Early Retirement Extreme Forums

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:25 am

What is a WOG ? Its a racist term here but I assume it means something else

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:25 am

Compromise inherently sucks, and it's difficult to find somebody truly willing and able to agree to "I'll be on top for the first five years of our life partnership, then you can take the top for the next five years, etc." So, that might encompass a skill-set an ERE man (or woman) might attempt to acquire.

Interestingly, that's how DW and I have arranged it, taking turns on deciding the next "move". I don't even think it's a skill as an inherent part of the design when pursuing many different opportunities instead of one single 40 year long career.

@chenda:

WOG = Web of Goals.

Anyways, it's entirely possible that I am just projecting my own Goldilocks perspective here since my first husband had very little initiative and my second husband was quite domineering. So, in my first round of marital therapy, I was assigned the task of not "parenting" my husband by reminding him or doing tasks that were in his realm of responsibility. I literally sat on my hands so hard, I didn't say or do anything about the lawn not being mowed until we finally received a weed ordinance violation notice from the city. In my second round of marital therapy, my husband was assigned the challenge of not "parenting" me by allowing me to complete a task without interfering. I chose re-decorating the main bathroom as the task, and he couldn't not interfere. By day 2, he was in there man-splaining something about what I was doing wrong with my paint selection

jacob wrote: I don't even think it's a skill as an inherent part of the design when pursuing many different opportunities instead of one single 40 year long career.

Yes, it's indicative of post-post-modern design or perspective and/or the underlying field/economy as it exists at that level. Solo polamory also "works" at this level, because I can easily maintain affectionate long-term relationships on some level while pursuing my own WOG, whereas all-inclusive-monogamy more often requires a hard break or compromise when WOGs are not in alignment. "Taking turns" within a single relationship being more distributing the power over time, whereas solo polyamory is more distributing the power over space/relationships.

Like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem ... tl;dr let N be the number of people that meets the minimum requirements of a relationship in your life if you spent all your life doing that. You should stick with the N/e (e=2.71..) one. Now this depends on what your definition of "minimum requirements of a relationship is". If your N is conditioned on "living together for 2 years to see what happens" your N is much lower than if your N is conditioned on regular "one night stands". In short, after meeting about 1/3 of your expected lifetime candidates, stick with the first one after that who is better than all the ones who came before.

Indeed, it’s an interesting theory. I’m not overly familiar with it, but I understand it presupposes a deterministic ‘N’. In the case of a business conducting interviews, this could be quite useful as they have foreknowledge of the number of candidates. However, how do you establish your ‘N’ in real-life scenarios? Consider using a dating app, where your pool of candidates might be 10,000. In this case, ‘N’ would equate to P(meet_candidate) * 10,000. This introduces yet another random variable contingent on your attractiveness or ‘FR’.

One notable flaw I perceive in this theory arises when ‘N’ surpasses a certain threshold, ‘M’. It becomes challenging to date as many people as might be deemed optimal. For example, if you’re not overly selective, good luck in pinpointing your ideal partner. If you allocate time to assess compatibility, you might find that time is insufficient to encounter your optimal match. Conversely, should you adopt a highly selective approach, the formula might yield a remarkably low number.

I acknowledge that this is merely an illustrative example of how one might employ rationality in selecting a compatible partner. However, I concur with you that a degree of common sense is paramount in such matters.

okumurahata wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 8:44 am

Indeed, it’s an interesting theory. I’m not overly familiar with it, but I understand it presupposes a deterministic ‘N’. In the case of a business conducting interviews, this could be quite useful as they have foreknowledge of the number of candidates. However, how do you establish your ‘N’ in real-life scenarios? Consider using a dating app, where your pool of candidates might be 10,000. In this case, ‘N’ would equate to P(meet_candidate) * 10,000. This introduces yet another random variable contingent on your attractiveness or ‘FR’.

One notable flaw I perceive in this theory arises when ‘N’ surpasses a certain threshold, ‘M’. It becomes challenging to date as many people as might be deemed optimal. For example, if you’re not overly selective, good luck in pinpointing your ideal partner. If you allocate time to assess compatibility, you might find that time is insufficient to encounter your optimal match. Conversely, should you adopt a highly selective approach, the formula might yield a remarkably low number.

It's a feature, not a bug. Yes, the N has to be estimated. This estimate can be done based on the frequency of "interviews" for a given strategy multiplied by the number of years available. Lets say that the total dating period is 20 years. Compare two strategies. The first one follows the "3 dates" and can be repeated maybe 4 times per year. This results in N=80 and that the optimal stopping point is 29. IOW, one should stop after 6 years of dating this way and go with the first next candidate who is better than the previous 29 after some 7 years of dating (ages 20-26?). The second one follows a "lets get to know each other for 2 years". Here N=10, and the optimal stopping point is therefore ~3.5 ... so again, after 7 years, one should lock in the first next candidate better than the previous 3 or 4.

Regardless of your frequency, it basically comes down to your dating time window. Spend the first third (1/2.71) getting an idea of the potential pool. After that, make the selection. This is incidentally not all too different in terms of how one would optimize the time for calibration vis-a-vis measuring for a given instrument. Also backtesting in finance. Obviously, strategies differ. Figuring out whether someone is good in bed is faster than figuring out if they habitually squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle is faster than figuring out how resilient they are to adversity.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that people make a dating spreadsheet, but this provides a more realistic approach to finding a good match than momentary infatuation, feels, or whoops.

This model would also be relevant to the discussion at hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

If the 80/20 theory is true, then stable marriages are more akin to the example where every man gets his first pick and every woman gets her third pick. This is also more in alignment with the fact that it is still more conventional for the offer of contract to be made by the male. Secretaries are even less likely to apply for as many jobs as they should ideally vs. employers screening candidates for a given job. The inherent psychological power dynamic ensures this. Also, sunk-cost has got to come into play for both parties at some level.

I think most people instinctively follow the strategie in the secretary problem, but dating app and other factors make people overestimate their N.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:26 am

This model would also be relevant to the discussion at hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

If the 80/20 theory is true, then stable marriages are more akin to the example where every man gets his first pick and every woman gets her third pick. This is also more in alignment with the fact that it is still more conventional for the offer of contract to be made by the male. Secretaries are even less likely to apply for as many jobs as they should ideally vs. employers screening candidates for a given job. The inherent psychological power dynamic ensures this. Also, sunk-cost has got to come into play for both parties at some level.

The blunt reality is that wife X is with husband Y because she couldn't find someone better (aka the gentlemen in the top 20% were occupied).

It's tough to acknowledge that we, both men and women, don't make choices on an even playing field, but we don't. Tinder swipes exemplify just how discerning women can be, while men consistently put in their utmost effort. Once again, it boils down to the 80/20 principle. In simpler terms, if you introduce some well-known, influential, or affluent men onto Tinder, regular lads wouldn't stand a chance. None whatsoever.

I sincerely wish it were a 50/50 scenario. Ojalá. Life would be more entertaining, but, as always, numbers remain what they are.

I believe that the stability in marriages can be attributed to the adaptability of human beings. To put it differently, everyone might desire the Ferrari, but you end up with the Toyota and still find contentment. In ERE terms, you'd likely sell the Ferrari and stash the funds in the bank. Nonetheless, most wouldn't turn down the opportunity for a Ferrari rosso.

Jean wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 10:36 am

I think most people instinctively follow the strategie in the secretary problem, but dating app and other factors make people overestimate their N.

Quite the contrary. From the link pointed by @jacob.

Experimental psychologists and economists have studied the decision behavior of actual people in secretary problem situations.[17] In large part, this work has shown that people tend to stop searching too soon.

okumurahata wrote:I believe that the stability in marriages can be attributed to the adaptability of human beings. To put it differently, everyone might desire the Ferrari, but you end up with the Toyota and still find contentment

You may be right, because I am twice divorced and nobody would describe either of my husbands as being like unto a Toyota. My first husband might have been more like a dirt bike with super cool stickers affixed, and my second husband would be some sort of muscle car or monster truck that roars very loud. Anyways, both times I ended up married while not shopping for husband material, so out of bounds of the model.

I just texted one of my recently former partners, and he said that I would be some kind of Subaru. I would suggest that this is not coincidental to the fact that he has twice made me offer of "marriage of convenience."

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 11:28 am

I just texted one of my recently former partners, and he said that I would be some kind of Subaru. I would suggest that this is not coincidental to the fact that he has twice made me offer of "marriage of convenience."

I need to ask my girlfriend to compare me to a car as well, but I’m somewhat apprehensive about the response. At this stage in life, I wish I could attain the reliability of a Toyota.

Well, if I don’t like the answer, I will remind her how much she enjoys traveling by motorbike.

Gives a new meaning to the CAR model...

Years ago we had to do an interminable 'team building' game at work by describing our colleagues as cars. I was randomly slut shamed as a VW Beetle, a small but high maintenance boys toy who makes a lot of noise.

okumurahata wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 10:39 am

It's tough to acknowledge that we, both men and women, don't make choices on an even playing field, but we don't. Tinder swipes exemplify just how discerning women can be, while men consistently put in their utmost effort. Once again, it boils down to the 80/20 principle. In simpler terms, if you introduce some well-known, influential, or affluent men onto Tinder, regular lads wouldn't stand a chance. None whatsoever.

I sincerely wish it were a 50/50 scenario. Ojalá. Life would be more entertaining, but, as always, numbers remain what they are.

I believe that the stability in marriages can be attributed to the adaptability of human beings. To put it differently, everyone might desire the Ferrari, but you end up with the Toyota and still find contentment. In ERE terms, you'd likely sell the Ferrari and stash the funds in the bank. Nonetheless, most wouldn't turn down the opportunity for a Ferrari rosso.

In my experience, most men do not put in very much effort. I think this is discussed earlier in the thread, but most women spend way more time and effort in presenting themselves to the world. Many men are completely oblivious about how they present to the world. In other words, if you're a guy it's pretty easy to stand out by just being in half decent shape, wearing clothes that fit, and practicing basic hygiene. However, that sort of behavior alone isn't going to land you the top 10-20% of women, if that is what you're aiming for. In those cases, you'll have to do a lot more work, but such is life.

My cynical side says that it seems a lot of men go for the (10-20 years younger) Ferrari in their 2nd marriage after they grow tired/bored/unattracted to the 1st marriage Toyota. I think 7WB5 (and Taleb) would say something about how polyamory allows you to rent the Toyota when you need something reliable as a daily driver, and still rent the Ferrari when you want to go for a fun Sunday drive on some windy roads. I think the other way many men accomplish something similar is by having mistresses. In theory, an equitable solution is for the wife to also be allowed to have a paramour and then perhaps the marriage of 2 Toyotas can stay intact for life.

chenda wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 19, 2023 5:10 pm

@Toska2 - An alternative strategy might simply be to stop worrying about it and just focus on other things in life. You might meet someone (statistically speaking you probably will) But if not, what's wrong with being a bachelor all you life ? I know this isn't the solution you want to hear, but it is a solution.

I think this is a fine alternative strategy IFF prostitution does not carry significant social/legal/cultural stigma. In the USA that is not the case, but I'm not sure about other places. Otherwise, a man will just find himself more and more frustrated that his lack of dating success results in a lack of sexual success. As 7WB5 pointed out, the norm throughout human history for the "extra" males was to frequent brothels while working within their bachelor career fields (sailing, military, logging, mining, etc). Sex drives vary widely across the population. Telling some men (and women) to just stop worrying about sex and focus on other things is equivalent to telling a hungry person to stop worrying about food and focus on other things. You'll generally know which camp you fall in pretty early on after puberty, although sex drive can of course ebb and flow due to a confluence of factors.

chenda wrote:a small but high maintenance boys toy who makes a lot of noise.

I would have guessed you as more on the quiet side of the slut spectrum.

I suppose at my age I should be happy with my 5 stars for resale value and off-road capability. I polled one of my other partners, but he's not responding, because currently in Lisbon with his wife. I am hoping for a different reply, because I don't know why anybody would choose a Subaru as their second car.

white belt wrote:I think 7WB5 (and Taleb) would say something about how polyamory allows you to rent the Toyota when you need something reliable as a daily driver, and still rent the Ferrari when you want to go for a fun Sunday drive on some windy roads.

Yup. I would also say that polyamory has the rather unexpected perverse effect of rendering the Toyota sexier and the Ferrari more reliable, because you aren't pushing them outside of their capabilities.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 11:28 am

I just texted one of my recently former partners, and he said that I would be some kind of Subaru.

It's a good car for an Uber driver.

white belt wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 3:01 pm

Telling some men (and women) to just stop worrying about sex and focus on other things is equivalent to telling a hungry person to stop worrying about food and focus on other things.

True, sex drive does vary a lot. A man with a low sex drive may be more willing to take a more laissez-faire approach as there isn't the urgency of accomplishment as it were. Actually I vaguely recall reading that increasing numbers of men suffer from excessively low levels testosterone due to a variety of lifestyle issues.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 3:08 pm

I would have guessed you as more on the quiet side of the slut spectrum.

I'd like to think so too.

Yeah, Henry, but don't you shudder to think what the world is coming to if I qualify as a "safety pick?" Or as I've also heard it charmingly expressed, "At least you are less of a complete disaster than most women out there."

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:40 pm

"At least you are less of a complete disaster than most women out there."

Well, sticking to the analogy, nothing wrong with getting a good deal on used car.