Too old, too single

[Mr Rayon]

Okay, increasing in the Western World we've been seeing higher divorce rates and more middle-aged men and women remaining single unable to search for a partner who is in search of commitment/responsiblities etc.

 

My question is, how does the scientific community interprete this new recent development?

 

I think it's really sad...

 

What can society/governments do to fix this problem?

Edited June 26, 2011 by Mr Rayon

[MajorTom]

Searching for a partner should be easier with all of the online dating stuff out there.

 

Fixing divorce rates I think is a difficult problem being that people change over time thus growing apart, and promiscuity is a deep rooted behavior that is hard to fight for many.

[Mr Rayon]

Searching for a partner should be easier with all of the online dating stuff out there.

 

Yes, theoretically it should be easier but somehow society has this perception that people who do this don't have lives (which may be correct). This was what my highshool history teacher told me a few years ago.

 

Also, people tend to be a bit immature when it comes to online dating.

 

How can governments fix this problem?

It's horrible to see so many people in their mid-thirties and still single. I'm wondering whether there are any things society can do to fix the problem.

[CaptainPanic]

In my opinion, people who are single just do not attempt to find a mate often enough. Yes, you will fail, and yes, it will feel uncomfortable. But you got to try.

(Note that I'm not being arrogant - I share all your frustrations).

 

But to put it bluntly: Guys who only talk to other guys will not find a girlfriend. And girls who only hang out with other girls won't find a boyfriend.

One problem for people in exact sciences is that these professions have a high percentage of men. Logically, the resulting social networks have a high percentage of men. So, if you want a girlfriend, you just have to get out of that social group more often.

 

Society is certainly changing, and it affects the success rate of finding a suitable partner.

- Social networks are extended over much larger areas. Where previously people interacted mostly in their local area, we now regularly travel far away. Finding someone far away is incredibly impractical.

- Because if digital social networks, people already have to maintain a social network of hundreds of people. Sometimes, relations just fail because people honestly do not have the time (or don't want to make the time).

- We're more busy because of work.

 

But mostly, I think that people just don't try hard enough. People make themselves unavailable...

[ajb]

One problem for people in exact sciences is that these professions have a high percentage of men. Logically, the resulting social networks have a high percentage of men. So, if you want a girlfriend, you just have to get out of that social group more often.

 

Absolutely, you will need to look outside your professional group in general. My wife is not a mathematical physicist, for example.

 

To cure the divorce rate just ban Mills and Boon novels. They give women an very unrealistic view of what to expect from life and romance. LOL!

 

My question is, how does the scientific community interprete this new recent development?

 

I wonder if this is all a pin-off of the feminist movement. Not that I think women should be second class citizens or anything like that, but I am not so naive to thing that moving forward always means no downside.

[Marat]

To take an economic view of the situation, if the 'market' is glutted with a large surplus of unsellable male 'products' (too old, too set in their ways, odd-balls who were not paired off in the first phase of 'normal' pairing circa 25-30), and the 'consumers' are females who have very few 'assets' with which to 'purchase' a mate (too old, a bit batty from spending too much time alone with too many cats, perhaps 'burdened' with children from earlier boyfriends or husbands who took off), then the supply of shoddy goods should meet the demand from consumers with little spare currency at some mutally agreeable 'price,' i.e., marriage.

 

The reasons this doesn't happen, i.e., that 'the market is not cleared,' are many. Some factors include:

 

1) Social skills attenuate to the point that people no longer seek partners or can no longer attract them.

2) People re-focus their interests out of despair over ever finding a suitable partner, and so are no longer looking.

3) Sex hormone levels decline in both genders to the point where the effort required to find a partner exceeds the tolerance for investing in that effort.

4) Unrealistically high expectations for a partner formed at an earlier age induce misperceptions of the actual 'market value' of the 'products' on display.

5) People adjust to living alone and no longer really need a partner.

6) The people who were not paired off in the first round of 'trades' were those who did not really want a partner in the first place, whether they admitted it to themselves or not.

[amanda more]

 

The reasons this doesn't happen, i.e., that 'the market is not cleared,' are many. Some factors include:

 

1) Social skills attenuate to the point that people no longer seek partners or can no longer attract them.

2) People re-focus their interests out of despair over ever finding a suitable partner, and so are no longer looking.

3) Sex hormone levels decline in both genders to the point where the effort required to find a partner exceeds the tolerance for investing in that effort.

4) Unrealistically high expectations for a partner formed at an earlier age induce misperceptions of the actual 'market value' of the 'products' on display.

5) People adjust to living alone and no longer really need a partner.

6) The people who were not paired off in the first round of 'trades' were those who did not really want a partner in the first place, whether they admitted it to themselves or not.

 

I think it is a system actually based on some levels of lies we tell ourselves. Most people, male and female lie to themselves about their real interest. It is crushing to a guy to foresee that he will never again risk his heart in order to have access to a female. He tells himself he is just biding his time and occasionally playing the game. There is no biological imperative regarding him. He wakes up at 55 and decides the reason no 35 year olds are attracted to him is money. A female thinks she is doing the right thing but as 35 approaches dating becomes rife with those she is attracted to disliking the obvious need she has to scout out appropriateness. He holds the cards now and feels he doesn't need to play fair because he has forever. He also has had his heart broken and may likely seek those who are a mismatch because it will prevent deep entanglement. Financially, three quarters of 35 year old men for the last thirty years can't support themselves. So women do this calculation of having another mouth to feed in addition to any offspring. Even in the first round those who actually marry today are well off. One 30 year old I know was anticipating access to 35 year olds when he is 55. I said- what kind of woman wants to date her father's buddies? So even if anticipating coupling at that age this is no longer some feudal system where that is her only chance for advancement. I guess though I wonder that anyone ever finds anyone. The flip question becomes interesting.

 

 

 

[JohnB]

To a degree I think people have lost thier sense of Honour.

 

I got married at 39. The reason is simple. When I make vow I stand by it, or as it is more quaintly put I believe that "my word is my bond".

 

Consequently I take wedding vows very seriously indeed. I wasn't going to stand up in front of family, friends and possible supernatural beings and make vows I wasn't bloody sure I was going to keep. So I considered carefully, and we've been married nearly 12 years now and are still very happy about it.

[amanda more]

To take an economic view of the situation, if the 'market' is glutted with a large surplus of unsellable male 'products' (too old, too set in their ways, odd-balls who were not paired off in the first phase of 'normal' pairing circa 25-30), and the 'consumers' are females who have very few 'assets' with which to 'purchase' a mate (too old, a bit batty from spending too much time alone with too many cats, perhaps 'burdened' with children from earlier boyfriends or husbands who took off), then the supply of shoddy goods should meet the demand from consumers with little spare currency at some mutally agreeable 'price,' i.e., marriage.

 

The reasons this doesn't happen, i.e., that 'the market is not cleared,' are many. Some factors include:

 

1) Social skills attenuate to the point that people no longer seek partners or can no longer attract them.

2) People re-focus their interests out of despair over ever finding a suitable partner, and so are no longer looking.

3) Sex hormone levels decline in both genders to the point where the effort required to find a partner exceeds the tolerance for investing in that effort.

4) Unrealistically high expectations for a partner formed at an earlier age induce misperceptions of the actual 'market value' of the 'products' on display.

5) People adjust to living alone and no longer really need a partner.

6) The people who were not paired off in the first round of 'trades' were those who did not really want a partner in the first place, whether they admitted it to themselves or not.

 

 

So Marat, I am wondering if you are more than one person or have easy access to an expert system. I keep trying to find ways to disagree and just find I am learning more and more. I am a big book reader and would love to have you reference something you have contributed to. I started school adamantly not wanting to teach or do nursing. So grabbing a PHD seemed like a nonproductive area as I still never wanted to teach. But I failed to assess the value to enjoying more of a university environment for the people that are there.

 

So to punch in to stay on topic. Although a university environment has to provide human interaction, I am wondering if even there,there is a problem where we are addicted to the kind of conversation we all now have online. I don't see you checking your phone as soon as the conversation lulls, for instance. So minor distractions evaporate. Is this then like a glass of beer to socialize then the beer becomes the goal. I have been calling twenty somethings the loneliest generation. There is huge irony with this of course. The "always connected" may prevent true connecting with a significant other.

[JohnB]

I've noticed similar things Amanda. Go to a lounge bar on a friday or saturday night and it isn't unusual to see groups sitting together but with everybody either talking to someone on mobile or constantly texting people. There seems to be no time or inclination to actually converse with the person seated next to them.

 

So much time is spent being connected to dozens of people there isn't any time left to find a connection with one.

[padren]

Financially, three quarters of 35 year old men for the last thirty years can't support themselves. So women do this calculation of having another mouth to feed in addition to any offspring. Even in the first round those who actually marry today are well off. One 30 year old I know was anticipating access to 35 year olds when he is 55. I said- what kind of woman wants to date her father's buddies? So even if anticipating coupling at that age this is no longer some feudal system where that is her only chance for advancement. I guess though I wonder that anyone ever finds anyone. The flip question becomes interesting.

I am really curious where the underlined statistic comes from - it seems strangely high. As for your friend who expects women 20 yrs his younger to be interested in him when he's 55.... it sounds to me like he's expecting to greatly improve his "marketability" over the next 25 years. Whether this is based on a sound examination of case precedent or a simple "comforting delusion" it does suggest that he doesn't feel capable of a relationship now - which he could blame on either "excessive expectations" of women, or "difficulty getting his own affairs in order" to a degree necessary for the level of self-confidence required to feel dating is worthwhile.

 

 

I can't speak for men in general, but I personally have not sought out dating aside from a few "happy accidents" that came up on their own for the last several years. Since my seven year marriage ended badly eight years ago, I've had maybe one romantic involvement that was very intense/problematic and a huge line of (fully disclosed) NSA relationships, and honestly the last few years I've pretty much dropped those too. Aside from when I spend time with friends/personal time, my life is pretty much 100% devoted to work and getting to the financial place where I can do the things I really care about before I worry about finding a partner.

I definitely fall into the "Doesn't feel capable of a relationship now" category and as much as I would love to have a partner, I really can't imagine meeting someone who would both be in a similar relateable place to the one I am in now and be interested in getting to the same place I am trying to get to. Frankly, the "crap" a woman would have to put up with being with me would either be unfair, or (if fair) involve an equal amount of her crap for me to put up which is honestly more than I'd want to for the sake of a relationship. So I'm in my mid thirties and would rather focus on reducing my own crap so when I do meet an appealing partner I can actually offer her something on par with what I am looking for.

The end result is I just can't imagine putting time and energy in trying to meet someone when I have enough of a time/energy sink in just trying to get my life setup in the way I want it to be, which really seems to be the better way for me to approach the issue.

 

Granted, I could be deluding myself to avoid my own realistic limitations, but I do wonder if that general mentality leads to people putting off dating. We live in pretty uncertain times and the standards we use to weigh our own positions and capabilities can't help but to feel a little outdated.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if people had some of the lowest confidence levels in "knowing what they are looking for" compared to other times in recent history, and equally low confidence regarding "what they themselves have achieved" in terms of feeling confident and in (some degree) of control of their lives.

[amanda more]

 

 

Granted, I could be deluding myself to avoid my own realistic limitations, but I do wonder if that general mentality leads to people putting off dating. We live in pretty uncertain times and the standards we use to weigh our own positions and capabilities can't help but to feel a little outdated.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if people had some of the lowest confidence levels in "knowing what they are looking for" compared to other times in recent history, and equally low confidence regarding "what they themselves have achieved" in terms of feeling confident and in (some degree) of control of their lives.

 

You also mentioned wanting to wait to be economically better off. The data show that even among the wealthy upper 17% 46% got there from two earner families. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States

 

The people who have married under 35 right now are better off. So a 35 year old woman has had some men taken off the market. I think I am also discounting because I haven't met any young American male with a bank account. So he finds he needs the toys he has or is in the vast majority who don't have college degrees and don't have the bucks. When they say shrinking middle class, this recession has destroyed middle class wages for skilled workers.

 

So, he feels he can't support himself in the style he is used to very well already. Right now 60% of college students are female.

 

People used to want to be useful to others. They were able to see a certain truth that there can be a utility to interacting. Now they see singleness as just fun. It is branded that way in this culture. So a significant other would be some kind of drag then. Whatever happened to people wanting to go through life struggles together supporting each other? If one met a realistic honest person is that off-putting because then the truth and reality of life rears its ugly head?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pantaz]

How can governments fix this problem?

Why would/should any government agency be involved in the love lives of individuals?

 

It's horrible to see so many people in their mid-thirties and still single.

Why do you feel this way?

[padren]

You also mentioned wanting to wait to be economically better off. The data show that even among the wealthy upper 17% 46% got there from two earner families. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States

Just as a caveat, the data shows a strong correlation but does it imply causation, as in did people move up in terms of wealth as a result of getting married?

 

I don't doubt there is some level of causation, but the magnitude is probably a lot lower when you factor out initial wealth and other beneficial inherited resources.

Aside from that, I suspect that married couples probably choose to have children earlier/more often which can greatly skew net income. Perhaps men in their thirties tend to meet more women who are actively interested in starting families - a proposition many men may find off putting if they aren't financially confident. I have no idea if statistics reflect this, it's just a suspicion that it may be a factor.

 

People used to want to be useful to others. They were able to see a certain truth that there can be a utility to interacting. Now they see singleness as just fun. It is branded that way in this culture. So a significant other would be some kind of drag then. Whatever happened to people wanting to go through life struggles together supporting each other? If one met a realistic honest person is that off-putting because then the truth and reality of life rears its ugly head?

I think the issue is that people see singleness as safely stable, and relationships as risky gambles that can either be hugely beneficial, or cripplingly disastrous (usually first one, then the other) and over the last decade or so it's gotten really hard to invite more potential risk and instability. People see the truth behind the utility of interacting and desire the mutual support through life struggles - in the same way they see the truth that it's good to carry no credit card debt and beneficial to have a disciplined financial budget.

 

They see it, they generally even desire it - they just don't feel confident that they can get there from where they are.

[amanda more]

I think the issue is that people see singleness as safely stable, and relationships as risky gambles that can either be hugely beneficial, or cripplingly disastrous (usually first one, then the other) and over the last decade or so it's gotten really hard to invite more potential risk and instability. People see the truth behind the utility of interacting and desire the mutual support through life struggles - in the same way they see the truth that it's good to carry no credit card debt and beneficial to have a disciplined financial budget.

 

They see it, they generally even desire it - they just don't feel confident that they can get there from where they are.

 

Statistically, a male lives longer if married. Women may be up for the risk if it means they have a better shot at offspring. People who aren't OK off are still having children- just not marrying.

 

Again here people may be willing to do risky things in other aspects of their life- but center on one particular behavior which engenders fear?

 

I think if you don't have a society strongly indoctrinating the ones without the biological imperative to couple in a deep way, then they don't. I also think that many are comforted by a kind of media lie regarding not only their infinite chances in the future but the James Bond life of singlehood. Instead of the fifties "You are not a man until you have a family" it has become "How can anyone have been so unlucky as to have been caught with any dose of responsibility."

[CharonY]

The link between marriage and life expectancy is kind of complicated. In a study it was found that males with younger wives benefitted most (in terms of life expectancy). Strangely, the inverse appears to be the case for women.

Press release

 

Also it appears that the gap in life expectancy between married and unmarried males has diminished (but I would have to dig out that data).

IIRC children had no influence (i.e. no difference between married couples with and without children).

[amanda more]

The link between marriage and life expectancy is kind of complicated. In a study it was found that males with younger wives benefitted most (in terms of life expectancy). Strangely, the inverse appears to be the case for women.

Press release

 

Also it appears that the gap in life expectancy between married and unmarried males has diminished (but I would have to dig out that data).

IIRC children had no influence (i.e. no difference between married couples with and without children).

 

As sexist as it is when one thinks of nursing one thinks of females. A guy benefits when he has married an able bodied female for nursing care. If he marries older he isn't as disadvantaged because he won't have societal pressure to do caretakering. While in this marriage (to an older woman) he has less need of nursing but benefits from mothering.

 

The males in a marriage are as a general rule not good nurses or mothers.

 

Although a guy who goes for young may find that as motivation enough to take care of himself. He may eat right and work out and go to doctors to attempt to keep up. Women may take care of themselves whether they marry someone younger or not.

 

 

 

[wanabe]

Okay, increasing in the Western World we've been seeing higher divorce rates and more middle-aged men and women remaining single unable to search for a partner who is in search of commitment/responsiblities etc.My question is, how does the scientific community interprete this new recent development?I think it's really sad...What can society/governments do to fix this problem?

from post #1

Mr Rayon

how does the scientific community interpret this new recent development?

The community of science that interprets this development are not traditional scientists. They do so with psychologists and specialized statisticians therefore it is not exact. The interpretation is qualitative. Anytime some thing is qualitative it is also subjective. I would imagine that people see marriage as a stable platform with which to procreate, it is not the only way however. The important question is what is a persons purpose for marriage; Is it to: procreate, have pleasure sex, for money, for love....

 

What can society/governments do to fix this problem?

I personally don't think that this is necessarily a problem, the jury is still out on what these groups of people will do. maybe people in this group decided there are more important things than marriage.

 

 

statement of bias:

I my self do not object to being married.

[amanda more]

from post #1

Mr Rayon

The community of science that interprets this development are not traditional scientists. They do so with psychologists and specialized statisticians therefore it is not exact. The interpretation is qualitative. Anytime some thing is qualitative it is also subjective. I would imagine that people see marriage as a stable platform with which to procreate, it is not the only way however. The important question is what is a persons purpose for marriage; Is it to: procreate, have pleasure sex, for money, for love....

 

 

I personally don't think that this is necessarily a problem, the jury is still out on what these groups of people will do. maybe people in this group decided there are more important things than marriage.

 

 

statement of bias:

I my self do not object to being married.

 

I think you have answered my question from another topic. As long as scientists stick to the herd behavior of antelopes they are cool. Once they look at humans though, they then are not traditional scientists. I assume biologists who do forest work you would consider traditional scientists. That individual tree has a bug on it. A data point. But that scientist may have a stronger interest in the forest or the ecosystem. By yours and it seems most people's reckoning then he loses being a traditional scientist if he generalizes something about the forest from his data points. Alternatively, you and many people find if he knows about the ecosystem, he may bring something with him to tell about the condition of the forest. For herds of human that would be considered subjective.

 

Crime drops. Would it be out of line for science to notice there are less males in the 18 to 25 year old group? If so, why? Data gathering surely without any kind of ties to things that are of importance surely is not even really science?

 

 

 

[wanabe]

amanda more,

 

 

It's most important while talking about this issue not to simply use the term "scientist", but specify which kind of scientist you are talking about.

 

It's the manner in which we generalize all living things. The sciences involving nonliving things can be isolated and made into formula.

 

When you take a living thing from its environment and isolate it you have changed how it lives. The data is speculation and can't account for a real life scenario. A formula would only be good in a lab setting for sure.

 

In order to have accurate scientific accounts of living things it takes a life time of work and one must also account for how things are changing in their life time.

 

Its not to say there is no credence in the work of psychologists and specialized statisticians, their work is merely subjective and probabilistic at best ultimately.

[Genecks]

I think the primary issue is that we are in the midst of a technological shift.

This involves the idea that we're more busy because of technological advancements.

Because of technological advancements, we aren't socializing as much anymore: We're in our own cubicles.

 

As with the technological shift, we're seeing advancements, such as online dating, social networking websites, and people using cell phones to socialize.

 

At the moment, a lot of dating via Internet/social websites is taboo to some people. They don't like the feel of it. However, since the 1980s, for what I understand, online dating (a kind of arranged dating) has been increasing more and more. And so you see people advertising themselves online more than before.

 

I believe as time progresses this century, more people will take up online dating. My most recent relationships involve women asking me out online. I honestly don't mind, because I find that I'm too busy to socialize/mingle/so forth. Despite all of this, I still find it a little cheesy to start up a relationship via the Internet. But I figure, "Well, whatever, I don't have time to go on dates over and over again."

 

In my hometown w/ about 150k people, I didn't find many single women. When I came to Chicago, I found plenty of single women. I think one's location also has a serious factor in whether or not they will find people to date.

 

Now, as a persona input about online dating websites, such as okcupid... There are a lot of female art majors on there... And it seems that the other extreme would be females from top unis who are done with graduate school. Maybe it's just my age group, though (mid 20s).

 

As a guy, I have the advantage of pro-creating as I age, thus being enabled to date women of pro-creative age in order to have kids (not on my list of things to do, btw).

 

I think out of all of this mess, women are going to have a lot of make-break situations where they must make quick decisions in who to date, because they're getting older and spending less time mingling (due to economic constraints). As such, women will more than likely be persuaded to date well-off gentlemen (perhaps more so than in the past). Online dating will give them an ability to choose amongst men who are well off: So, perhaps the need for a quick choice could be mitigated.

 

This, of course, would drive men to work more, save more, have to be nicer, and be older before being able to date women. Not as large as a problem for men, though, because they aren't as limited by reproductive biology.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Genecks

[wanabe]

Genecks,

 

So you feel that after all this strife(sexual equality movement) women will still look to men for support? You seem to disagree with the premise of post 1.

 

Couldn't women simply pick from a sperm bank of successful(by their definition) males and match it with their eggs saved in a bank as well, reproductive biology is irrelevant at this point because of our technology.

 

No one would never marry except in cases of true love and raise a family for nostalgic purposes. Most of the time people would simply have sex for fun.

 

I think In the future child rearing won't be done by the parents but by teachers/daycares.

[amanda more]

amanda more,

 

 

It's most important while talking about this issue not to simply use the term "scientist", but specify which kind of scientist you are talking about.

 

It's the manner in which we generalize all living things. The sciences involving nonliving things can be isolated and made into formula.

 

When you take a living thing from its environment and isolate it you have changed how it lives. The data is speculation and can't account for a real life scenario. A formula would only be good in a lab setting for sure.

 

In order to have accurate scientific accounts of living things it takes a life time of work and one must also account for how things are changing in their life time.

 

Its not to say there is no credence in the work of psychologists and specialized statisticians, their work is merely subjective and probabilistic at best ultimately.

 

Houston, we have a disagreement.

 

One can think of math then science then engineering. Math is the language of science.

 

I could let X = scientist. Any scientist studying any science. I grow weary of the idea that detailists have found the road to nirvana through a type of exactness. Generalists or practitioners in the real world have then stepped out of the realm of science, according to those into a tree instead of the forest.

 

If a statistician was to come into your classroom and count the number of students there, then that work would not be probabilistic and subjective. It would also be a tree. Science is however more interested than in just a data point. Even if the height of the students was taken and the mean and median was found that is actually not subjective and probabilistic. It is exact. (within measurement variance)

 

Science is encumbered with doing more than adding together a huge number of data points. As one looks at a forest, then one has essentially lost the characteristics of the individual tree. That loss is more than made up for in relevance.

 

back to topic- one person's meaningless tree is another's treasured Bonsai. How does the above arguement play out when people form couples? Is there too much pressure today to have people have the same interests? Instead of seeing someone as part of a generation or in line with most in their gender is it so passe to do that we find ourselves wondering at our difficulties with Jane or George specifically individually? Could we benefit from allowing more difference from ourselves and considering group characteristics?