How to use math to choose a wife
Perhaps the subject most fascinating to me at the moment is the gamble that is involved in choosing a life partner.
Perhaps I have been unnecessarily haunted since research revealed that Facebook destroys romantic relationships. Still, it was quite odd that a man whom I have chosen to follow on Twitter for his remarkable erudition in social psychology (oh, alright, his name is Dominic Johnson) passed along a quite extraordinary article from New Scientist, one that has made me ponder more deeply than I usually care to.
While the article begins by discussing the mathematical ways in which you can improve your chances in Vegas (or, if your taste and eyes have deserted you, Atlantic City), it goes on to discuss the marriage problem. Apparently, mathematicians have tortured themselves over marriage for some years. I did not know this. I figured that perhaps mathematicians only ever had one girlfriend, whom they married very soon after sex.
May I go down on one knee and admit how wrong I was?
Mathematicians have racked their brains and abacuses, for the good of society, in order to help us all choose wisely the person who shares our king-size. According to New Scientist, the law of diminishing returns has long been thought to be a marvelous indicator of when to stick, rather than turn another card.
Naturally, scientific laws have certain suppositions. And at first glance, I considered the idea of having a mere 100 choices a little unrealistic.
However, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed a little more natural than it might have appeared. We march our way merrily through life, meeting people and declaring them a "yay" or a "nay."
Oh, we have some supposed criteria in our heads about what makes a "yay"- body type, nose shape, or some such nonsense. But commitment is a very hairy creature, one that barks at us more often than it sings.
So for a long time, mathematicians believed that, given 100 choices (each of which has to be chosen or discarded after the interview) you should discard the first 50 and then choose the next best one. (The assumption also is that if you don't choose the first 99, you have to choose number 100, which, again, seems rather realistic to me. I know so many people who have chosen the last resort out of perceived necessity rather than, say, happiness.)
The "Discard 50 then Choose the Next Best" method apparently gives you a 25 percent chance of choosing the best candidate.
However, then along came John Gilbert and Frederick Mosteller of Harvard University. I do not believe they were married. However, they came upon the idea that the magic number is, in fact, 37. Yes, you should stop after 37 candidates and choose the next best one. This number was apparently derived by taking the number 100 and dividing by e, the base of the natural logarithms (around 2.72). And it apparently increases your chances of the best choice to 37 percent.
Here's the real beauty of this calculation, though. You don't have to limit yourself to 100. This optimization works for any population. So if you have a world of 26 potential life partners, simply divide by 2.72 and choose the next best one.
Now, I know it is sometimes hard to know exactly how many potential partners are in your firmament. But it is surely not beyond some calculation.
We need a little more stability in this world. We need more happiness. And we need just a little more good judgment. It seems that only math can save us.
There is a small word of warning, however. Some psychologists, such as JoNell Strough at West Virginia University, believe that the more we invest (in a gambling and, one supposes, marriage context), the more likely our decision will be attached to disaster.
However, I would be interested whether any of you number-conscious geniuses out there have also used mathematical principles to choose your betrothed. Perhaps you have done it more than once, but we would still love to hear your number-based criteria.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
An excellent idea. Give your dating a sense of altruism. Who knows what might come of it?
Please let us know how it works out for you.
Chris
It's cute, though.
Oh, go on, try it.....it might work.
Chris
Go by content of character, personality, intelligence, compassion, kindness, and other traits you are looking for in a woman. If you use math you will end up marrying a woman you will divorce later and take over half your money because your personality conflicted her personality. You want to pick a woman you can get along with, instead of going by math or looks, which can be deceiving.
Marriage is a partnership or more precise a team, if you both can get along as a team, you don't want to get married. If you marry someone who isn't a partner or a team player, then the marriage becomes one sided and is doomed to fail.
You sound like a very wise man. I'm assuming you are happily married too. Which is a fine and precious rarity.
Thank you for sharing your expertise.
Chris
And besides, the whole thing is based on the assumption that you have to marry one of 100 people, and must choose yes or no immediately after interviewing them. It's purely a math thing. I think it's pretty cool.
But, if you want to find other ways math influences a man's life, check out that book or another publication of his, "The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie."
As the article states, the probability was first calculated by Gilbert and Mosteller. They did so in 1966, long before Fink's book. I hope Fink gave them proper credit.
By the way, the New Scientist article got the formula wrong. It's not N divided by e, but actually (N-1/2)/e+3/2. So you need to pick the next best after 38 instead of after 37.
I am here to make your life easier. Please let us know how it goes.
Chris
Perhaps we need some stories on the best diet plans or how to impress your man as well to get the full effect?
On the 15 Sept "Single" a documentary film will be released.
May have a few answers as well !
To get 25% you either had to pick after the 12th date, or choose the next best after 71 "samples"... which could be a lot more fun.
If only "the best" is acceptable - 37 discards, 37.10%
Either of the best 2 - 30 discards, 52.03%
Any of the best 3 - 26 discards, 60.61%
Any of the best 5 - 21 discards, 70.52%
Any of the top 10 - 14 discards, 81.68%
Sure, this whole analysis depends on numerous highly questionable assumptions. But, hey, the math is fun!
pwi >= nc - (smi - er)
Where pwi = Poetential wife's income
nc = cost of New Car
smi = Stud Muffin's* Income
er = Engagement Ring
* that would be me, if I was on the market.
Wow I haven't laughed this much in a while.
an awesome answer right there.
Nature has been developing mating strategies far longer than anything else, and the natural attitude toward courtship has been fine tuned to optimization, probably in ways we have yet to understand. The more rationally and logically you apply yourself in these situations, the far more difficult it becomes.
- by nicmart August 14, 2009 9:01 PM PDT
- Researchers have found that arranged marriage are just as likely to succeed and offer contentment as are chosen marriages. So, I think this is likely to be bunk.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by soutrik93 August 16, 2009 7:00 AM PDT
- no sir, the real "bunk" is the statistic you gave us. The fact is, the vast majority of arranged marriages are from countries like China and India, where up until recently, divorce wasn't in their vocabularies. So if you're a couple from a conservative family background, living in a conservative country, OF COURSE your marriage is more likely to stay together than a choice marriage somewhere like the US or the UK. It doesn't mean the arranged marriage is happier at all.
- Like this
-
- by soutrik93 August 16, 2009 7:03 AM PDT
- oh i also forgot to mention that arranged marriages go against the natural system of mating and courtship used by every single animal on the face of the planet.
- Like this
-
- by mbenedict August 16, 2009 7:54 AM PDT
- Soutrik: sorry but your postings have a hint of prejudice towards Chinese or Indian cultures. Arranged marriages today aren't forced marriages. Both the bride and groom still choose whomever they'll marry. They love each other just like in any marriage.
- Like this
-
- by GoOwls August 20, 2009 10:15 AM PDT
- "...the families play match-maker (sometimes with outside help) according to what they deem to be a "suitable" criteria...The potential bride & groom are then introduced, typically in an informal setting...If the chemistry isn't there, the marriage doesn't happen. Then the process simply repeats, with each family seeking other candidates. So it's not so different from weddings in Western cultures, but instead of using match.com to find a date, the whole family gets involved."
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (81 Comments)The basic difference is, the families play match-maker (sometimes with outside help) according to what they deem to be a "suitable" criteria. Usually that means short-listing candidates from the same religion or locality, and similar socio-economic background.
The potential bride & groom are then introduced, typically in an informal setting. I guess it's like a "date". They each can say no. If the chemistry isn't there, the marriage doesn't happen. Then the process simply repeats, with each family seeking other candidates. So it's not so different from weddings in Western cultures, but instead of using match.com to find a date, the whole family gets involved.
Forced marriages are an entirely different concept. But there are forced marriages in any culture. It even happens in the US and the UK, often due to economic pressures.
And really families and friends play matchmaker in Western cultures as well, just not always as directly. Friends and relatives set up people all the time, even if its just introducing the two briefly and hoping the "spark" is there. Also divorce hasn't become untaboo until recent times in Western culture as well. Even now some couples do not see it as an option because of religious beliefs. Whether we like it or not as society stands now people have their noses in each other's love lives for better or worse.