Why the good ones are always taken

Interesting Slate article that applies game theory to dating. Specifically the issue of a shortage of eligible bachelors:

The problem of the eligible bachelor is one of the great riddles of social life. Shouldn’t there be about as many highly eligible and appealing men as there are attractive, eligible women?

Actually, no—and here’s why. Consider the classic version of the marriage proposal: A woman makes it known that she is open to a proposal, the man proposes, and the woman chooses to say yes or no... A woman chooses to receive the question and chooses again once the question is asked.

At this point I’ve probably lost some of you, so let me elaborate a bit more. The idea of women being choosers is not inconsistent with the idea of classical marriage being patriarchal. Women had to choose carefully because they would be economically dependent on the man and the structure of society meant that once married he’d have considerable power over her. The one point in the process women could really apply their power was in the choosing and classical setups reflect this. So hopefully I’ve convinced you, why would this lead to an eligible bachelor glut?

You can think of this traditional concept of the search for marriage partners as a kind of an auction. In this auction, some women will be more confident of their prospects, others less so. In game-theory terms, you would call the first group "strong bidders" and the second
"weak bidders." Your first thought might be that the "strong bidders"—women who (whether because of looks, social ability, or any other reason) are conventionally deemed more of a catch—would consistently win this kind of auction.

But this is not true. In fact, game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by "weak" bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the "strong" bidders will hold out for a really great deal. You can find a technical discussion of this here...

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). And at the same time, you get a pool of women weighted toward the attractive, desirable "strong bidders."

This makes sense to me. That said, I think this will be a diminishing problem as we move from a classical division of labor model of marriage to a cooperative one. Under the division of labor model, there’s much more of a common pool of desirable picks. Under a cooperative one, the quality of the pairing and not just the groom becomes much more important.

At the same time, the breakdown in patriarcal norms mean that women are in a much better position to choose not to choose. They can get economic prosperity and sex without having to marry. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t advantages in long-term monogamous relationships, but it does mean that there are better alternatives to settling. This in turn should increase the quality of the male meat market. You’re less likely to get paired off by just because of the supply-demand imbalance. Instead men will have to work more to improve their attractiveness, sociability, and employment status, or more niche bonuses. So I expect in another generation or two, the eligible bachelor problem will be largely greatly diminished in the developed world.

Comments

[Kate]

Wouldn't that mean that most attractive sociable men would be hooked up with misanthropic women who play fetch and how; at the mooon?

I am more inclined to think that perhaps women are more likely to actively search for a marital partner than men are. I think that dating and marriage are very different, and that their pursuit makes them seem very different.

As the redoubtable MSNBC suggests, 29% of men have had 15 or more sexual partners in their lives, compared with 9% of women. I think this points to a situation where men are more likely to be out doing things that lead to sex than filling the dinner parties that Slate is concerned about.

[I won't weigh into discussion of whether women make more of an effort to be attractive and sociable than men would in day to day life, but I think that is certainly an element of it. Let's just say I attended a wedding last week with my brother and a friend of his - my brother wore sneakers with holes in the bottom and his friend wore the shiniest polyester suit I have either seen on a human being. Neither shaved or showered beforehand ...]

[Greg Sanders]

I don't think your analysis of the difference between dating and partnering actually undermines the article. It gets a bit cutsy in its use of Jane Austen terms, but "sociability" probably also means someone that is interested in a longer term relationship. So guys just hitting the bars for sex aren't "socialable" for the purposes of this article.

That said, I do agree that this mostly doesn't hold as true for the casual hookup or dating scene, except that marriage (for those that aren't poly) still reduces the eligible pool. Obviously that doesn't stop some people, but it is still a hindrance.

And I think your forth paragraph answers your first one. I'd tend to attribute it to socialization rather than evolutionary biology, but I think it is safe to say that women on average put more work into their appearance and relationship skills. The strong-bidder weak-bidder is a relative comparison, not an absolute one.