>http://uk.businessinsider.com/mathematical-principle-reveals-how-to-get-what-you-want-2015-6
If this was a 1950s-style dating scenario in which the boys approached the girls, each boy would hit on his top-choice girl, Fry says. If a girl has multiple offers, she would choose the boy she preferred most, and if a boy were rejected, he would approach his second-choice girl.
The result is pretty great for the boys. Each gets his first- or second-choice partner, and there is no way the boys could improve, because their top choices have said yes or already rejected them.
The girls fare relatively worse, however, having paired up with their second- or third-choice partners.
>every man will have the best partner available to him.
>every woman will end up with the least bad of all the men who approach her.
That poor woman! She had to SETTLE with the "least bad" applicant, whereas those damn men ended up with their "top available" woman.
But.. wait a second. How many men approached that woman? And how many women did that man approach? Her little 5-person circle with bot-like creatures who can access the entire market and have no negative feelings in response to rejections is hardly representative of how the world works.
I like the hiring manager analogy so I'll describe my point through that.
Hiring managers receive, sometimes, upwards of thousands of applications for a given spot. Their side of interaction in pairing is rejecting other applicants and screening. Whereas, job seekers cannot feasibly send thousands of applications unless they take a scattergun copypasta application method which has no possibility of success given that employers require you to tailor-make your application to them. After all, by having another 999 applicants, the only way to get the job is to be better than the other 999, which requires a lot of time and effort. And if you get rejected, then you have wasted all that effort and have taken a shot to your confidence which will deter you from making future applications.
Who really fares better? The applicant (man) receives his "top available" employer (woman). But if he only send in 20 applications and gets no job, then he has wasted a lot of time, feels horrible, and ends up with nothing. Meanwhile, all the hiring managers (women) have to do to get their employee (man) is to accept one of the applicants. They are GUARANTEED to get someone, even though that may not mean they get the top man in the universe.
Here's a much better way of phrasing my point
>>24921680
Please respond, even if its just a "wew lad".
This took me a while
It's just regular neoliberal capitalism, the owners of capital have unlimited choices and always win, the precariat has nothing and will always be fucked. I don't know what else there is to say about it.
>>24921267
I don't get it, why are they talking about a model that doesn't exist in reality?
>>24922403
emailed to her. Wonder what her response will be
>>24921267
But ONE MAN CAN FUCK MANY DIFFERENT WOMEN
Holy shit, normies are so blind to reality.
>>24922403
this is really funny
>>24922403
O I am laffin fampai
>>24924336
Why? That's exactly what Chad does.
>>24922403
You are exactly right. Too bad things aren't going to change.
