A certain topic has always thoroughly intrigued me. Hopefully this first post, somewhat based off of some notes I jotted down to myself sometime back, introduces it properly.
In April 2011, Ian presented to me a statistics problem, the full implications of which did not strike me until just this moment. The problem goes like this: 100 identical boxes each contain a prize, of varying amounts. Not a single value of any prize is known to you. You are permitted to open each box one by one and view the prize it contains, at which point, you may either accept the prize and stop opening boxes, or reject the prize, toss it aside, and never go back to it. How do you maximize your chances of receiving the highest prize of the set?
After applying some fairly advanced calculus, the final derivation is simple. Dividing the total number of boxes by e, you end up with a value for a "test set".
In the case of 100 boxes, we round the value to 36. This is the number of boxes that you will open, but always reject. Make a note of the largest prize you discovered, of these 36. Setting this prize as a relative value marker, you would start to go through the remaining 64 boxes, and blindly accept the very first prize that exceeds the marker. If you follow this strategy to the letter, you end up with a 37% chance of choosing the highest prize in the entire set. Not just a relatively good prize.The very best one.
It was initially Ian's idea to relate this concept to dating, in terms of finding your "soulmate". Of course, this is assuming that the value of people can be quantified (though, what can't be quantified to an economist?)
This also ignores the fact that people sometimes do return to their ex-lovers, although perhaps this better allows you to hedge your bets.
Katherine also listened as he presented us this problem as well as its application, and she had the very sensible response of intrigue, followed by amusement.
Unfortunately , my mind is unable to measure ideas by their appropriate amount of emotional value.
For a while I agonized over the solution, constantly trying to conceive of a scenario in which the methodology would work, while knowing that I'd feel awful if I ever actually came up with one.
It finally hit me. Arranged marriages, as they exist presently in India, seem to replicate this phenomena very similarly. The advent of capitalist systems and set salaries, combined with ultra-modern Indian matchmaking websites, have enabled people to quantify a potential spouse's worth in a manner that suits them. The time limit during which one plans to marry, and by extension, the number of people they will have the time to meet can be reasonably estimated. Finally, going back to any rejected matches is far less likely in this case, than would be a reconciliation with an ex-lover.
This really seems to me to be the same thing, as long as you have the courage to give up on what seems like a good match. And in a country of 1 billion people, young men and women often do so wantonly.
Here are the bullet point conclusions I had jotted down:
1) The arranged marriage system boils down to a set statistics formula;
2) This may have something to do with why the divorce rate in India is so low;
3) Contrary to the commonly-held belief by many Indian families that arranged marriage is based on compromise and a restrictive realism, from this perspective, the system seems to be wholly designed for you to find "The One".
My feelings towards arranged marriage have always been loosely analogous to those of a gay person towards heterosexuality. It is a concept with which I am all too accustomed to and fully accepting towards, as long as there is no coercion involved, but it's not a lifestyle I, personally, could ever conceive of becoming a part of. This metaphor becomes clearer with the realization that most of the adults I have ever become close to, participated in this at some point in their lives.
In the next post or two I want to tackle my feelings towards not only arranged marriage, but the intriguing idea of marriage in general.
In April 2011, Ian presented to me a statistics problem, the full implications of which did not strike me until just this moment. The problem goes like this: 100 identical boxes each contain a prize, of varying amounts. Not a single value of any prize is known to you. You are permitted to open each box one by one and view the prize it contains, at which point, you may either accept the prize and stop opening boxes, or reject the prize, toss it aside, and never go back to it. How do you maximize your chances of receiving the highest prize of the set?
After applying some fairly advanced calculus, the final derivation is simple. Dividing the total number of boxes by e, you end up with a value for a "test set".
In the case of 100 boxes, we round the value to 36. This is the number of boxes that you will open, but always reject. Make a note of the largest prize you discovered, of these 36. Setting this prize as a relative value marker, you would start to go through the remaining 64 boxes, and blindly accept the very first prize that exceeds the marker. If you follow this strategy to the letter, you end up with a 37% chance of choosing the highest prize in the entire set. Not just a relatively good prize.The very best one.
It was initially Ian's idea to relate this concept to dating, in terms of finding your "soulmate". Of course, this is assuming that the value of people can be quantified (though, what can't be quantified to an economist?)
This also ignores the fact that people sometimes do return to their ex-lovers, although perhaps this better allows you to hedge your bets.
Katherine also listened as he presented us this problem as well as its application, and she had the very sensible response of intrigue, followed by amusement.
Unfortunately , my mind is unable to measure ideas by their appropriate amount of emotional value.
For a while I agonized over the solution, constantly trying to conceive of a scenario in which the methodology would work, while knowing that I'd feel awful if I ever actually came up with one.
It finally hit me. Arranged marriages, as they exist presently in India, seem to replicate this phenomena very similarly. The advent of capitalist systems and set salaries, combined with ultra-modern Indian matchmaking websites, have enabled people to quantify a potential spouse's worth in a manner that suits them. The time limit during which one plans to marry, and by extension, the number of people they will have the time to meet can be reasonably estimated. Finally, going back to any rejected matches is far less likely in this case, than would be a reconciliation with an ex-lover.
This really seems to me to be the same thing, as long as you have the courage to give up on what seems like a good match. And in a country of 1 billion people, young men and women often do so wantonly.
Here are the bullet point conclusions I had jotted down:
1) The arranged marriage system boils down to a set statistics formula;
2) This may have something to do with why the divorce rate in India is so low;
3) Contrary to the commonly-held belief by many Indian families that arranged marriage is based on compromise and a restrictive realism, from this perspective, the system seems to be wholly designed for you to find "The One".
My feelings towards arranged marriage have always been loosely analogous to those of a gay person towards heterosexuality. It is a concept with which I am all too accustomed to and fully accepting towards, as long as there is no coercion involved, but it's not a lifestyle I, personally, could ever conceive of becoming a part of. This metaphor becomes clearer with the realization that most of the adults I have ever become close to, participated in this at some point in their lives.
In the next post or two I want to tackle my feelings towards not only arranged marriage, but the intriguing idea of marriage in general.
Can you clarify what you mean by arranged marriage? From reading this post I'm not sure whether you're referring to a) A one-time marriage agree pre-determined by someone else with partial or no input or b) Dating websites that go under the moniker of "arranged marriage" but are really just like regular dating websites excepts everyone is on the website with the intention to eventually marry someone from the website.
ReplyDeleteSorry if this wasn't clear from the post. I'll do a better of explaining myself next time.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm aware, most modern-day Indian arranged marriages work like this: the parents and guy/girl have a set criteria based on their preferences, which often include things such as: religion, region of India, and caste. Generally those are the "necessary" conditions.
Then they meet people who conform to these descriptions, based on tips from mutual friends or, these days, dating websites. They meet a couple of times and then if all parties agree, they move forward with an engagement.
Hope this gives you a better picture of what goes on.