vicarz: (Default)
vicarz ([personal profile] vicarz) wrote2008-05-20 02:42 am

(no subject)

2:42 and I can't get back to sleep. Something about working out often leads to this - is it the massive post-workout food (a small sandwich?) being sore (no, not really) or some rebound effect?

Reading "The Logic of Life" by Tim Harford. These econ meets life books are killing me, thanks a lot Colin. They're like candy for people with 3 digit iqs. And cynics.

Take romance vs. economics. I had a friend telling me that in NY nobody looks at a female over 30 w/o kids like she's crazy. Well, according to sex in the city of NY 1.3 million males bounce around 1.8 million females. In fact, statistics show that overall urban environments have a higher % of males than rural in the industrialized world. Women in areas in which they outnumber men, even by a little bit, tend to be higher paid and more educated.

So not crazy perhaps just means not alone.

A while ago I was whining that girls all stated they want tall men. However, it turns out that in all studies (and certainly my experience) you choose what you have to choose from. Economics folks have been cruising "speed dating" for data, and finding sad realities:
Men choose twice as many possible mates as females
Everyone lowers their standards based on what is available. Big time. So much so it is comical. Women want tall, but settle quickly when no tall people are around (Mexico and Asia, here I come). Men want not overweight (I'm quoting here) but will settle when no thin women are around.
Or as noted in Silence of the Lambs, you first covet what you know?
If true, I should get the fuck out of gothdom and fast...

As housework got easier, both men and women started marrying at older ages. The division of labor became less important so there was no need to pair up? Divorce rates have shown steady trends related to developing nations, while female worker participation is related to lower rates of abuse. Bargaining power = love. Fascinating theories.

Still wish I could sleep. When I got up star trek, 5th element, and harvey birdman were on. Thank insomnia for cable. In 2 hours I might as well get up.

[identity profile] vicar.livejournal.com 2008-05-20 04:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Well I like the statistics better. They say regardless of each individual, x trait nets y points in the mating game. However, if the field of people is 2x and you are 4x, then...it's just math and all the romance crap out the window when you measure what people actually do compared to their stated preference.

It's why people bang people they might not otherwise find attractive when they work with them.

[identity profile] kelowna.livejournal.com 2008-05-20 04:41 pm (UTC)(link)
And then LOVE happens and it all goes out the window :)

Attraction is not something that is statistical - I think its chemical. It operates on a base level that is not well socialized. It baffles me what I find attractive and what I don't and why, over time, those thoughts change. I don't care about height, weight, income nor education when it comes to attraction. Attraction just happens.

Those other things come into play when a life partner is being chosen. Because I need someone supportive and active and positive and inspiring...

--k

Resistance is futile

[identity profile] vicar.livejournal.com 2008-05-20 04:49 pm (UTC)(link)
There are always variances, but this is why I like stats - it controls for all that, and simply says out of x people y will do z. Exceptions are not relevant. You will be counted.