You’re assuming that a person is a commodity – that they would have the same value to any potential mate. That just isn’t true, different people have different values. A better model would be to view a person as a high-dimensional vector, and their preferences as another similarly-dimensioned vector of coefficients. And that’s getting into the dating web site model…

And then there is the issue of “important current information is almost freely available to all participants.” Obviously, one could argue that the reason the “dating market” is not as efficient as, say, the stock market is that there isn’t necessarily freely available information…

“It occurred to me that all of the really nice mature easygoing people that I know are married. If one looks carefully at a single person it is usually not hard to find an explanation for why they are not happily paired.”

I agree. Unless you have analyzed the market and realize that your highest potential value is at a later date.

Stick with me here.

I realized I was never going to be the most attractive 20 yr old. (we’re talking all the components of attractiveness) Put me in the 65% range.

I probaby won’t be the most attractive 30 yr. old (upper 25% range). But I DO have a shot at being in the upper 5% for 35 year olds.

Generally this is due the the physical decline of others in my peer group and the fact that through a ton of work, my physical appearance has improved in comparison to myself and my peer group.

Oops, sorry, “Philip”.

What a bucket of cold water this Efficient Market Hypothesis is, Phillip! Today I stumbled upon your story about seeing Lily (specifically: I was searching for The Miraculously Perfect Camera Bag for my D70, ran across your post about camera bags that included a reference to having your camera bag stolen, clicked on the link because I once had my camera bag stolen in Naples, Italy once and wanted to read about someone who knows that pain, then read about your Lily meeting, which was part of the story of the stolen bag).

Anyway, I was touched by your description of your feelings on seeing Lily again and wanted to read more, which led me to this blog. I choose not to believe your Efficient Market Hypothesis. Haven’t thought of a better one yet, but I will!

If I read between the lines correctly, Phil said said Bunbury can’t find anyone because he’s a defective loser…and a relatively poor one at that! Come now Phil. While I got a chuckle out of your Efficient Market Hypothesis to Dating, I’m sure you of all people would be smart enough to know a sophistry when you see one. Or maybe you’re just yanking our chains.

What the hey, either this blog screwed up or I’ve have one glass of wine too many. That should have said: “I met my wife during out “middle-age” years when I was living in a southeast Asian country (her home country). In our courting days, after I’d met…”

I met my wife during out “middle-age” years when I was living in a southeast Asian country days, after I’d met many of her friends who were mostly all artsy-fartsy types, I commented that I knew what she found attractive about me, the computer nerd. I was the only straight, single guy she knew. “Not true” she protested. So I challenged her to name someone else who fit that description. Silence.

If Bunbury is serious about finding a woman, he should quit his 80-hour-a-week bullshit desk job, move into an inexpensive Chinese-manufactured RV, and spend 80 hours a week looking for his soulmate.

The EMH is a myth. Read up on some contrarian investing, or better yet look at Buffett’s success with real companies, using non-EMH methods of determining value.