are the obvious markers of the inefficiency, but it goes beyond that.

I think that today's feminist reality is that for some people, and I count myself among that set, there is such a large mismatch between what is available at any age, and what would make them happy, that the best option for them is to lead a solitary existence and forget about dreams of family. Sure, you can be BP and not notice the knife she is slowly bringing closer and closer to your back, but when her wrist finally does its work, you lose the ability to pretend and become RP.

I am afraid that the Western and Indian societies are now mostly broken outside of some very niche pockets devoid of feminist influence, and no amount of fixing is going to change that.

AutoModerator · 2017-03-25T22:12:57+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Title	Cupid's Underperformance: how much market inefficiency would you estimate there is in the relationship market?
Author	LordFishFinger
Upvotes	4
Comments	50
Date	March 25, 2017 10:12 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/61i7ch/cupids_underperformance_how_much_market/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cupids-underperformance-how-much-market.269279 https://theredarchive.com/post/269279

Comments