So I came across a fun parody academic essay/article on YCombinator/Hacker News the other day: Solving the Dating Problem with the SENPAI Protocol [pdf] (new tab/window).

TL;DR:

The problem concerns two agents Alice and Bob (or Alex and Bob, or Alice and Beatrice), each of whom may or may not have a crush on the other. Each is initially unaware of the other’s feelings, and if they have a crush, they would like to know whether the other does as well; however, each would like to reveal their crush only if the other shares the interest.

I love this essay, not only is it fairly humorous, but it definitely engages me intellectually as I tend to:

1.  Overthink most things, ESPECIALLY socially ambiguous/imperfect situations (like dating)
2.  It combines lighthearted sociological analysis with cryptographic terms and does so in a compelling way.

I think this misses some potentially key elements though that the Hacker News comments pick up, but also that I think economics can contribute to as well, namely in the realms of stated/unstated preferences as well as understanding information asymmetry.

As some of those on Hacker News point out “Tinder”/other dating apps are thing, which can help resolve some of the issue(s) of information asymmetry between parties, but can still be subject to the flirting ‘signal to noise ratio’ (again a good observation from the Hacker News comments) if the parties are not clear, explict, and up front with expectations/intentions (which is a thing that can happen, even on Tinder etc…).

Aside: For me at least the ‘signal to noise ratio’ of flirting is an incredibly weird/fascinating dynamic.  I certainly understand the social utility of it, but it seems so fraught with confusion, vulnerability, and potential pitfalls that I’m surprised we haven’t ‘discovered’ a better more direct way yet.  They JMAP approach they mention regularly seems to end in confusion or emotional distress for one or both parties, from the people that I’ve known/interacted with.  There’s always need for a social escape route/plausible deniability, but why waste time on ‘the game’, it just seems to be a really inefficient use of time and resources to me.

The other interesting aspect that I think economics can lend itself for analysis is the idea of stated vs. unstated preferences (AKA: Contingent Valuation) .  This sort of thing always seems to come up in details of relationships (will there ever be a 100% compatible relationship, I doubt it), but I’ve seen things such as people wanting stability and achieving it with someone, but also consistently complaining about not having enough ‘spontaneity’ or with someone receiving ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ support from their significant other.

Through another lens the issue of contingent valuation can also be simply as an extension of the issue of information asymmetry.  Relationship analysis could also very well be outside the scope/realm of contingent valuation, but the only way to know is to try and find out and maybe make a mistake or two along the way to learn.

I think at best dating apps etc… mitigate these issues, but the problems in and of themselves seem uniquely social/human and a wonderfully impossible/intractable problem.

Just random thoughts on Western social constructs and navigating them.