The game theory of seduction and marriage with Jane Austen
optimallyirrational.com
optimallyirrational.com
> Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship.
Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship?
> Tinder data shows that men like 10 times more profiles than women do and that 1 in 50 of their likes leads to a match versus 2 out of 5 for women. Faced with many men happy to date them, women have to identify the ones who may be willing to invest in a long-term relationship.
This seems to be saying that men send out lots of likes because they want to play around... but I thought men sent out lots of likes because if they didn't they wouldn't even get a single match, which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships.
It doesn’t mean you can’t end up rich (actually end up in a positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big payout), but that’s the definition of a long tail outcome.
Aka delusional or an idiot.
Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when someone discovers they’re on it. Aka all women, and most men.
Which, if you understand the circumstances is ‘fine’.
Projecting a lot here, it’s definitely not true. Not a single woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it’s for a long term relationship
Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
> Would they say the same to their parents
I get your point, it’s true people tend to get more conservative around parents (who don’t necessarily share the same values as their kids), but even then: for _some_ of these people, yes they do say the same to their parents.
It’s really nothing groundbreaking: people build social circles with other people sharing their values, so stigma related to these values is lesser within these circles
If done effectively, these are also opportunities to get significant dividends from society to offset our own needs and flaws.
Shame is the emotion used to tell folks ‘this will get you in trouble with the group around you that you need’ - if done appropriately, it’s protective of negative consequences.
One of the biggest issues with growing up is figuring out which of the emotional responses we’ve been trained into (or experience) is helping us or not, or adaptive/maladaptive or not.
Aka if you would not knock an old lady over and steal her purse, because you’d be ashamed to do it, that means you learned or were taught shame appropriately. And can feel it appropriately.
Because, if society was doing its job, you’d end up in jail or beaten up if you did that, and would lose out on good jobs, good mates, income you need, etc. as a consequence.
If you would not ask for help from someone who could provide it if you needed it for the same reason, then that is probably inappropriate and maladaptive. Or if you could not, say, get a job you needed for the same reason.
For women, they have a limited window where they can reproduce without a lot of risk, pain, suffering, etc (or when it’s just impossible). No one wants to think about it, but it absolutely exists and it sucks if it gets ignored - been there, done that, I can tell you many horror stories.
If you’ve dated any women in their late 20’s to mid 30’s, it’s nearly impossible to miss.
If they are successful in doing so AND in raising a child well, that will pay large social dividends for them for the rest of their life. If they don’t, society will marginalize them (even if they say they won’t) and they’ll end up in some very socially undesirable situations eventually.
It isn’t the end all be all of course.
Similar to men and learning skills like building wealth, getting/being healthy and strong, being courageous, approaching women, etc.
Also not the end all be all.
But also important.
A society which doesn’t incentivize the behavior it needs for itself or its members has ‘given up’, same with parents. Or lost the plot.
A social group which encourages its members to do things which don’t help them, is enabling things which don’t help them. Or doesn’t know what would actually help them.
Which, hey, nobody and nothing is perfect. And vices exist because they help prop something else up, and they’re often necessary.
But pretending a Casino is a bank is still BS, even if sometimes people walk out with more money then they walked in with.
Being unashamed of going to the casino everyday is… indicative of having broken social conditioning, if society is functional, and probably not good for the individual either long term.
And yes, none of this is groundbreaking at all. Quite unpopular though, to say it all near as I can tell.
> Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
Most women would not say this openly, since there’s a lot of judgement about this.
But their actual behavior paints a very different picture / story.
Millions of modern educated women seem to be engaging in casual sex with a relatively small number of highly-attractive-looking hyper-sexual men (who probably sleep with someone every night “spinning plates” so to speak). Meanwhile, millions of other men are relegated to being involuntarily celibate. We’re talking men who are software engineers in the Bay Area who are earning circa $300k with interesting passions and hobbies but can’t find a single woman, due to monopolization of “sexually liberated” women by so-called Chad men (who have virtual harems as a result) and the consequent smaller dating pool of women.
If someone makes $300k/yr and can't find a date they have other issues and/or need to move out of the bay.
Second, yes, there certainly are many men who are struggling. I even know a CTO of a startup that has gone through YC, raised over a million in funding, who’s in his mid 30s, and he still has his V card.
Then there men who are pretty low income who do odd jobs like wait tables, but are good looking, and they pretty much get laid like it’s raining women (just for them, to be clear).
I personally know a guy like that, and he’s dating multiple women simultaneously, and these women literally pay for his dinners and other things. These include a woman who’s a product manager making good money, a woman who’s got a bootstrapped startup with an ARR of over half a million USD a year, etc. He’s not officially in a relationship with any of them, but in informal situationships (and they’re not aware he’s dating other women either), and he rotates between them through the course of the week.
If you’ve ever seen a graph distribution of likes on dating apps, you’lll know what I’m talking about. About 80% of men get very little attention, whereas the top 20% and especially the top 5% live like one of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy. It’s some pretty insane, dark, and depressing stuff to think about.
A lot of these men would make good fathers and good husbands. They also earn high incomes, so they would be able to provide an upper middle class life for their family if they had one as well. But the so-called “Chad cock carousel” has taken such a sheer number of women out of marriage and dating market, that millions of amazing men are left single, sexless, and unable to marry, and have children and start a family, etc.
This stuff cuts across racial boundaries, although non-white seem to have it extremely hard. Not that white guys have it easy. I also know a white/WASPy software engineer who’s a nerdy gamer guy (with his ancestors having moved to North America in the 1600s) and he struggled a lot with dating and women as well, but he eventually got married to a Chinese-American woman, and has had kids with them, and I can attest that he’s a great father.
These are the sorts of high quality men that many of these sexually-liberated women claim they want, but then in the real dating market, we see a situation play out where where a small number of good-looking (“Chad”) men (many who are low income or professionally-unsuccessful) end up having harems of 3 to 5 women, hence massively shrinking the number of women available. Why would women do this, rather that have a deep loving relationship with a man who can give her 100% of himself to her (and build a family with that guy)? I have no idea. It certainly isn’t a good thing. We see the results manifest in a massive drop in the fertility rate, a massive increase in the number of men who are single, sexless celibate (but who would want to start a family and have a loving marriage with a woman, and who likely would like be good fathers as well).
Many incels just want a wife. They don’t want to sleep with double digit women or anything. Many of these men would be happy with 1 single woman who loves them to commit to living their life with, and building a family with them. But then you’ve got millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin (or oxytocin or whatever) hit of sleeping with various Chads, and the end result is the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society.
It’s a sad state of affairs. That’s all I can say.
This assumes that the women are naively monogamous, which may be true for some women. I know it's not true for all women in the Bay Area.
Is the overall situation "sad"? It is what it is. If, as you point out, men succeed based on their dating skills, rather than (only) the value of their RSUs, I think that's fair.
As for the women, I've always liked the idea of revealed preference, i.e. learn what people want by observing their choices, rather than by what they say they want.
You appear to be obsessed with a very unhealthy subculture focused on Chads and sex: perhaps you need to avoid whatever cesspit that is infecting your mind. Avoiding subcultures that damage you is a general skill that requires effort and practice. My personal current danger is alcohol and pubs.
Statistics show that men with lots of sexual partners are often having sex with women that have lots of partners. I suspect you would especially find that in self-selecting markets like Tinder.
> hence massively shrinking the number of women available.
That is just irrational thinking - even though popular with some subcultures. There are plenty of women out there - you must notice that even in your own experience - it is unavoidably obvious.
If you are a nice guy that wants a family, then change your selection criteria until you find someone worthwhile living a long time with. My guess is you have unreasonable criteria - wanting 10s (similar to your projected accusations against women). Teaching oneself to be less judgemental is very very worthwhile.
If you wished to catch Chad-chasers then it is achievable to become a Chad: there's lots of resources about that. Beware: it doesn't appear to be a very satisfying lifestyle for the people I know that are into it. I'm middle-aged so I also see some of the longer term outcomes. The men I know that have the most multiple sexual partners are ugly or average - their strategies depend on other factors than their looks. Not having Chadian good looks is just a pathetic excuse.
Most importantly: having negative beliefs about women as a group is incredibly destructive. Every person is unique - treating women like stereotypes is unhealthy. Noticeably you are complaining about stereotypes of men.
Anyone can find a partner. The first step is learning how to be a good partner. Teaching yourself positive traits is hard. Avoiding negative traits is harder. I do it by have having female friends and encouraging them to train me not to be a dick. Listening to criticism is hard, not attacking back is hard, then making the effort to change behaviour is a lifelong struggle. And it definitely isn't about being a nice doormat (although I admit I try to be too nice - making the world a better place is somewhat submissive - but mostly cooperative).
In general, I think finding a relationship requires thoughtful effort but isn't particularly difficult. If relationships are seemingly impossible to find (e.g. for many incels), I think they either aren't putting enough thoughtful effort in (e.g. not realizing how some of their views/habits/mannerisms are off-putting to their target audience) or are looking in the wrong places (e.g. dating apps where the odds are too stacked against them).
There are plenty of “nerdy”, average/unattractive, and/or “non-white” men etc, etc who have meaningful relationships with women, and some of these women are even smart and/or beautiful. I know a number of these relationships myself and the common denominator that I see between all of them is that there is respect between both parties.
I just want to quote a couple of things you’ve posted.
>Millions of modern educated women seem to be engaging in casual sex with a relatively small number of highly-attractive-looking hyper-sexual men (who probably sleep with someone every night "spinning plates" so to speak).
> …the top 20% and especially the top 5% live like one of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.
> But the so-called "Chad cock carouse|" has taken such a sheer number of women out of marriage and dating market, that millions of amazing men are left single, sexless, and unable to marry…
>These are the sorts of high quality men that many of these sexually-liberated women “claim they want”…
> ("Chad") men (many who are low income or professionally-unsuccessful) end up having harems of 3 to 5 women, hence massively shrinking the number of women available.
>Why would women do this, rather that have a deep loving relationship with a man who can give her 100% of himself to her (and build a family with that guy)? I have no idea. It certainly isn't a good thing.
> But then you've got millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin (or oxytocin or whatever) hit of sleeping with various Chads, and the end result is the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society.
Even with all the absolutes and exaggerated claims in your statements, the biggest issue I see in your posts is the way you talk about women.
Look at the words you use. “Claim to want”, “why would women do this”, “millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin [to have sex] with various Chads… result[ing in]… the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society,” “harems of women,” “shrinking the number of women available,” “with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.”
Your words paint women as irrational, fickle and emotional beings who cannot reason and don’t know what’s best for them or the world. You talk about them as if they are livestock and or toddlers, not fully-grown autonomous human beings. You’re post screams of the stereotypes that women have been fighting against throughout history.
Talking about women this way is not going to help you form meaningful relationships with them. Women are individuals. They are people. They have their own individual wants and needs, that may or may not match up with your own. Some might, others won’t. Because, again, women are individuals.
If you’re getting to know a woman, and you bring up even a fraction of what you’ve written here, it’s very possible she’s not going to bother to try and get to know you further; even if you do have other great attributes. Because she probably doesn’t want to be treated like a stereotype or a child.
In my experience, this is mostly a problem in mismatched expectations vs self perception. There are plenty of lower tier (no offense meant) women that the "chads" wouldn't bother with to go with the lower tier men.
Plus you're talking just about casual sex and nothing to do with 1-to-1 marriage, for which your mention of high-income incels should fair well due to their potential to support a family. Unless there are some serious other problems with behavior, personality, unrealistic expectations, etc.
Women incels tend to do the same blame game/projection as male incels (and there are a lot of both), but it looks different - less violence/outright language attacks, more avoidance altogether and subtle manipulation.
And fwiw I believe this is a lot of BS, it’s literally the incel narrative. I’m not going to go into “why are incels wrong”, there’s enough to read about that on the internet.
People click, and the process of the clicking is irrational. My late wife and I met on Yahoo Personals, with the explicit intention of a short term thing. We were both planning to move. We were together for 23 years, married for 20.
End of the day, you go where the people are.
What do you say your relative odds are of finding someone who isn’t a drinker at a bar?
Non-zero for sure. Also, not super likely as compared to a park or supermarket, eh?
So if you were going to find someone who wasn’t a big drinker (it mattered to you), hanging out at the bar all the time might eventually work out - but would be a pretty round about way of doing it, eh?
In the case of my parents, my mom was drawn to this upper east side bar with her colleagues for the happy hour that promised free burgers for nurses.
She remains a thrifty gal to this day.
Where do you think people looking for long term relationships are looking ?
It’s about more information and context (and truth), before moving forward. Which is important when you’ve got something to lose.
And it takes time. Which is a good thing, as it tends to weed out a lot of noise.
Tinder does eventually go to in-person yes - but it puts the cart before the horse IMO by putting the pitch first, and doing selection based on that.
It’s a lot smarter, in my experience, seeing the ‘reality’ first, and then seeing what the pitch is.
I’ve personally learned (and seen it from many others) that is far more important when looking for a long term relationship - and in my experience I’m not alone.
But everyone is different, and it certainly can work out well otherwise.
But you don’t see anyone who has something to lose going to the casino when they have money to invest - at least not over and over again.
It sure does say something about the neighborhood though, doesn’t it?
People also hookup on eharmony.
But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time hookups. And that’s perfectly ok. But doing studies about long term relationships on Tinder seems odd and poorly formed as there are better populations to study.
That’s why it’s reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder.
You forget the part where everyone who is single looking for a short term relationship is also looking for a long term relationship with the right person, so it's a useless distinction.
That's why it's not reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder. The venn diagram is one circle.
Literally all tinder like any dating app does is remove the "is it okay to ask him/her out" because being on the app is a signal it's okay. After that it is what you make of it.
I disagree strongly with this statement. There are people looking for all sorts of things. And assuming this leads to much relationship mismatch and pain.
The assumption that people who say they are looking for hookups or casual relationships are really just looking for the right person and I know better than them is not a good idea if I’m looking for a long term relationship.
I think it’s important that people trust what others say and don’t try to project their own beliefs.
Tinder is specifically made for hookups, per its own design. This is different from other sites that are specifically made for long term relationships (eg, eharmony, coffeemeetsbagel, etc).
This doesn’t mean one is better than the other. Or that one type of person is better than others. Just that there are different people. And we shouldn’t assume they all people want the same things.
> I think it’s important that people trust what others say and don’t try to project their own beliefs.
Exactly. Saying tinder is for long term people or short term is projection. It'sa tool. You use it however you do.
But I’m stupid and/or deluded if I’m hammering in nails all day with a screwdriver.
It’s useful to use the right tool for the right job. Tinder is designed for short term hookups and more people use it for that than not. And that’s perfectly ok. Let people hookup if they want to.
My point is that if your goal is long term relationships, you will likely have better luck using other tools designed for and more frequently used for that.
A dating app is for finding people who are looking/available. Where does it say it's for short term relationships?
> My point is that if your goal is long term relationships, you will likely have better luck using other tools designed for and more frequently used for that.
Thinking that using one dating app instead of another dating app is magically going to save you from your SO leaving you is maybe not the right mindset here.
Finding soulmate is about exploration.
But the apps are all the same and simply show people who are actually looking so you don't have to guess if it's okay to chat them up. Short or long, that most people themselves don't know (but they may think so) because it depends. Are you the kind who would not want to do the work and just assume because you met on the long term dating app you don't need to shower every day? etc.
If they say up front they want a hookup then sure but I haven't met anyone like that.
Saying Tinder, specifically, isn't for hookups is a bit like buying a framing hammer and saying it isn't for driving nails. Or I guess, more appropriately, saying Tinder isn't for folks using hookups as a lure.
Despite the textured face, specific head and handle size, and balance being expressly optimized for hitting framing nails all day every day.
Can you use it for other purposes? Yes. But it really isn't made or optimized for that.
One can argue they were ‘waiting for the right one’, but… good luck with that haha.
Statistics say your odds are no good. This also includes your odds in the divorce that will statistically likely happen.
I don't know anyone who says Tinder or whatever app is "for" long term relationships. But I do know people who would say that not going for short relationships is a good way to never end up with a long one.
Technically they are correct. Long term relationships necessarily arise from short term relationships. It's just how time works.
Like the first step of long term investment in a stock is no different from short term gamble. If you say doing research is what distinguishes investing, first that's wrong, but also then let's just say some see sleeping with the person part of doing research
https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-in...
In trying to understand your question, I'm realizing it's possible you are taking "intimacy" to mean "sexual intimacy." I don't think the author meant to speak euphemistically in that way. I think it just means deep, vulnerable relational knowledge of the other.
In which case, yes. When you get to know someone intimately, you acquire license to ask these kinds of more probing questions and you are justified in expecting honest answers to such questions. You also become more skilled at detecting facades and subterfuge from the other person.
We're talking about Tinder. While longterm relationships do come out of that platform, it was intended and still used primarily as a hookup site. I'm not sure how the authors think Tinder is a good platform for longterm relationships.
I would guess if you looked at the highly desirable men, the numbers would show they are also more selective. If you can be successful with the population of more desirable mates, why not be lazy and ignore the mid/lower tiers of mates? That's essentially what we see with most women.
The US was awful. NYC perhaps wasn’t awful. I didn’t swipe enough there.
This is just my experience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisc...
I could believe a 2:1 single ratio for ages 20 - 60
I get the impression they tend to lose control as things scale up.
Pay for “gold” for one week, go incognito and swipe selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I’m a mid 40s decent looking guy with a few headshots. Did it a couple of rounds and met someone awesome.
They prioritize new upgraders for exposure, but it wears off quickly to make you buy boosts.
Key tips:
- Avoid profiles that are too good, especially pictures. Nothing worse than professional daters.
- Look for undervalued assets! Sometimes modest or poorly shot pictures don’t jump out.
- Pretend you’re speaking to a crowd with your profile. Keep it light and vague. The goal is a connection, so adding filter material only hurts you.
- Keep the pictures of you and simple. No groups, kids, fish, flexing a Porsche that isn’t yours, etc. Don’t try to tell a pictorial story, few will get it.
- On the flip avoid people dumping details. You won’t beat a checklist.
- Have a healthy hell no. It doesn’t matter how hot she is. In jail, substance abuse, things that are issues for you are issues. If you can’t deal with single parents, etc. Swipe left.
- If you’re not into or curious about ENM, kink, etc, and thats in the profile, swipe left.
Dating sites are like smoking. They’ll lure you into the little dopamine hits of swiping. The way to win that game is not to play. You want 1-2 matches while wasting as little time as possible.
If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you want, rinse, repeat.
I don't understand this. At what stage does anyone else see your profile? Can they see it while you're paused?
Be strategic. Everything happens during that one week subscription.
Once you match, pause and go figure out if they are a good person for you, if you don’t, pause anyway and wait a bit. Checking tinder shouldn’t be like checking email. Do it deliberately.
Your comment about the "No" is probably the hardest of the obvious advice to follow. Casting a wide net just distracts from what you really want - it's hoping for something.
I am a counter example. I liked about 1 in 20 chats. It took 300 matches. I took 100 hours to optimize my profile. I went from 5 matches per month to 150 matches per month. It took a long time to get good pictures that women found attractive. I went through 100s of different pictures and gathered a lot of feedback (there are websites).
The problem isn’t me since I am now in an amazing relationship. It’s okay to be a bit picky, as long as you put in a lot of effort yourself.
I agree with the rest.
I probably expressed that poorly. “Problem” was the wrong word! It’s probably better to say you’re not finding what you want… but do you know what that is?
"Just to look and feel like this, it took a long time"
What exactly does that mean? There's services that "rate your profile"?
What do those "good pictures" look like then?
Only 5 pictures made it past the 8 out of 10. I used photofeeler.com
You said it man. And so are most people on it. Used to be a term for that sort of thing.
> If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you want, rinse, repeat.
Or you know, you're using Tinder in earnest and it is the McDonalds-of-humans.
Try to remember how people used to be before this app and instagram and the Kardashians. My healthy hell no is to simply not take people who participate in this culture seriously in the first place.
There are still physically attractive women out there who read a good book occasionally and don't have any of this shit installed. Hard to find but they exist.
All things being equal pretty obvious whom you would pick.
I use Tinder occasionally just like I eat McDonalds or a Doner Kebab - it isn't real food fit for human consumption. Only if you are drunk or as an absolute last resort.
Or you live in area, where everybody is indeed awful. I am in a happy 15 year relationship, but before that I lived in a remote shithole and yeah, I was the issue, because I didn't share a local culture with a niveau so low that hurts my brain when I even think about it. It is totally possible that the type of person you are into wouldn't touch online dating with a ten foot pole. And that case you would only find those who are not your type and you are better off just going to places where you might meet them (e.g. gallery openings, etc.)
But yeah, if that isn't the case and the fault is constantly with others some introspection might be in order, e.g. some people tend to sabotage themselves. They are afraid to get hurt, so instead of trting and potentially failing they make up some reason why it is not a fit.
Victorian era reality vs literature was wildly different. [https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Kessler2014.pdf]
Intimacy also implies letting one's guard down and revealing your "truer" self to the other. So yes, it can give better insights about someone, and thus offer more reliable hints on the possibility of long-term relationship. In the Victorian era women "dated" in the public glare of a social setting (public or private get together) or with a chaperone in tow - so obviously it was hard to be physically or emotionally intimate with someone. Even if you could find opportunities to be intimate, they were rare and limited enough that one may still not get enough "data" on the other person. Compare that with modern times and culture where couples today can freely be intimate in many ways without any societal judgement.
Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed.
It is my opinion that P&P is Austen’s way of saying “if these are the players and this is the game then I am uninterested in taking part”.
From this reading, instead of Mr Darcy being the perfect man he’s the perfect example of why Jane chose to forgo participation in the marriage practice of the day.
TFA’s focus on finances, I feel, is just another example of one such reason provided by Austen to highlight the insincere process.
Doesn't Jane marry Charles Bingley at the end of the novel?
Bingley and Jane do wed though in a way largely in contrast to the rest of novels depictions of “the game”.
In the eleventh hour of the novel and in a more impulsive ceremony as a sort of ‘double marriage’ with Elizabeth and mr Darcy.
The bingley relationship is another example of the interpretation though because it appears the only one in the novel exhibiting “true love” and compatibility between both parties and is met with opposition from just about everyone else.
It’s pretty commonplace now that traditional audiences, studio execs, editors, and even other creators push creators in to tropey “they got together in the end” endings. Is it possible that was true then as well?
Jane's marriage is also by far the least impulsive of the four marriages depicted in the novel. It is the culmination of the longest arc, and the fulfillment of the longest-held hopes.
What's going on in classrooms these days? Facing such a reaction for expressing an interpretation shows deep issues.
I suspect that “screamed down” is also hyperbole
"Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship."
There's something else with aloofness that I thought a lot about when dating. Being aloof, as in unconcerned with outcome, signals fitness, when done properly, because it signals a lack of need to invest in this particular interaction. This does not mean being unkind, just that when someone signals that they have lots of resources and other options, it can come off as being aloof. Not uncaring, just not desperate to escalate. So a "too quick" escalation signals desperation (I'm unfit and cannot attract others), lack of patience, or unconcern about the deeper person - "I've seen enough to charge". All red flags.
I actually think this is a better reason to be cautious in social encounters, or at least patient, than the one presented in TFA, at least in modern times.
Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive all around.
I think it’s also a valuable action, not just signal. As important decisions should take time to make.
I know it sounds trivial and automatic, but I've met surprisingly few such couples. And all those questions of 'what did I do wrong' have an answer, usually quite a few (and on both sides, but its never 50:50 guilt).
Game theory is not a suitable guide to finding a romantic partner. I'm applying it retrospectively, to attempt to explain some otherwise sensible dating advice, just like TFA did.
No, that’s the thing: not everyone treats it as a game. For a lot of people it feels more like work and is draining like no game is.
In Game theory, one does not necessarily consciously act as though playing a game, it just so happens that their organic choices are often understood using game analogies. That's why the field is valuable. It wouldn't be a valuable model if everyone could wake up tomorrow and opt out.
I think I realised this when I first read Pride and Prejudice and the main character started talking about basically falling in love with the Pemberley estate.
Thereafter, any time I visit an English country house with extensive gardens, the massive wealth expenditure to create them makes a lot more sense when you view them as M&A marketing budget.
This is hopefully too cynical, and the truth is somewhere in between - but it's equally naive to read Austen as straight love stories with a modern perspective - there's a lot of clear focus on the incomes and social situations in the text.
Nah, it's just how it is.
A casual web search will show that women care about money in relationships and marriage... a lot.
Certain age usually brings this 'seeing' effortlessly and you actually become annoyed by additional layer of personalities that you see (since you can't escape it anymore facts that a lot of people of both sexes are just badly broken or simply not good people to the core), you just need to grind through enough people/stories around you like any other skill.
However, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement back then. That is true.
Well, obviously we shouldn't get too hung up on what a fictional character thought - but I stand by my recollection.
Just googling it, and finding this page: https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/pride/quotes/symbol/pemberley...
I think you can say the last quote on that page is the character joking (although I'm not sure I read it that way); but the second last quote was the one I was referring to, and is in the narrator's voice.
But, look, while reading that did change my perspective on the story, I also don't want to interpret things too cynically; I'm not saying the character of Elizabeth should be read as purely seeking advantage; just that they were clearly evaluating marriage on a combination of advantage, and 'love', with a lot of weight on the former; and all of Austen made a lot more sense when I realised that.
1: https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/
Never read her books or cared about that era, but I'm always interested in new tabletop mechanics & themes!
Edit: Decent rating on BGG (8.2/10 score, 3.11/5 complexity): https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession
At its core it's really about allocating scarce resources and timing actions over a limited number of turns to build your family's standing in society, and the courtship element is a strong means to that end.
Personally I feel like the complexity score may be a bit low; I'm not really much of a tabletop gamer though. It's about as complicated a game as I think I could enjoy.
What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game". This might as well be about chess.
People on their second marriage or single people older than about 35 may not have these complications. They can just tell a few stories about themselves and recognize if they're a match right away without much disagreement. Older people don't "reject" as much as they maintain a varying range of distance with that other person over time. Things run their course and people don't get as heartbroken if at all.
That this social maturity can occur regardless of romantic experience hints at something more complex going on than "love" or mere game theory.
> What's being described here are communication problems due to inexperience rather than the actual "game".
It's only a communication problem in the way that world hunger is a communication problem. For most intents + purposes, it's the actual game.
I watched a video about a holiday event at a huge public-works soup kitchen (?) in India. They interviewed a guy who said:
"Normally we get rice and daal, today we have paneer and (whatever) as well, by the grace of God!"
His attention is on the first-order reality of the food going into his stomach. A more sophisticated/privileged person would abstract up, and say something like
"It's nice to see everyone coming together on this special day"
, trading in the physical reality for a social one.
Sex is the same way, not as immediate as food but still life-or-death in its own way.
I think the opposite is true. I first read Jane Austin as a teenager. I had no concept of the economic environment of the book. I thought meh.
Now that I am retired and re-reading Austin, I view them more in terms of the economic environment. I didn't have this context when I was young, and the books are awesome. In several passages she give a critique of the economic system so sublimely that it passed over my head when I was young.
I tried so hard to find a partner in college and failed.
Now I know why.
(Am now happily married to a woman who pursued me because I was that oblivious.)