NEW FEATURE: VOTE & EARN NEATOPOINTS!
Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!

Chris Matyszczyk explains that the laws of probability indicate when you should settle for one prospective mate, and when you should keep on looking. There's a point of diminishing returns in a succession of relationships when you should marry before your prospects start to get worse:

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.

Image: U.S. Department of Energy

@Skipweasel:
I think the idea is that if you estimate you will have n options in your lifetime, you should reject the first n/e options, then choose the best one after that.

Estimating n is the hard part.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I wonder if it works over time. After having been with a few people can I assume (or pretend) that I rejected them and I should include that number of people in my math up to 37?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
How to beat the 37% rule:

http://www-abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/users/ptodd/publications/todd97/todd97a.htm

Testing 9 to 12 candidates and then taking the next better one gets you into the top 75 to 90% of the pool, whether the pool is 100 or 1000.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Young people need a few extra tries, because you have to date a few people before you even realize what qualities are really important to you. The mating game is a learning experience, too.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"What the hell is that anyway, "something like thirty-six?" Does that include me?"

"Um. Thirty-seven."

"I'm THIRTY SEVEN?"
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Alex : You really don't like Slovaks huh? That name is pronounced "Ma-Tee-Zee-Shik." I bet you have some boring last name like Phillips.

Anyway... Interesting article, good to know. Now I have to count up the number over crushes/lovers I've had and see if I'm close... I think I'm almost there.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I would take half the pile of applicants and immediately discard them as I don't want to mate with those who have bad luck.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ Puzzled Monkey

I believe what you're seeing tested empirically in figures 2 and 5 of that paper is this ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem#Cardinal_payoff_variant

For that problem, the optimal skip pool, given N candidates, is sqrt(N):
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2005.11.003

So for N=100, it's 10, and for N=1000, it's ~32.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
30 SEVEN???
Okay- so should I now acutely divorce my wife that I 've been with harmoniously for the past 20 years to date some 34 ladies more...?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think that trying to put a number figure on how many people you should turn down before looking for a mate is crazy. Now yes I do agree that you must have a number of relationships in order to find out what makes you happy but to think that at a certain number you should change your outlook and coose one is pretty stupid in my eyes.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's NOT the number you date or whom you reject: It's the *Probability* of success or compatibility or whatever. Gather 100 candidates of suitable age and attainment, mix them up, count them off and carry #37 to the haystack.

Even so, as stated, you're only a little better than 1-in-3 by this method, a bit worse than 'real-world,' where the marriage breakup rate is ~ 1-in-2
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Email This Post to a Friend
"How to Use Math to Choose a Spouse"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window