People with desirable traits for pairing up do so more frequently than those who lack these traits. As individuals pair up, the average quality of the remaining unpaired pool declines.
So the dating pool for early 20 year olds might be 1 dud: 20 mediocre: 1 winner. By the time people hit 40 the dating pool is 500 duds: 5 mediocre: 1 winner.
I dont think this is accurately describing people and how they develop. You have many people that are fine partners but got stuck in toxic relationships. You have people that were great “matches” in their twenties but turned to become terribly self absorbed arseholes in their thirties and vice versa you have people who developed to become very decent. You have people that were fine but wanted to sleep aroung in their 20s and then became monogamous and people who did the opposite.
Also you entirely ignore that as more people are permanently in relationships with increasing age that also means the “competition” reduces.
Finally this assume the observer to be somewhat static in their relation to other people being duds, mediocre or winner. But given your numbers they would become more likely to be duds or mediocre as they get single at higher age. Two “mediocre” can make a fine couple. And quite frankly, if the only people someone ever get to know are “duds” chance is he or she needs to work through some issues.
Of course it doesn’t match the data. It is the just world fallacy. Failure occurs because a person is a failure and you know that because our world only allows just results. Success occurs because a person has merit and you know that because our world only allows just results.
Could be a million reasons why a person is single in their 30s? Nah only one.
How about you try reading what I wrote again. Apparently my simple analysis was too complex for you to understand.
A few basics for the logically and statistically impaired. This is a simple analysis of the probability of pairing up.
Having desirable traits for pairing up: I didn’t mentioned what these were to for a very good reason. It doesn’t matter to the analysis. What matters is the resulting rate of pairing up. Those that have traits desirable to pairing up are removed from the dating pool more quickly than those that don’t.
This creates a constant strong selection pressure of removal on the pool.
I also used to terms to describe the potential relationship not the people. Because who or what these people are is immaterial.
Yeah so this type of narratives is why I am very very glad I am happily married. I don’t rank humans, I don’t think of humans in terms of what they can do for me only. I am also aware that a disturbing high degree of what we are is what situation we are in.
I make six-figures and I have been homeless. Generally your brain works worse as you get older so homeless me was smarter than uppermiddle class me. I know he was in a lot better shape physically and had a full set of hair.
I can make you a shitty person by giving you a foot injury. I can make you a loving person with women weed. And you know what? We are all shitty judges of character.
It’s an age thing.
People with desirable traits for pairing up do so more frequently than those who lack these traits. As individuals pair up, the average quality of the remaining unpaired pool declines.
So the dating pool for early 20 year olds might be 1 dud: 20 mediocre: 1 winner. By the time people hit 40 the dating pool is 500 duds: 5 mediocre: 1 winner.
I dont think this is accurately describing people and how they develop. You have many people that are fine partners but got stuck in toxic relationships. You have people that were great “matches” in their twenties but turned to become terribly self absorbed arseholes in their thirties and vice versa you have people who developed to become very decent. You have people that were fine but wanted to sleep aroung in their 20s and then became monogamous and people who did the opposite.
Also you entirely ignore that as more people are permanently in relationships with increasing age that also means the “competition” reduces.
Finally this assume the observer to be somewhat static in their relation to other people being duds, mediocre or winner. But given your numbers they would become more likely to be duds or mediocre as they get single at higher age. Two “mediocre” can make a fine couple. And quite frankly, if the only people someone ever get to know are “duds” chance is he or she needs to work through some issues.
Of course it doesn’t match the data. It is the just world fallacy. Failure occurs because a person is a failure and you know that because our world only allows just results. Success occurs because a person has merit and you know that because our world only allows just results.
Could be a million reasons why a person is single in their 30s? Nah only one.
How about you try reading what I wrote again. Apparently my simple analysis was too complex for you to understand.
A few basics for the logically and statistically impaired. This is a simple analysis of the probability of pairing up.
Having desirable traits for pairing up: I didn’t mentioned what these were to for a very good reason. It doesn’t matter to the analysis. What matters is the resulting rate of pairing up. Those that have traits desirable to pairing up are removed from the dating pool more quickly than those that don’t.
This creates a constant strong selection pressure of removal on the pool.
I also used to terms to describe the potential relationship not the people. Because who or what these people are is immaterial.
Dud = no chance of pairing up.
Mediocre = moderate chance of paring up.
Winner = pairing up.
Seriously…
Yeah so this type of narratives is why I am very very glad I am happily married. I don’t rank humans, I don’t think of humans in terms of what they can do for me only. I am also aware that a disturbing high degree of what we are is what situation we are in.
I make six-figures and I have been homeless. Generally your brain works worse as you get older so homeless me was smarter than uppermiddle class me. I know he was in a lot better shape physically and had a full set of hair.
I can make you a shitty person by giving you a foot injury. I can make you a loving person with women weed. And you know what? We are all shitty judges of character.