I think it’s mainly an argument for scientists getting other scientists that understand their own work as significant others so that the can do science together.
The problem with that is that certain fields have heavily lopsided gender ratios.
The problem with that is that certain fields have heavily lopsided gender ratios.
It would only be a problem when woman in those areas would be in really high demand on the dating market. I don’t think that a woman who studies physics has much better chances on the dating market than a woman that studies English literature because of the subject of study.
There nothing wrong with having highly specific expectations for a significant others when those expectations aren’t what everyone else also wants.
If you are a theoretic physicist and write in your OkCupid profile: “I’m looking for a woman with whom I can discuss theoretical physics while laying in bed”, you are heavily filtering. On the other hand if you are a woman who studies theoretical physics and you read the line, that might get you to send the first message.
Let’s say you filter down your criteria in a way that only a hundred people in the 4 million city in which you are living make viable candidates. Those criteria aren’t just about physical beauty and what other guys want. You are very public about those criteria through facebook and other means.
What happens when one of your friends meet one of those women? He might tell her about you. Given that she fits your highly selective criteria, she will be interested to get to know you if she’s single.
That’s basically Ramit Sethi’s job hunting strategy and he also posted on his website some article about how one of his reader used it to find a significant other. Unfortunately I don’t find the article at the moment.
I don’t understand the relevance of this reply. What I meant is that there’s no way each straight male theoretical physicist can get a straight female theoretical physicist (assuming no polyandry) if there are more of the former, because of the pigeonhole principle.
The problem with that is that certain fields have heavily lopsided gender ratios.
It would only be a problem when woman in those areas would be in really high demand on the dating market. I don’t think that a woman who studies physics has much better chances on the dating market than a woman that studies English literature because of the subject of study.
There nothing wrong with having highly specific expectations for a significant others when those expectations aren’t what everyone else also wants.
If you are a theoretic physicist and write in your OkCupid profile: “I’m looking for a woman with whom I can discuss theoretical physics while laying in bed”, you are heavily filtering. On the other hand if you are a woman who studies theoretical physics and you read the line, that might get you to send the first message.
Let’s say you filter down your criteria in a way that only a hundred people in the 4 million city in which you are living make viable candidates. Those criteria aren’t just about physical beauty and what other guys want. You are very public about those criteria through facebook and other means.
What happens when one of your friends meet one of those women? He might tell her about you. Given that she fits your highly selective criteria, she will be interested to get to know you if she’s single.
That’s basically Ramit Sethi’s job hunting strategy and he also posted on his website some article about how one of his reader used it to find a significant other. Unfortunately I don’t find the article at the moment.
I don’t understand the relevance of this reply. What I meant is that there’s no way each straight male theoretical physicist can get a straight female theoretical physicist (assuming no polyandry) if there are more of the former, because of the pigeonhole principle.