Social convention dictates that the more attractive you are, the higher your chances for finding a good ‘catch’, a beautiful wife, a handsome husband. In theory, there aren’t any problems with this idea. It’s almost common-sense in a way, if you think about it, but Slate writer Mark Gimein begs to differ, and introduces what he calls the ‘Eligible Bachelor Paradox.’ In short, Gimein claims that regardless of what most people think, the more attractive the woman, the higher their expectations for finding a Mr. Perfect, but at the same time, the longer women wait for said Prince Charming, the smaller the pool of available men becomes. In the end, more often than one would think, even beautiful women have to settle for a Mr. Average.

The reason? Gimein claims it’s game theory and the auction-like process of marriage. Let’s say that the most attractive, sociable women are those with the highest confidence that in the end, they will definitely get something, and those not so fortunate are those with lower confidences, who aren’t quite so sure, and therefore bid more aggressively in the now, today. Bachelor number one comes around the corner, and he’s a pretty nice guy. Average looks, okay smarts, cute smile. Miss Beautiful knows that there are better catches out there, so she’s rather indifferent about Bachelor number one, but Miss Average is enchanted, and doesn’t know when a better one will come along, so her ‘valuation’ of sorts is considerably higher. She wins the bid. Repeat the process for Bachelor numbers two, three, four, and suddenly the number of Bachelors available is considerably smaller, and Miss Beautiful is sitll single.

In this sort of auction, classified by a class of ’stronger’ bidders (beautiful) and ‘weaker’ ones (not so beautiful), empirical studies show that it’s the weaker bidders that win asymmetrical auctions. (A more technical explanation than Gimein offers is linked in his article here.) Weaker bidders are more decisive every time a good comes up for auction, settle for less, and give more value to goods that stronger bidders would think are just so-so-. As a result, the most eligible men, by the time Miss Beautiful turns around, are already taken, by less choosy takers.

Gimein’s article seems to be largely putting the choice of marriage into the woman’s hands, but he argues that the idea of women being the one to ultimately decide (regardless of who gets on one knee and buys the diamond rings), has been proven as an evolutionary standard, for many animals. He mentions, for example, the peacock, whose male population has to attract the female population using its plumage, meaning that it’s the female’s choice to determine who’s got the best display. From that standpoint, it seems to make a bit more sense, but at the same time, one has to wonder how much this principle can apply to human beings, whose emotions always throw off any possible prediction. (How does ‘love’ factor in? Even Gimein himself doesn’t seem to know decisively about that - “Experiences may vary.”)

Original Article: The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox on the Slate