<![CDATA[Jezebel: the game theory]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: the game theory]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/thegametheory http://jezebel.com/tag/thegametheory <![CDATA[Game Theory Reveals Why Local Amateur Game Theorist Is Still Single]]> Slate got a philosophy major named Mark Gimein to apply Game Theory to the problem of Women My Age And Older Who Can't Find Husbands. (What an unusual move, couching Tyra-grade subject matter in grandiose academic terminology!) I read it because I never really understood "game theory" and I still don't, but here's the takeaway: dating is like eBay, meaning it rewards freaks who know how to game the system and will Stop At Nothing to nail that pair of rare limited-edition vintage...uh... widgets, and people like me who find eBay profoundly frightening will die alone. Which is all fine, I have accepted as much. But wait! What the fuckery is this?

This is how you come to the Eligible-Bachelor Paradox, which is no longer so paradoxical. The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed). And at the same time, you get a pool of women weighted toward the attractive, desirable "strong bidders." Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.
Um, Mark? Exactly what sort of galaxy's Modern Love section led you to believe it was a widely-held assumption that decisiveness was our problem?
Evolutionary psychologists will remind us that there's a long line of writing about "female choosiness" going back to Darwin and the male peacocks competing to get noticed by "choosy" mates with their splendid plumage.
Oh Jesus. Did you learn that at Yale? Or from Mystery? Either way, friend, you should probably leave the house and make your way to a local purveyor of alcohol. We whores have evolved into some pretty decisive creatures.

The Eligible Bachelor Paradox [Slate]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=378332&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Do Some Women Fake Orgasms Just Because They Are Insane?]]> We thought that the phenomenon of economists ignoring pressing issues pertaining to the economy in order to study random shit like "happiness" and crap was relatively recent. Then a reader sent us a story from Slate on "The Economics of Faking Orgasm" that was so batshit we had to tell you about it three years late. It involves "game theory" — and crazy people.

The obvious reason to fake is to please your partner. But what about a woman who doesn't particularly care about her partner? Might she still fake? Mialon concocts a scenario—though a contrived one—where the answer is yes. Suppose Adam is very insecure and always suspects Eve of faking. Suppose the one thing Eve really hates is having a partner who's always wrong. Then since Adam always thinks she's faking, she has to fake to make him right. Eve's fakery reinforces Adam's skepticism and Adam's skepticism reinforces Eve's fakery, so we have what economists call equilibrium.
So what economists call "equilibrium" = a Sartre play?

Seriously, who exactly fakes it with a dude because nothing is a bigger bonerkiller than a man who is wrong about suspecting that you are faking it, and so would rather fake it, then kick the dude out of the bed and masturbate for awhile on the idea of how rightfully insecure he was about his fake inability to get her off, than get off for real and spend a few weeks rolling her eyes at his insecurities until, you know, over time, he got over them? Oh wait: I think I know: someone like Elisa Kwon.

The Economics Of Faking Orgasm [Slate]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=306309&view=rss&microfeed=true