Table of Contents
Active life stance
“Tokolonnikova has a mixed personality disorder, as evidenced by her active life stance.”
(from the verdict in the “Pussy Riot” case)
In a reproductive system with two sexes, where one fertilizes and the other carries the offspring, true equality cannot exist, no matter how much equality advocates may wish for it. The carrying function ensures reproductive success. The potential for population growth in mammals is always measured by the females. The fertilizing function does not provide any guarantees. Children can be born without male involvement, and the entire population requires only a minimal number of males. Naturally, in this scenario, females choose the best males, while the less desirable ones remain bachelors.
In other words, males, unlike females, have the chance to fertilize the entire herd, but on the other hand, they can end up with nothing. The independence of population growth from the number of males leads to a situation where it is beneficial for the society, and even the species as a whole, to sacrifice males. Additionally, due to the greater competitiveness of males compared to females, natural selection tends to focus more on males. It’s not a big deal if a deformed male is born—the population growth won’t be halted by that. However, if a super male is born, his genes will spread more quickly throughout the population. Thus, an evolutionary strategy has developed where nature experiments on males but preserves the “best traits” in females. The experimental potential of males is influenced, in addition to evolutionary rationality, by the Y chromosome’s greater susceptibility to various mutations. Among men, there are more deformities and psychopaths, as well as beauties and geniuses, compared to women. Nature experiments blindly, filtering out the bad options and solidifying the good ones.
Evolutionarily, males, who are often faced with life-threatening dangers more frequently than females, have developed better stress resilience, greater strength and endurance, and a different type of intelligence—one that is more inclined towards risk-taking and an active lifestyle. This doesn’t mean that every man is more active than every woman. It means that out of 1,000 men and women, about 500 men and 50 women would agree to go into the mountains, for example. Psychologically, men tend to be more at ease with risk than women, are more capable of self-sacrifice, can more easily hold the idea of an experiment with an unknown outcome in their minds, and are more enthusiastically drawn into hierarchical struggles. A man does not need to carry and nurture offspring; he can take risks with himself. In fact, he doesn’t even need to participate in the conception. Another, and importantly, a more successful male can take care of that.
All of this leads to the man proposing to the woman, rather than the other way around. The stereotypical behavior of a woman is to sit on the porch waiting for suitors with a stash of pumpkins to hand out to each rejected groom. It’s harder for a woman than for a man to cope with rejection. It’s more dangerous for a woman than for a man to fight for the best. A woman wants to be chosen, but also wants to retain the right to say “no.”
A woman receives one suitor after another, rejecting some and going on dates with others, but she continues to wait for a more suitable option and eventually makes her choice. She makes her decision using her internal calculator, which assesses the chances of finding a higher-quality man. Men come to women with flowers and champagne, and either get rejected immediately or end up on a waiting list (going on initial dates) and then either become suitors or get rejected again.
The problem of finding stable pairs in society, known as the marriage problem, was solved by Nobel laureates Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley. They demonstrated that for any arbitrary number of men and women, and for any preferences each man and woman may have, there will always exist a non-empty set of stable pair combinations. This means that there are combinations in which pairs will not wish to break their unions in order to form new marriages with other people. A stable set of pairs, into which a group of men and women is divided, does not imply that each man and woman receives their best choice. It has been proven that the proposing gender ends up with the best choice among all possible options. Conversely, those who wait and select end up with the worst choice.
To understand why this is the case, let’s consider a simple scenario with two men and two women: Kolya and Misha, Tanya and Katya. Suppose Kolya prefers Katya over Tanya, while Misha prefers Tanya. At the same time, Tanya is more fond of Kolya, and Katya prefers Misha. If Kolya and Misha propose, they will approach Katya and Tanya, respectively. Tanya and Katya will place the arriving boys on a “waiting list” and start going on dates with them. When no one better comes along, they will marry not the ones they love more, but the ones who are available. The pairs Kolya-Katya and Misha-Tanya will be stable because, even if Tanya wants Kolya more, she won’t get him since Kolya is more satisfied with Katya than with Tanya. In other words, if Tanya and Katya were the ones proposing, the set of pairs would be better for the girls, not the boys.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that despite the more “shameful” and “risky” role of the one asking, the partner who is proposing has a better option than the one responding to offers. And if, for some reason, you have chosen the role of the one waiting, the best thing you can do to find your match is to start actively putting yourself out there. Nothing will be lost if you begin inviting members of the opposite sex on dates, actively choosing whom to invite first and whom to invite second. Take control of the process, rather than just “allowing or forbidding.”
Interestingly, when considering the general case of the problem of the choosy bride, which will be described later, a man does not need to “win over” a woman; such a tactic is mathematically unjustified for that particular man. Pursuing a woman and competing with other men for her is not rational. A man should simply choose from those who have chosen him as the best option. A man who receives a “maybe” and is not looking for the next woman is actually in a worse situation than one who receives a “no” and retains the freedom to choose further. Let the woman choose. The man should continue courting others, maintaining the same “maybe” status with the previous woman. Therefore, from the man’s perspective, it is wise to turn away and move on upon discovering that a woman is simultaneously entertaining advances from different men or when receiving a response like “I’ll think about it.” Hurt feelings and jealousy have no place here. This is pure business and soulless mathematics. However, for the woman, it is mathematically advantageous to accumulate a pool of suitors in order to select the best one. Naturally, under such conditions, the patriarchal social morality, promoted by men and for men, practically prohibits “frivolous” relationships on the part of women. A simple mathematical conflict of interest among market participants leads to the emergence of magnificent fractal patterns of relationships that have inspired artists, painters, and poets for thousands of years.
Unfortunately, there is a stereotype for women about the “Magic Prince.” Many women wait for him and never seem to find him, treating this idea as a guide for their actions. The text for translation: [1]. the strategy of Sleeping Beauty or Assol from “Scarlet Sails.” Here I am, sitting and waiting for Him. After all, there are handsome men, wealthy individuals, and geniuses in the world. I am not made for an ordinary mortal. If you have daughters, throw out all that fairy tale nonsense from your library. The examples should be stories like “Beauty and the Beast” or “Puss in Boots.” The societal morality that, on one hand, promotes monogamy and forbids many women from accepting proposals from the same man, while on the other hand, places women in a losing position by assigning them the role of passive participants in the pairing process, should not be accepted by active women as an absolute truth in the age of contraceptives and DNA tests. A truly free woman calls for a date herself and is not afraid of rejection, rather than waiting to be invited.
It’s worth taking an active stance in life not only when no one is courting you, but especially when you have a line of admirers. The economics of marriage shows that the best choice goes to the active participant. Any business, when making decisions about purchasing certain goods and services, also tries to take an active position and turns down all the “suitors”—salespeople trying to get past the secretary. At the same time, any company decides for itself, when the need arises, whom to buy from, ignoring the “commercial proposals” and phone calls from suppliers offering exactly what the company needs.
The traditional passive role assigned to women fosters a tendency to seek attention and a constant pursuit of it. Women are more likely than men to use makeup, wear revealing outfits, high heels, long painted nails, and indulge in perfumes and jewelry. A woman dressed provocatively and sexually attracts the attention she desires, but fails to find what she truly needs—a marriage partner. In fact, it often works the other way around. A mini skirt and low-cut top generate a flood of attention from all sorts of men, rather than from those who truly matter. Moreover, the right man is likely to avoid the competition if he perceives serious rivalry; and if he does engage in the frenzy, his presence will be overshadowed by the participation of other men, who are driven solely by transactional motivations.
A sexually appealing woman behaves like an airline that spends a lot of money on advertising such as, “Kiev-London $49*.” The asterisk leads to a footnote where the fine print essentially states, “what was written is not true.” The airline garners attention, the number of calls to the contact center sharply increases, and marketers report success. However, the overloaded call center will serve genuine customers—those not misled by the asterisk—more slowly than usual, and it’s likely that a ready customer will grow tired of waiting for a response and call a competitor instead. Did they receive a surge in calls? Yes. Did they increase flight occupancy? No. In such cases, marketers claim that phone calls have a “low conversion rate.” And even if they did increase occupancy, it’s not with quality passengers willing to pay a premium, but with those seeking the cheapest fare, thus depriving the airline of profit. By advertising price alone, the airline attracts customers driven solely by cost, rather than by the added value that distinguishes one airline from another. Companies that practice active sales—taking the initiative and seeking out clients—are in a better position. These firms engage in consultative and strategic selling rather than transactional selling, and they achieve greater profits from their deals.
In essence
Men are more active than women and are more prone to risk for evolutionary and biological reasons.
The mathematical solution to the marriage problem shows that the “proposing” partner has an advantage over the “choosing” partner.
Women typically limit themselves to attracting attention and, as a rule, receive an excess of attention with a low “conversion rate.”
You shouldn’t be afraid to take an active stance in life and to sift through candidates yourself, rather than waiting for them to come to you one by one.
The Problem of the Picky Bride
Never let morality hold you back from doing the right thing.
A. Asimov.
The world, presented from a male perspective—”long live casual sex”—is unacceptable for women. A woman who adopts this approach will surely be rejected by a still conservative society. However, it is important to understand that the stereotypes of “men can, but women cannot” are a deeply sexist attitude. Everyone should have the same freedoms. Society has benefited from keeping women in strict roles—this was essential for motivating men to work for the benefit of their heirs. A social morality was established, which functioned well until the mid-20th century.
But emancipation came, the sexual revolution arrived, along with contraceptives and established paternity. [2]. Why is it that women need to keep themselves in check after all this? Where is the gender equality? Why should women pay any attention to men whose “thinking” is limited to their spinal cord and who continue to insist on “female fidelity” in the 21st century, while they themselves feel free to look elsewhere? What is the point of a man with such a level of culture who, despite objective reality, continues to impose demands on women and believes that his “rights” are violated because “his” woman dared to sleep with someone else before him? Or is it about quantity? Where is the line of “acceptability”? Five lovers is fine, but six is not? How is it even logically or mathematically possible to have a system where all women are faithful and all men are not? Who, then, are men sleeping with?
Apparently, men who have a higher level of thinking are, first of all, more selective in their relationships and do not welcome the idea of “casual sex” on their part. However, they do not claim the freedom of a woman’s individuality, as they are capable of understanding that having multiple lovers makes her an experienced lover and, on the other hand, boosts his self-esteem.
After all, she consciously chose him, rather than just “buying” the first cat in a bag. For such men, sex, despite being the most significant motivator of their behavior, is not the ultimate goal. [3]. These are exactly the ones who need more than just “this.” And women are right to seek out such individuals. This is a good criterion that defines the level of culture and awareness.
In defense of jealous men, it can be said that their strategy of rejecting “lighthearted” women is quite optimal. Besides the fact that the ancient part of the male brain, unaware of contraceptives and DNA tests, fears wasting its resources on raising carriers of someone else’s genes, their unconscious calculator also suggests that such women have a wealth of suitors, and the likelihood that they will be the ones left in the end is extremely low. As a result, only those who are not afraid of competition remain with “lighthearted” women, and there are very few of them.
Sleeping with everyone indiscriminately is not quite the right strategy for finding a life partner, whether for men or women. For men, it’s a resource-intensive endeavor—not just in terms of money, but also time. Of course, one could be a rock star and simply open the dressing room door for a fan after every concert, but such cases are rare. For women, it’s also a waste of time, as they, unlike men, “age” more quickly and need to fulfill their desires for family and children before they lose their competitive edge in the sexual market.
On the other hand, it’s also a flawed strategy to sleep with only one person unless that person is a spouse. It’s important to continue exploring and trying new connections. In other words, having a small number of lovers, whom one dates in succession, doesn’t provide a clear understanding of optimal choices. Conversely, a large number of lovers or promiscuity can diminish the role of sex as a bonding factor and lead to wasted time. If people choose the path of “home, family, children, grandchildren, and ‘I don’t feel like drinking,’” then casual sexual relationships are unlikely to be beneficial for them.
How many people does one need to go through before making a choice? Our internal computational system can intuitively solve this problem, but, of course, there is a correct mathematical solution. Let’s assume a person has the task of choosing a life partner within a year. Also, let’s assume it takes four months to get to know someone well enough. This means not only sleeping together a few times but also going through some shared experience, which, of course, needs to be organized. Lastly, let’s assume that a person cannot be in bed with more than three people at the same time. We conclude that in a year, one can have no more than 9 lovers.
With proper organization of the search and selection process, one should build a “sales funnel.” This is a term used by salespeople to describe the simple fact that signing a contract only happens after a series of meetings with different clients. Contracts are signed with those clients with whom there have been more than one meeting, while many potential clients meet the salesperson only once. To arrange a meeting, even more phone calls need to be made, most of which will result in refusals. And to even make those calls, you need contacts or leads, which should be even more numerous than the phone calls themselves. The same applies to the dating market. If the goal is to sleep with nine people over the course of a year, you might need to sleep with around 15, since some people will turn out to be “one-time” encounters or simply terrible lovers. To sleep with 15 people, you need to go on second dates, which might end in kisses, with about 30 people. And to have 30 second dates, you need to go on 40 first dates. To go on 40 first dates, you need to have a circle of 80 people over the course of a year with whom you actually want to meet and who you should talk to one-on-one to plant the idea of going on a date in their minds.
This is where factors come into play that, despite any sales plans, will prevent those plans from being realized. A salesperson can technically make no more than 40 calls a day, or they may not be able to hold more than two meetings a day. Therefore, knowing the conversion rate from the number of meetings to the number of deals, along with the average deal size, one can, with some caveats regarding market capacity and competitive activity, estimate how many active salespeople are needed to achieve a specific sales target. The situation in the dating market looks similarly daunting: kissing 30 people over the course of a year is a challenge, not to mention that such an important stage as cohabitation can only be organized more than four times a year by very few. This means we either need to extend the search period, reduce the number of candidates worth considering, or optimize the funnel by using different conversion rates. In practice, this is exactly what happens. People surrounded by many others give themselves a long time to search, or they quickly choose from the five guys/girls available in their small town, knowing there won’t be more, or they try to take every first date to the next level.
So, we have a certain number of potential marriage partners. Let’s say there are 100 over a certain period, by the end of which one must make a choice. Each person can calculate their own “sales funnel” and understand how many partners they might have to choose from, based on the available time, social connections, and their own attractiveness. If the seeker rejects a partner, they do not return to them. Either the partner is proud, or they become occupied in another marriage. In life, returning to “exes” is extremely rare, so we will exclude that from possible scenarios for now. After all, the seeker rejected this partner for some reason. For clarity, let’s say this is a princess who is considering the suitors approaching her. If she rejects 99 out of 100 princes, she is forced to marry the 100th, regardless of whether he is good or bad— the others have left and will not return. Similarly, if the princess marries the very first prince, there is a 99% chance that she did not marry the best one. This means there is a certain number of princes that should be reviewed and rejected in order to later choose someone from the remaining options. This mathematical problem was solved in the 1960s and became the first in a whole field of mathematics now known as the theory of optimal stopping of random processes. [4]. Текст для перевода: ..
The mathematical solution to this problem suggests that one should review and reject n/e suitors, where n is the number of available princes and e is the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.718281… After that, the choice should be made on the first prince who is better than all the previous ones. For example, if we expect that a bride aged 18 to 28 will encounter 25 men, she should unconditionally reject the first:
This strategy gives the princess the highest probability of choosing the best among all the princes who could have been her husbands. This formula works for a large number of suitors, for example, 100 or more. For a small number of suitors, there are complications with whole and fractional parts. For instance, with five suitors, 5/e = 1.839… So how many should she reject? In fact, two, and it might be inappropriate to provide a detailed proof here. You just need to know that starting from the third candidate, the princess should choose the first one who is better than the previous two. If there are going to be 10 suitors, she should reject the first three or four. Of course, if there are fewer than five suitors, she should accept the very first prince she meets. Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, who did nothing to find a husband and just lay there waiting for a prince on a white horse to come to her, should have accepted the proposal of any random wanderer who found her in that state. For her, that would have been the best man, which means, by definition, a prince. No alternatives, literally.
Thus, to optimize the choice of the best spouse, a person should a) maximize the number of candidates and b) not hesitate to reject the first 37% (approximately 100% / 2.72…) of potential candidates. If the number of potential suitors is less than five, one should accept the proposal of the first person who thinks to make it or propose to the first person who is willing to accept. People have a choice: to sit and wait for the first passerby and marry them regardless of their “market” characteristics, or to become the architect of their own happiness, plan the necessary and optimal flow of potential partners, and make a conscious choice, putting in the effort. There’s no need to constantly calculate in your head how many to reject and whom to accept. The unconscious computational complex has been solving this problem for a couple of hundred million years without any Beresovskys. This biocomputer just needs to be shown and provided with the scale of choices so that it can decide, “yes, this is the one.”
Women often misinterpret the folk wisdom that advises them to “cast their nets” rather than confront a potential partner directly. In trying to apply this strategy to attract the attention of that guy they have a crush on, they end up in a dead end. They are not casting nets; they are hunting for a specific fish with a spear. Naturally, that fish is likely to slip away. Unlike the spear fisherman, the net fisherman doesn’t know which fish will end up in the nets and chooses the best one from the catch he has made. The very idea of “casting nets” excludes the situation where it concerns just one person.
People, without consciously trying to provide their bio-computer with new data about the number of brides or grooms, simply rely on their intuition to guide them on when to make a choice. However, the “Sleeping Beauty” strategy of marrying the first person or the “Nice Guy” strategy of marrying the first person they sleep with… [5]. This is relevant in small communities where the number of grooms or brides is limited. These are traditional societies where most people still live today. This includes villages, hamlets, camps, and tribes. The tactic of choosing the “first person encountered” is still employed by the biological computer, especially among those who live in villages or were born in them and have moved to the city. The biological computer has yet to realize that the number of potential grooms or brides has increased, and in these new conditions, its strategy for making a choice is no longer optimal.
How to maximize the number of candidates? At the very least, take an active approach and examine the characteristics of your “funnel” and ways to improve it. For example, don’t just sit around and wait. Don’t shy away from simultaneously handling incoming requests. It’s wise to have several romantic interests at different stages of development and to start a new one after finishing the previous one. If, for some high moral reasons, “sexual honesty” in relationships is extremely important, then out of these several romances, let only one be physical, a couple in the “candy-bouquet” stage, another five in active flirting, and about twenty in your contact list for casual conversation. This approach will make it easy to end romantic relationships that have reached an intimate stage but need to be terminated for the sake of optimizing your search. Simply “revealing” the presence of another suitor can lead to a high likelihood that your current lover will break up with you on their own.
This strategy is not new. Our “feelings,” which guide us, suggest the right patterns of behavior. It turns out that among teenagers, there are quite a few who operate “in parallel.” However, among adults and singles, there are very few. Of course, people may have matured and all that. But it’s worth remembering that those who actively sought have already found the best of what was available. By middle age, the market is left with only the “highly moral” and “second-rate” individuals, or simply those who are lazy. But as Albert Einstein once said, “The greatest stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.”
In essence
• Modern morality does not insist on the virginity of marriage participants. This can and should be used to understand what we truly want and what we choose.
• Our instinctive behavior strategy dictates that we should unconditionally reject the first 37% of candidates from those we are willing to consider.
If our brain unconsciously perceives the number of candidates as small, it will “switch on” infatuation for the first person we meet, which affects the quality of our choice.
At the same time, those who marry the person they lost their virginity to may, despite not having the best choice objectively, be happier than those who have gone through multiple partners. Their built-in system motivates them to hold on to such a rare and therefore valuable person.
• Does the optimal search strategy have anything to do with “easy behavior”? Should one not hesitate to assess and, if possible, increase the potential number of partners who will pass through your bed and, more importantly, who will take a “test drive” with you during the search for a wife/husband? Of course — yes. Should you sleep with all of them? No. 37% is enough.
• It’s always important to have a reliable friend or partner on hand who isn’t looking for marriage with you. This will make your mind more discerning and prevent you from falling for the wrong person.
The Curse of Beauty
Beautiful women are rarely alone, but often feel lonely.
Henrik Jagodziński
Dutch syndrome
This can be referred to as the paradox of plenty, where countries rich in natural resources are often considered to be less economically developed than those with few resources or none at all. [6]. Why does this happen? The main reason is that a country exporting resources receives a significant influx of foreign currency. It might seem that everything is fine, but in practice, two simultaneous events occur:
Firstly, the exchange rate of the national currency is strengthening. On the global market, the national currency of the exporting country is experiencing increasing demand, leading to a rise in its value. At the same time, within the exporting country, there is an excess of foreign currency, causing its value relative to the local currency to decline.
Secondly, the increase in revenue from resource sales leads to inflation within the country. As a result, prices in the local currency rise, but the exchange rate of that currency also increases. This situation causes a loss of competitiveness for domestic producers in the international market. No one wants to buy their goods at inflated prices. The cost of labor also rises, making it advantageous for local companies to relocate production to other countries. Consequently, the country focuses solely on extracting its main export resource, while the rest of the economy stagnates. The decline of other sectors is further exacerbated by the investment climate. Investors find it more profitable to invest in the sector related to the extraction of important resources rather than in other industries. Overall, there is a lack of genuine motivation and necessity to develop a real manufacturing sector, as resource revenues allow for a relatively comfortable living under the current circumstances. The country is experiencing stagnation and stagnation.
The same processes occur in the sexual market. If a person possesses some important resource given to them from birth, they exploit that resource and are unwilling to invest in developing other qualities. Why should a beautiful girl focus on self-improvement, get a good education, or learn to think critically if everything is already going well for her? Why should a handsome guy become an expert in ancient philosophy or be able to solve differential equations in his head? Moreover, if we consider that the cultural level of a partner is extremely important, it turns out that the more cultured a woman is, the fewer potential suitors she is willing to consider. Conversely, a woman with a low cultural level can still be in demand and even protected in the sexual market, as customs and laws prevent her from being expelled from the family. It is more likely that a developed husband will leave, leaving his limited wife with children, than that he will expel a wife with a low cultural level from the family and keep the children to pass on his culture. It seems that the more knowledge one has, the more sorrows one faces. The more cultured a woman is, the fewer chances she has of finding a suitable partner. Perhaps men from Arab countries are right when they offer fewer camels for an educated woman than for an uneducated one.
Similarly, a handsome man who has everything he needs from life as a biological entity—namely, access to female genitalia—will not develop other virtues. Operating on a transactional level, he lacks motivation for self-improvement. However, over time, this means he becomes unnecessary in the sexual market as a potential husband. The “macho” business strategy works excellently in the absence of contraceptives. Such individuals have historically reproduced well through a method of “carpet seeding.” In economically developed countries, these individuals are doomed to extinction, were it not for one caveat. If we consider a man as a commodity in the sexual market, we see a number of important characteristics for women, the presence and balance of which determine a man’s “suitability.” We have already touched on some of these characteristics: the ability to provide for a family, cultural level, and physical appearance.
It’s a mistake to think that “quality sex” is a characteristic that influences choice. For experienced women, it’s a default factor. No one is going to invest in a vacuum cleaner that doesn’t pick up dust. If a woman tolerates a man by her side, it’s primarily because he satisfies her as a man, not as a generator of dirty socks and unpleasant bathroom odors. For the inexperienced, they simply aren’t aware of “how else it can be” and believe that “this is how it should be” in any situation. As long as women remain confined within imposed and outdated moral standards that are irrelevant in the age of contraception and DNA testing, they won’t be able to shift to a strategy of choosing from many options and will select “in turn,” wasting precious time on each “trial.” In such conditions, most women simply have no vision of what “quality sex” is or whether it even exists.
You can add other characteristics that are valuable to the “buyer,” but there’s no need to list more than what has already been mentioned to understand why the “handsome ones” continue to reproduce. [7]. Текст для перевода: ..
Just imagine a woman with a high level of culture and good financial stability. She is unlikely to find a partner who can add anything to her cultural upbringing for her children. She is above most. It’s doubtful she will find someone wealthy enough to drastically change her standard of living. Besides, she doesn’t need a man’s money at all. She knows the value of her financial independence and has had her share of sponsors. Thanks to contraception, she hasn’t gotten pregnant by just anyone, has outgrown moral constraints, has become knowledgeable about sex, and has formed a fairly accurate view of the average man: “a barbarian and an idiot” or “a brute and a soldier.” So what does she need if culture and a partner’s wealth don’t interest her? Right! Beauty, sex, and youth. And what do we see in reality? Many accomplished women find exactly such men. Attractive, sexual, young, and that’s it. Are they smarter than her? With an age difference of 10 years or more, there are no smarter ones. There are gifted ones. What’s their level of culture? Not enough to compete with a woman. It’s sufficient for a nanny, and we’ll see from there—given the right motivation, they can become cultured. But that’s not the main thing. The main thing is that he’s good in bed and that she won’t be embarrassed to be seen with him in public. And the man is doomed. Young and transactional in his thinking, he won’t be able to counter her wisdom and strategy. If she has her eye on him, everything will go as planned. Meanwhile, he will remain under the impression that he has won this woman over. [8]. Текст для перевода: ..
The lure effect
It was mentioned above that a woman, as long as she is beautiful, doesn’t need to shine with intelligence or culture. She will find a mate for reproduction. Yes, it’s transactional, but nature only keeps the winners alive, and if transactional relationships are enough for the next generation to appear, then there’s no need to delve deeper. So why hasn’t natural selection eliminated all the smart and just pretty women as failures? It all comes down to optimizing men’s search strategies. This is unconscious behavior, but it is extremely rational. Men genuinely love “just pretty” women, while they tend to avoid “super beauties.” [9]. In marketing, the decoy effect (or asymmetrical dominance effect) is a phenomenon where consumers tend to change their choice between two options when presented with a third option that is asymmetrically worse than the others. An option is considered asymmetrically worse when it is inferior to one of the options in all aspects, but compared to another initially inferior option, it is worse in some aspects and better in others. In other words, in terms of specific attributes that determine an advantage, it is completely worse than one option and partially worse than the second option. When an asymmetrically worse option is present, a larger percentage of consumers will choose the initially inferior option than when the asymmetrically worse option is absent. [10]. Thus, asymmetrically worse options are referred to as decoys, which are used to enhance the appeal of an initially inferior choice. Marketers and salespeople employ the decoy effect, calling it the “undertaker’s tactic,” while politicians use it to attract votes by presenting “technical” candidates or “clowns” who are meant to be unacceptable to the general population. Women also use this strategy by bringing along less attractive friends as companions, in order to draw a man’s attention to themselves when a 100% beauty is nearby, leveraging the “worst alternative.”
Such seemingly irrational behavior is also characteristic of animals. For instance, female tungara frogs choose their mates based on their calls. The lower the pitch of the sounds produced by a male, the longer they last, and the more frequently the male emits mating calls, the greater his chances of success. All frogs have the same preferences, and if recordings of male tungara frog mating calls are played from two speakers, females will approach the one that produces what is generally considered the more appealing sounds: those with a lower pitch or those that last longer, for example. This means that any female can always rank a pair of males in terms of attractiveness. However, it turns out that the frogs’ behavior can seem irrational: females are more likely to choose the less attractive male from two options if a third, less appealing alternative is introduced. [11]. Текст для перевода: ..
First, the researchers ensured that the preferences of all 80 frogs participating in the experiment were aligned—that is, they chose the recording of calls that was lower in pitch, longer in duration, or more frequently heard. Ideally, they preferred all these qualities at once. After ranking all the mating call recordings by attractiveness, the scientists began conducting experiments with three voices. The addition of a less appealing option affected the frogs’ choices: they more often selected the one they had previously liked less in pairwise comparisons. Interestingly, the so-called “phantom decoy effect” also worked for the frogs—this occurs when a third alternative is known to exist but is not accessible. To model this effect in the experiments, one of the three speakers broadcasting the least attractive call was suspended from the ceiling, making it impossible for the frogs to approach it. Even in this case, the third alternative influenced the frogs’ preferences, leading them to choose the option that had previously seemed less appealing in pairwise comparisons.
But such behavior only seems irrational. In reality, by choosing “not the best,” a more optimal solution to the choice problem is achieved. It’s no coincidence that it’s said that men love one type of woman but marry another. Imagine a scenario similar to a man’s dilemma—reliably choosing one of the alternatives. You drive into an important tourist city on the day of a carnival. Parking on the street is impossible. The city has several parking lots, but there are also traffic jams and congestion—many people want to enter the city, and you need to park your car and make it to the carnival. Will you first try to get to the parking lot in the city center and then attempt other lots, wasting precious time in traffic and risking not finding a parking spot at all? Or will you ignore all the distant parking lots and try your luck at a lot that is closer to the center but not the most central? Your reasoning will be aided by the fact that there is only one central parking lot, while there are several more or less equally good options that are not central, which reduces the pressure of demand, assuming that the number of people with the same level of ambition as yours is the same for any parking lot.
The male strategy for choosing a woman is just like the strategy for male tungara frogs. The “parking” rules are even stricter. Your car can be towed away if someone wealthier comes along and is willing to pay double the price for an hour of parking. A man has no incentive to pursue a woman, spending time and resources on her, if there’s a high chance of competing with a more capable suitor. It doesn’t even make sense for a man to approach such a woman, as she is in high demand and rejects potential suitors with particular diligence. Moreover, if he then tries his luck with less attractive women, he will also be rejected, as no one wants to be a second-rate woman. The only mathematically sound strategy is to ignore the super-beauty. However, men have one important advantage over drivers looking for parking. Imagine being able to park your car “anywhere” and then calmly go off in search of a better parking spot or even quietly nudge that Bentley over to take its place in the elite parking area until the owner returns. [12]. Текст для перевода: ..
As a result, beautiful women with a good level of culture who do not wish to sell themselves openly find themselves sidelined. Vulgar nouveau riche do not interest them, and normal men avoid them, creating legends to rationalize their avoidance, claiming that all beauties are airheads and logs in bed, when in reality, they just lack the courage. The grapes are sour, right? Consequently, the next generation consists of simply pretty girls, the majority of whom dream of becoming beauties for some reason, thereby supporting several sectors of the economy with their spending. However, to see the inefficacy of “absolute beauty,” one only needs to compare the number of views on porn videos featuring “standard” actresses with “lips, silicone, butt, legs, makeup” to those with just “so-called modest girls.”
In essence
• Beautiful people are rarely smart. They simply don’t need to be. However, quoting Oscar Wilde, beauty is a gift for a few years. If you’re damn beautiful, you shouldn’t let your guard down.
• An important paradox is that starting from a certain level, the better you are, the less in demand you will be. If you want to attract more partners, lower your standards.
In any market system, 100% utilization of production capacity is not expected by anyone. Demand exceeding supply can only occur in the short term. No airline plans its flights with 100% occupancy. No hotel is fully booked at 100%. In any parking lot, even one that appears to be full, it is more likely that there is at least one free space available than that there are no spaces at all.
Market friction
I’m increasingly plagued by the vague feeling that when I finally find a boyfriend, there will be a message saying “quest completed” and the game will be over.
Someone on an internet forum.
The Nobel Prize in Economics in 2010 was awarded to Americans Peter Diamond and Dale Mortensen, as well as British economist Christopher A. Sims, all specialists in labor markets. What they were recognized for is now considered a given, and every educated and reasonable person takes it for granted. However, 40 years ago, they were the first to notice that the market, as described by standard economic models, is quite far from reality. Naturally, they proposed mathematical models showing how so-called “search frictions” affect supply and demand. Classical economics tells a neat story: there is demand, there is supply, and every buyer will find their product at the lowest price. But in real life, it’s not like that at all.
Firstly, the seller is often very far from the buyer. The buyer may not even be aware that there is an attractive offer from a particular seller. Secondly, even if the buyer suspects they are overpaying, they might be willing to do so because they do not want to expend the effort and time searching for a better deal. High costs are often associated with the difficulties sellers face in finding buyers, and vice versa. Even after they find each other, the offered product may not always meet the buyer’s needs, and then no exchange occurs, leaving both market participants to continue their search. The time that elapses from when a product is put up for sale to the moment of the transaction also has a cost: these expenses must be factored into the final price of the product. It was precisely the “frictions” between sellers and buyers in the process of searching for advantageous deals that interested all three laureates.
Peter Diamond, Dale Mortensen, and Christopher A. Sims in their research show that in many markets, buyers and sellers do not always directly interact with each other. This is particularly true for the sexual market. The process of searching for a woman or a man involves both time and financial costs. As a result, in such markets, the expectations of many buyers cannot be met, and sellers cannot sell their “product” (themselves) at a fair price. For this reason, there are many single women and many single men who would like to get married but are unable to find a partner.
The conclusions that these three economists reached 40 years ago now seem quite obvious:
- External factors play an important role in the job market that are often overlooked by those conducting the search. A simple example: if one unemployed person suddenly becomes more active in the market and starts looking for a new job, their chances of landing a good position increase, while everyone else’s chances decrease. Meanwhile, the other job seekers are unaware of the first person’s increased activity.
- In the classical market competition model, the outcome of the struggle is always the only correct and most efficient one. However, in the real world, there can be several possible outcomes, although only one of them will be the most correct and effective.
Search theory has proven to be incredibly important for specific studies that explain why there is such a significant disparity in salaries, the prices of the same goods, and the existence of undemanded (not purchased in the market) goods and services that theoretically should have demand. This theory explains why expensive real estate takes longer to sell, why a desirable bachelor may remain unmarried, and why a beautiful and intelligent girl, as the saying goes, may not know her worth.
In other words, the question of finding a partner is influenced not only by the balance of supply and demand but also by the very act of searching. Are we looking for a partner, or are we content as long as everything is fine? The book mentions several times why it’s important to take an active approach to life. Now we have three Nobel laureates as additional authorities to draw from. Why do people not engage in active searching? In reality, people tend to do what they absolutely need to do with a clear mind. The most worn-out parable about motivation illustrates this with the example of someone who needs to use the restroom. For them, there are no obstacles. It’s true that the best motivation comes from within. If the brain’s computer thinks everything is fine, it won’t start producing motivational substances that activate the search for a partner. And the brain can be easily deceived. Our brain, which evolved in conditions where potential mates could be counted on one hand, perceives the abundance of the opposite sex in society as a relaxing surplus. Besides direct observation, the brain is also misled by watching television shows and, especially, pornography.
Many women literally spend their lives in relationships that will never lead to the desired outcome, as they believe there are plenty of men available. They also use the many married men around them not as a way to increase their own desirability, but as a means to satisfy their own needs. Similarly, many men consume tons of pornography and struggle to even talk to a woman without feeling embarrassed or stuttering. However, if a person truly wants to find something, they need to get rid of the things that drain their motivation, rather than telling themselves stories about their own unattractiveness or the lack of worthy candidates in the sexual market. There are plenty of potential partners out there. It’s just that a person tends to settle for whatever they can find if they don’t see any good options. But once they learn to recognize and seek out the right opportunities, they won’t settle for anything less. The question is how to reduce “search costs” and how to conduct the search effectively so that what you need comes to you, rather than to your competitors.
In essence
The sexual market differs from the classical one in terms of what are called “search costs.” No one knows how wonderful you are or that you’re a great family person, except for your parents.
• The market situation is influenced by the activity of its participants. If someone is actively searching, that alone reduces your chances.
• The motivation for search activity is triggered at a subconscious level. In today’s world, the brain is deceived by the illusion of a large number of available partners and does not activate the search mode. We feel it’s more appropriate to “sit back and choose” — we rationalize the subconscious decision to refrain from taking active steps.
Monopoly
Even a monopoly on good is not good.
Ishkhan Gevorgyan
Every supplier in any market strives to maximize their own profit. In a competitive environment, where there are many suppliers, each individual supplier will adhere to the price that has been established in the market. This price will be the lowest possible for the producer. They cannot sell consistently at a lower price, as that would lead to bankruptcy, and they also cannot sell at a higher price because no one would buy the product from them.
In a monopoly, the supplier, being the sole provider in the market, can sell the product at both lower and higher prices. They are not dealing with the demand for their specific product but rather with the overall demand for such goods in the market, as they are the only supplier available. A monopolist could set the price as high as possible if there were no substitute goods or alternative solutions in the economy, even if replacing the monopolized product with another is illegal. This means that the monopolist’s sales volume is also dependent on the price they set. The higher the price of, say, monopolized vodka, the more people will prefer alternatives like homemade alcohol, glue, drugs, or smuggled goods when considering direct substitutes, or they may choose to forgo the expensive product altogether, opting to spend their money on other household budget items. Additionally, since the monopolist is dealing with overall demand, they encounter the concept of saturation. The utility, and thus the demand, for each of the 100 tankers of vodka sold will be greater than the utility of each of the 200 tankers if production volumes are increased.
In the sexual market, there are also classic monopolies, which we refer to as “the bonds of marriage.” It’s interesting to look at the behavior of the supplier of “marital duty” (hereafter referred to as m.d.) as a monopolist. If the supplier provides 10 units of m.d. per month, the consumer is willing to pay, say, 5 units of currency for each one—conditional value units, not dollars, as you might have thought. In total, by supplying 10 m.d., the supplier earns 50 units. However, if the supplier increases the supply to 20 m.d., the buyer is only willing to pay 2 units for each marital duty. Thus, the supplier would earn 40 units per month while supplying more m.d. The supplier might try to reduce the amount supplied to 5 per month. Naturally, the value of m.d. would increase, and it would be worth 8 units each. In this case, the supplier would end up with 5 * 8 = 40 units. This means that under monopoly conditions, the supplier has an optimal production volume that is clearly less than the maximum possible and is offered at a price that is clearly higher than what would exist in a free market. In a free market, where the behavior of each supplier has little impact on overall demand, the supplier would offer the maximum possible quantity of goods, charging a price dictated by the market—the price of the product does not depend on the volume of production in conditions of pure competition.
If we understand “s.d.” to mean, for example, just sex, we can compare competitive relationships, such as prostitution, with monopolistic relationships—marriage under the terms of support. A man, bringing home, say, 3000 monetary units, gives half to his wife and receives sex in return once or twice a week. In total, that amounts to 150…75 monetary units per sex session. If the man goes to a prostitute, he pays 50 monetary units per session and can have 15 sexual encounters in a month for the same amount. The prostitute, being a competitive rather than a monopolistic provider, gives half of her earnings to pimps or the brothel, earning 25 monetary units per session, but she can provide 10-20 sessions a day or earn, working 5 days a week, from 5000 monetary units a month. However, considering the competitive nature of the prostitution market, the prostitute cannot reach maximum production capacity, and her earnings are exactly the amount that will keep her in the market. Of course, there is another side to prostitution—when, on the contrary, the prostitute works continuously but earns very little, with the rest going to the brothel. But here we are talking about a regulated market rather than a competitive one.
But “marital duty” is not just about sex. It encompasses the entire range of services that spouses provide to each other in marriage as exclusive suppliers. A monopolist, in trying to maximize their profit, seeks to raise prices for their product to the highest possible level while keeping the quantity produced at a level that maximizes profit. This leads to inefficiencies in resource allocation, where significantly less product is produced than is needed to establish equilibrium in the market, even in a perfectly competitive one. In fact, this also provokes a shortage of the produced goods. In everyday life, this translates to complaints like “take down the Christmas tree,” poor and/or infrequent sex, a reluctance to do household chores well, shifting responsibilities for various tasks onto one’s spouse, and avoiding the joint creation of public goods that are consumed by the entire household, and so on.
In the context of mandatory marital relationships and the taboo against seeking sexual satisfaction outside of marriage, all the work that needs to be done within the family will, in one way or another, be carried out by the family member who is more vulnerable to violence. The other family member will only handle the part of the work that the weaker member simply cannot do, or will do in a noticeably less effective manner, taking significantly longer, or using more resources. Thus, the very idea of a taboo marriage primarily benefits the man—who is typically the stronger and more aggressive partner in the marriage.
Monopoly, both in market relations and in sexual contexts, is neither effective nor “optimal for the consumer in the market.” Society’s attitude towards monopolies has changed over time. The first monopolies were created by the state, which, centuries later, felt it was its duty to protect society from monopolies. The evolution of sexual relationships also allows us to view marital monopoly not as something “natural,” but as a phenomenon whose utility is at least open to discussion.
The naturalness of the marriage monopoly lies in the fact that marriage has historically been entered into for the purpose of procreation. In the absence of contraceptives and methods of proving paternity, it ensured the chastity of the wife and, through purely administrative means, guaranteed the husband’s paternity. Additionally, by acquiring her husband in a monopolistic manner, the wife ensured that all the income he brought into the household would be shared within the family, rather than with other women and children.
In modern conditions, where marital relationships have reduced to an agreement between parties under the rules of inheritance and property division, as well as responsibility for raising children, and where contraceptives and paternity testing have eliminated the natural necessity for exclusive ownership by spouses, any demand for monopoly by spouses is more dishonorable than marital infidelity. An administrative ban on obtaining sexual satisfaction outside the marriage, imposed by one spouse, is essentially a declaration that this spouse does not wish or is unable to provide sexual satisfaction of the quality and in the volume that is available in the free market. In other words, the spouse, through administrative measures, is trying to establish a monopoly position for themselves and gain more profit while ineffectively managing the available resources. [13]. Текст для перевода: ..
In other words, the very behavior of establishing administrative prohibitions is a declaration of market and competitive weakness.
This phenomenon is precisely what leads men to opt for “civil” unions over legal marriage. It guarantees them that in the face of potential competition, they will receive more from a “civil” wife than from a “legal” one. This phenomenon also explains why partners who enter into a “legal” marriage tend to have less sex, communicate less, become less affectionate towards each other, and are more prone to arguments, even though, seemingly, everything they could gain from interacting with the opposite sex, they are getting from the very person they are willing to argue with. [14]. Текст для перевода: ..
An administratively binding monopoly exists in any organization. For example, an in-house lawyer, accountant, or HR specialist is a monopolistic provider of their services within the organization. Many companies have long realized that outsourcing, despite its apparent “cost,” is a more economical option for obtaining services compared to the monopoly of in-house employees. Thanks to advancements in information technology, outsourcing is becoming the optimal solution for almost any type of activity that a company engages in: supply, distribution, warehousing, production, logistics, accounting, real estate, IT services, design, and branding.
Perhaps in marriage, it also makes sense to think about outsourcing everything, including what is a key function of the family – raising one’s own children. At this point, logical reasoning runs up against the existing moral standards in society. Allowing “open relationships” is not only immoral but also irrational. Despite the fact that open competition allows consumers to obtain goods and services in greater volume and of better quality, the consumer of those goods and services is interested in maintaining their own monopoly as the provider for their spouse.
In essence
• A monopoly benefits the supplier, but not the consumer.
• Marriage is a mutual monopoly that burdens relationships. Insisting on monopolistic rights is a declaration of one’s own lack of competitiveness.
Companies are trying to replace monopolistic relationships with internal suppliers with outsourcing whenever possible.
• Outsourcing marital duties, in the broadest sense of the term, is an economically viable idea, but it is immoral.
• Paradoxically, when spouses continue to treat each other as if they are not married, thereby neglecting their monopoly on the relationship, their interactions tend to be more harmonious. Spouses often allow a level of rudeness, arrogance, and disrespect towards each other that they would never tolerate from their neighbors, colleagues, or strangers on the street.
The text for translation: [1].The idea of a children’s fairy tale as a life script is explored in E. Berne’s book “Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships.”
[2].Reliable contraception and evidence-based fatherhood were discussed by B. Russell in his 1929 book “Marriage and Morality” as “inventions of the future” that would fundamentally impact social structure. Bertrand Russell’s reflections on where these inventions would lead turned out to be prophetic. He predicted the disappearance of the institution of marriage as it existed before the early 20th century. He also noted that free education for children would become widespread, which indeed happened. B. Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1950 for his book “Marriage and Morality.”
[3].They say that there is absolutely no prostitution on the island of Crete. It’s absent because local men believe that women owe them if they are satisfied. And they are right. After all, who puts in more effort and tries harder?
[4].By the way, B.A. Berezovsky, whom we know as the disgraced Russian oligarch, defended his doctoral dissertation in mathematics, which was specifically related to a generalized version of the problem of the selective bride.
[5].It’s precisely because of this that boys marry the first girl they sleep with; their internal calculator miscounts the number of potential brides. As a result, they fall into a crazy infatuation, making vows of fidelity and so on. This miscalculation happens because, in their youth, “no one gives it up” to them. And this girl “finally did.”
[6].In economics, this is referred to as the “Dutch disease.” This effect got its name after the Netherlands discovered natural gas fields in 1959. The increase in gas exports led to rising inflation and unemployment, a decline in the export of manufactured goods, and a slowdown in income growth during the 1970s. The rise in oil prices in the mid-1970s and early 1980s caused a similar effect in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Mexico.
[7].In poorer communities, women tend to prefer macho men because life is tough, and traits like height, strength, and status in the animal hierarchy are valued. In wealthier communities, however, women are more inclined to choose men who show a greater inclination towards nurturing and caring for offspring. This happens because the poor are not burdened by valuable possessions, and the distribution of culture and wealth in such communities is more egalitarian. Therefore, all else being equal, physical attributes become the primary criterion for selection. Poor women still evaluate men as resource and cultural investors, but there simply aren’t many options to choose from—everyone is equally poor and primitive.
[8].At the same time, this is not about gold diggers who consciously prey on high-achieving women. Although, that does happen too.
[9].For this idea, which has found application in various fields of economics and laid the groundwork for many other theories, mathematician John Nash (the one portrayed in the film “A Beautiful Mind”) was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1994.
[10].A very similar analogy can be found in the job market. Employers are hesitant to hire staff who have very high qualifications. There’s even a term for it: “overqualified.” Employers fear that a highly qualified person will view the offered position as temporary and will quickly jump to another company if the opportunity arises. A similar analogy can also be found in sales. A good salesperson will never approach a large corporate company unless they have strong connections there. They will target mid-sized companies—not small ones, which are not worth the time, but also not the huge ones that sales departments are vying for and that all known and unknown competitors dream of acquiring.
[11].J. Huber et al. (June 1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis.The Journal of Consumer Research 9 (1)
[12].Amanda M. Lea, Michael J. Ryan. Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs // Science. 2015. V. 349. P. 964–966.
[13].Thus, national telecom companies, realizing that they are dinosaurs and unable to compete with other operators using their outdated technologies, seek government bans on internet telephony, callback services, the use of telephone infrastructure, or the creation of alternative telephone infrastructure, as well as licensing for the sale of international voice traffic, and so on.
[14].A stamp in the passport itself has little impact on the “tone” of the relationship between spouses. However, when arguments arise about who is in charge, there is constant mutual criticism, and the inability to accept it – all of these are typical signs of a relationship entering a “monopoly” phase.