# Dating as a numbers game



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Should you treat dating as a numbers game? I'm glad you asked - why yes, you should. Dating is a classic problem in optimization that has already been solved:

The Secretary Problem: Use this algorithm to determine exactly how many people you should assess before making a new hire or choosing a life partner.


Step 1: Estimate how many people you could date in your life, n.

Step 2: Calculate the square root of that number, √n.

Step 3: Date and reject the first √n people; the best of them will set your benchmark.

Step 4: Continue dating people and settle down with the first person to exceed the benchmark set by the initial √n dates.


Every step except the first is deterministic. All you need is a good initial guess!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Worked for me.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

what if the square root is has a decimal?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It also worked for me - the second time around. Approximately. I do believe dating is a numbers game, and that you need a good baseline to calibrate your ability to make good choices. When I finally did meet a truly great match, I was able to recognize that immediately and decide to put in the effort needed to verify that it was so.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> what if the square root is has a decimal?


Well, as one of the commenters on the article put it, "Unfortunately, simply performing this analysis probably means that your options are not that great".

My first answer would have gotten me banned.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

I don't think I'm nerdy (smart) enough to understand this!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> I don't think I'm nerdy (smart) enough to understand this!


In that case, you start with an initial guess of 1, date him for a while, and dump him. Then marry the next guy who comes around who is better.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure that this isn't the algorithm used by a lot of young adults.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

What's the definition of a date?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Yes it is and I always enjoyed playing the numbers.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
that is only valid if there is a metric by which you can compare potential partners. It also assumes the goal of dating is finding a long term partner. For many people the goal of dating is enjoying dating.

Math is a great tool for some problems, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

Nice post OP.

The game fails of course if the first you meet is the best for you. This happened to a woman I know. She dumped her first bf who was perfect for her and then has spent the rest of her life looking for someone as good. By the time she realised her mistake he had married and had children with someone else.

Ah well, life sucks sometimes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

tryingtobebetter said:


> Nice post OP.
> 
> The game fails of course if the first you meet is the best for you. This happened to a woman I know. She dumped her first bf who was perfect for her and then has spent the rest of her life looking for someone as good. By the time she realised her mistake he had married and had children with someone else.
> 
> Ah well, life sucks sometimes.


Yeah, that can happen. Let's say you can date 100 people in your life. By the formula, you have to dump 10 to set your baseline, and there's a 10% chance that your best match is in that first group.

Probability is a hard task master sometimes.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

I exceeded the number of possible people that I could date in a lifetime, and still did not like the baseline. Never mind the square root. 

And so I had to keep going until I finally found someone I actually wanted to be with.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Cletus said:


> Yeah, that can happen. Let's say you can date 100 people in your life. By the formula, you have to dump 10 to set your baseline, and there's a 10% chance that your best match is in that first group.


Yes, but given the sample is self-selected and not blind, inherent bias is introduced, invalidating any conclusion you draw from it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I've heard a more general guideline, something like "date at least 25 people before you pick one to marry". This did not mean "have sex with" 25 people, and also, the majority of them could have been just one date. The point was that if you don't know this is a huge variety of people out there who you might match well with (or not), then you may pick the first thing that comes along and be sorry later that you didn't shop around more.

I don't know the number, but I've dated at least that many, and been married twice. The second marriage is going to stick, thankfully...but I'm not sure dating more people would have affected the first one or not.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I've heard a more general guideline, something like "*date at least 25 people before you pick one to marry".* This did not mean "have sex with" 25 people, and also, the majority of them could have been just one date. The point was that if you don't know this is a huge variety of people out there who you might match well with (or not), then you may pick the first thing that comes along and be sorry later that you didn't shop around more.
> 
> I don't know the number, but I've dated at least that many, and been married twice. The second marriage is going to stick, thankfully...but I'm not sure dating more people would have affected the first one or not.


holy crap then I am long overdue for an engagement. No one tell my GF about this :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> holy crap then I am long overdue for an engagement. No one tell my GF about this :laugh:


Some of us need a larger sample to choose from.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I exceeded the number of possible people that I could date in a lifetime, and still did not like the baseline. Never mind the square root.
> 
> And so I had to keep going until I finally found someone I actually wanted to be with.


One can presume from what is publicly visible here that you have a bar that is difficult for a mate to get over.

Congratulations on finding someone you wanted to be with.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> One can presume from what is publicly visible here that you have a bar that is difficult for a mate to get over.
> 
> Congratulations on finding someone you wanted to be with.


In all fairness, I completely excluded the ones who dumped me and/or were not interested. Because "not wanting to be with me" was definitely a quality I was hoping to avoid.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> In all fairness, I completely excluded the ones who dumped me and/or were not interested. Because "not wanting to be with me" was definitely a quality I was hoping to avoid.


That seems eminently practical.


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

OK so the next person I date I'm supposed to settle on?

Edit. The next person I go on more than 10.02 dates with I'm supposed to settle.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sheez, I dated probably hundreds in my lifetime... only found hmmm... two woman who I managed to click with, and even then they weren't perfect. Ex-wife wasn't even physically my type for instance. Most dates didn't work out, others became friends with benefits, only to get replaced whenever emo happens - but anyway that's 2 loves out of I dunno... ~500? There are probably hmm, around 5 other women who had good chemistry with me, but they're taken, and I don't wait around nor intrude in another's relationship.

Granted, marriage hindered my availability for obvious reasons... but still, ~2 out of ~500... it's not a good statistic, and I don't settle. 

0.4% chance of falling in love. Is that low? :scratchhead:


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

~500!
I counted 11, and it hurt my brainz


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Dating should include a couple of medium length relationships otherwise all you learned was how to hook up. That was my issue anyway. Then then first (short) marriage becomes the learning experience that dating could have provided.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Should you treat dating as a numbers game? I'm glad you asked - why yes, you should. Dating is a classic problem in optimization that has already been solved:
> 
> The Secretary Problem: Use this algorithm to determine exactly how many people you should assess before making a new hire or choosing a life partner.
> 
> ...


I only partially buy this stream of logic because choosing a spouse is not exactly like buying clothing at the department store.

Like FW, I dated a number of people, as did my wife, before we met. Most of those were people we only went out with once or maybe twice so they were quickly eliminated. I do agree that it's useful to know what you like and with whom you are most compatible. I had three "real" relationships before I met the Mrs. and as it turns out, so did she. So in our case the theory worked well but I'm not certain it was necessary.

I had a college professor who used to always say that people get married when it's convenient for them to get married. That actually made some sense to me.

My best friend growing up got divorced from his first wife because of infidelity after about 5 years of marriage. He stayed single for 5 years before he was ready to try again. During that time, he was dating an attractive girl with a wonderful personality but he wasn't ready yet. It just wasn't convenient for him to get married then.

About 2 years later, I remember him telling me that he was ready and really wanted to be married again. Well, he met and married a girl who I believe was a downgrade from his previous girlfriend. Of course, I've never told him that, but it is what it is.

The other examples I've seen are from my own parents and my wife's parents. My wife's parents were married for 64 years before her dad died and they probably hadn't dated more than 5 people between them. My folks have been married for 54 years and while they dated a little more, it likely wasn't more than 10 between them.

Point is that you can find a good spouse and be very happy without having had to play a numbers game.

It really all boils down to knowing what you want in a mate. Some people have better, more healthy examples of that in the form of their own parents than others, I admit. That's really more than half the battle IMO.

I would have chosen my wife if she was the 100th or so person I had been out with or the 5th one because I knew what I was looking for in a mate and she was it. Put another way, I don't believe I would have met or found a better match for me if I had dated 5 times as many as I did but your results may vary.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sheez... some folks told me that I'm actually quite lucky, to have met two 'soulmates' in my lifetime, whereas many don't even meet one. So the high number of dates yet few LTRs, and even just falling in love 2x... just seems normal to me.

But now to realise I dated ~10x more than the average poster here...

... I wonder if there's something seriously demented in me!


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

RandomDude said:


> Sheez... some folks told me that I'm actually quite lucky, to have met two 'soulmates' in my lifetime, whereas many don't even meet one. So the high number of dates yet few LTRs, and even just falling in love 2x... just seems normal to me.
> 
> But now to realise I dated ~10x more than the average poster here...
> 
> ... I wonder if there's something seriously demented in me!


Do you date simultaneously?


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Sheez... some folks told me that I'm actually quite lucky, to have met two 'soulmates' in my lifetime, whereas many don't even meet one. So the high number of dates yet few LTRs, and even just falling in love 2x... just seems normal to me.
> 
> But now to realise I dated ~10x more than the average poster here...
> 
> *... I wonder if there's something seriously demented in me!*



I am uniquely demented. I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

I don't believe in soulmates. I do however believe in divine intervention.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

gouge_away said:


> Do you date simultaneously?





gouge_away said:


> I don't believe in soulmates. I do however believe in divine intervention.


Aye!

I also don't believe in a conscious greater power myself, but 'tis just me!



Mostlycontent said:


> I am uniquely demented. I see nothing wrong with that.


So, I'm normal? :surprise:


----------

