Tag Archives: marriage

Birth dearth in China => collapse? war?

1 Reply

China passed us in life-expectancy in 2022, and also in fertility, going the other way. In China lifespan at birth increased to 77.3 years. In the US it dropped an additional 0.9 years, to 76.8. US lifespans suffered from continuing COVID and an increase in accidents, heart disease, suicide, drugs, and alcohol abuse. Black men were hit particularly hard, so that today, a black man in the US has the same life expectancy as he would in Rwanda. China seems to have avoided this, but should expect problems due to declining fertility and birth rates.

China passed us in life expectancy in 2022.

Fertility rates will eventually burden the US too, as US fertility is only slightly greater than in China, 1.78 children per woman, lifetime, compared to 1.702 in China. But China has far fewer people of childbearing ages, relatively, and only 47% are women. Three decades of one child policy resulted in few young adults and a tendency to abort girls. Currently, the birthrate in China is barely more than half ours: 6.77 per 1000, compared to 12.01 per 1000. And the proportion of the aged keeps rising. China will soon face a severe shortage of care-givers, and an excess of housing.

Years of low birthrate preceded the “Lost decades” of financial crisis in Japan and the USSR. Between 1990 and 2011, business stagnated and house prices dropped. China faces the same; few workers and more need for care: it’s not a good recipe.

Beginning about 1991, Japan saw a major financial collapse with banks failing, and home values falling. China seems over-due.

Few children also signals a psychic lack of confidence in the country, and suggests that, going forward, there will be a lack of something to work for. Already Chinese citizens don’t trust the state to allow them to raise healthy children. They have stopped getting married, especially in the cities, and look more to have fun.

Affluent women claim they can’t find a good man to marry: one who’s manly, who will love them, and who will reliably raise their standard of life. Women seem less picky in China’s rural areas, or perhaps they find better men there. However it goes, urban women get married late and have few children, both in China and here. China produces great, sappy, soap operas though: a country girl or secretary in a high-power job meets a manly, urban manager who lovers her intensely. A fine example is “The Eternal Love” (watch it here). It involves time travel, and a noble romance from the past. Japan produced similar fiction before the crisis. And a crisis seems to be coming.

While Japan and Korea responded quietly to crisis and “the lost decades,” allowing banks to fail and home values to fall, Russia’s response was more violent. It went to war with Chechnya, then with Belarus and Ukraine, and now with NATO. I fear that China will go to war too — with Taiwan, Japan, and the US. It’s a scary thought; China is a much tougher enemy than Russia. There is already trouble brewing over new islands that they are building.

Robert Buxbaum January 25, 2023. If you want to see a Korean soap opera on the Secretary – manager theme, watch: “What’s wrong with Secretary Kim”. (I credit my wife with the research here.) I suspect that Americans too would like sappy shows like this.

The equation behind Tinder, J-swipe, and good chess matchups.

2 Replies

Near the beginning of the movie “The social network”, Zuckerberg asks his Harvard roommate, Saverin, to explain the chess rating system. His friend writes an equation on the window, Zuckerberg looks for a while, nods, and uses it as a basis for Facemash, the predecessor of Facebook. The dating site, Tinder said it used this equation to match dates, but claims to have moved on from there, somewhat. The same is likely true at J-swipe, a jewish coating site, and Christian mingle.

Scene from the social network, Saverin shows Zuckerberg the equations for the expected outcome of a chess match between players of different rankings, Ra and Rb.

I’ll explain how the original chess ranking system worked, and then why it works also for dating. If you’ve used Tinder or J-swipe, you know that they provide fairly decent matches based on a brief questionnaire and your pattern of swiping left or right on pictures of people, but it is not at all clear that your left-right swipes are treated like wins and losses in a chess game: your first pairings are with people of equal rating.

Start with the chess match equations. These were developed by Anand Elo (pronounced like hello without the h) in the 1950s, a physics professor who was the top chess player in Wisconsin at the time. Based on the fact that chess ability changes relatively slowly (usually) he chose to change a persons rating based on a logistic equation, sigmoid model of your chances of winning a given match. He set a limit to the amount your rating could change with a single game, but the equation he chose changed your rating fastest when you someone much better than you or lost to someone much weaker. Based on lots of inaccurate comparisons, the game results, you get a remarkably accurate rating of your chess ability. Also, as it happens, this chess rating also works well to match people for chess games.

The knowledge equation, an S curve that can be assumed to relate to the expected outcome of chess matchups or dating opportunities.

For each player in a chess match, we estimate the likelihood that each player will win, lose or tie based on the difference in their ratings, Ra -Rb and the sigmoid curve at left. We call these expected outcome Ea for player A, and Eb for player B where Ea = Eb = is 50% when Ra = RB. It’s seen that Ea never exceeds 1; you can never more than 100% certain about a victory. The S-graph shows several possible estimates of Ea where x= Ra-Rb, and k is a measure of how strongly we imagine this difference predicts outcome. Elo chose a value of k such that 400 points difference in rating gave the higher ranked player a 91% expectation of winning.

To adjust your rating, the outcomes of a game is given a number between 1 and 0, where 1 represents a win, 0 a loss, and 0.5 a draw. Your rating changes in proportion to the difference between this outcome and your expected chance of winning. If player A wins, his new rating, Ra’, is determined from the old rating, Ra as follows:

Ra’ = Ra + 10 (1 – Ea)

It’s seen that one game can not change your rating by any more than 10, no matter how spectacular the win, nor can your rating drop by any more than 10 if you lose. If you lose, Ra’ = Ra – 10 Ea. New chess players are given a start ranking, and are matched with other new players at first. For new players, the maximum change is increased to 24, so you can be placed in a proper cohort that much quicker. My guess is that something similar is done with new people on dating sites: a basic rating (or several), a basic rating, and a fast rating change at first that slows down later.

As best I can tell, dating apps use one or more ratings to solve a mathematical economics problem called “the stable marriage problem.” Gayle and Shapely won the Nobel prize in economics for work on this problem. The idea of the problem is to pair everyone in such a way that no couple is happier by a swap of partners. It can be shown that there is always a solution that achieves that. If there is a singe, understood ranking, one way of achieving this stable marriage pairing is by pairing best with best, 2nd with second, and thus all the way down. The folks at the bottom may not be happy with their mates, but neither is there a pair that would like to switch mates with them.

Part of this, for better or worse, is physical attractiveness. Even if the low ranked (ugly) people are not happy with the people they are matched with, they may be happy to find that these people are reasonably happy with them. Besides a rating based on attractiveness, there is a rating based on age and location; sexual orientation and religiosity. On J-swipe and Tinder, people are shown others that are similar to them in attractiveness, and similar to the target in other regards. The first people you are shown are people who have already swiped right for you. If you agree too, you agree to a date, at least via a text message. Generally, the matches are not bad, and having immediate successes provides a nice jolt of pleasure at the start.

Religious dating sites, J-swipe and Christian Mingle work to match men with women, and to match people by claimed orthodoxy to their religion. Tinder is a lot less picky: not only will they match “men looking for men” but they also find that “men looking for women” will fairly often decide to date other “men looking for women”. The results of actual, chosen pairings will then affect future proposed pairings so that a man who once dates a man will be shown more men as possible dates. In each of the characteristic rankings, when you swipe right it is taken as a win for the person in the picture, if you swipe left it’s a loss: like a game outcome of 1 or 0. If both of you agree, or don’t it’s like a tie. Your rating on the scale of religion or beauty goes up or down in proportion to the difference between the outcome and the predictions. If you date a person of the same sex, it’s likely that your religion rating drops, but what do I know?

One way or another, this system seems to work at least as well as other matchmaking systems that paired people based on age, height, and claims of interest. If anything, I think there is room for far more applications, like matching doctors to patients in a hospital based on needs, skills, and availability, or matching coaches to players.

Robert Buxbaum, December 31, 2020. In February, at the beginning of the COVID outbreak I claimed that the disease was a lot worse than thought by most, but the it would not kill 10% of the population as thought by the alarmist. The reason: most diseases follow the logistic equation, the same sigmoid.

A series solution to the fussy suitor/ secretary problem

2 Replies

One way to look at dating and other life choices is to consider them as decision-time problems. Imagine, for example that have a number of candidates for a job, and all can be expected to say yes. You want a recipe that maximizes your chance to pick the best. This might apply to a fabulously wealthy individual picking a secretary or a husband (Mr Right) in a situation where there are 50 male choices. We’ll assume that you have the ability to recognize who is better than whom, but that your pool has enough ego that you can’t go back to anyone once you’ve rejected the person.

Under the above restrictions, I mentioned in this previous post that you maximize your chance of finding Mr Right by dating without intent to marry 36.8% of the fellows. After that, you marry the first fellow who is better than any of the previous. My previous post had a link to a solution using Riemann integrals, but I will now show how to do it with more prosaic math — a series. One reason for doing this by series is that it allows you to modify your strategy for a situation where you can not be guaranteed a yes, or where you’re OK with number 2, but you don’t like the high odds of the other method, 36.8%, that you’ll marry no one.

I present this, not only for the math interest, but because the above recipe is sometimes presented as good advice for real-life dating, e.g. in a recent Washington Post article. With the series solution, you’re in a position to modify the method for more realistic dating, and for another related situation, options cashing. Let’s assume you have stock options in a volatile stock company, if the options are good for 10 years, how do you pick when to cash in. This problem is similar to the fussy suitor, but the penalty for second best is small.

The solution to all of these problems is to pick a stopping point between the research phase and the decision phase. We will assume you can’t un-cash in an option, or continue dating after marriage. We will optimize for this fractional stopping point between phases, a point we will call x. This is the fraction of guys dated without intent of marriage, or the fraction of years you develop your formula before you look to cash in.

Let’s consider various ways you might find Mr Right given some fractional value X. One way this might work, perhaps the most likely way you’ll find Mr. Right, is if the #2 person is in the first, rejected group, and Mr. Right is in the group after the cut off, x. We’ll call chance of of finding Mr Right through this arrangement C1, where

C1 = x (1-x) = x – x2.

We could used derivatives to solve for the optimum value of x, but there are other ways of finding Mr Right. What if Guy #3 is in the first group and both Guys 1 and 2 are in the second group, and Guy #1 is earlier in the second line-up. You’d still marry Mr Right. We’ll call the chance of finding Mr Right this way C2. The odds of this are

C2 = x (1-x)2/2

= x/2 – x2 + x3/2

There is also a C3 and a C4 etc. Your C3 chance of Mr Right occurs when guy number 4 is in the first group, while #1, 2, and 3 are in the latter group, but guy number one is the first.

C3 = x (1-x)3/4 = x/4 – 3x2/4 + 3x3/4 – x4/4.

I could try to sum the series, but lets say I decide to truncate here. I’ll ignore C4, C5 etc, and I’ll further throw out any term bigger than x^2. Adding all smaller terms together, I get ∑C = C, where

C ~ 1.75 x – 2.75 x2.

To find the optimal x, take the derivative and set it to zero:

dC/dx = 0 ~ 1.75 -5.5 x

x ~ 1.75/5.5 = 31.8%.

That’s not an optimal answer, but it’s close. Based on this, C1 = 21.4%, C2 = 14.8%, C3 =10.2%, and C4= 7.0% C5= 4.8%Your chance of finding Mr Right using this stopping point is at least 33.4%. This may not be ideal, but you’re clearly going to very close to it.

The nice thing about this solution is that it makes it easy to modify your model. Let’s say you decide to add a negative value to not ever getting married. That’s easily done using the series method. Let’s say you choose to optimize your chance for either Mr 1 or 2 on the chance that both will be pretty similar and one of them may say no. You can modify your model for that too. You can also use series methods for the possibility that the house you seek is not at the last exit in Brooklyn. For the dating cases, you will find that it makes sense to stop your test-dating earlier, for the parking problem, you’l find that it’s Ok to wait til you’re less than 1 mile away before you settle on a spot. I’ll talk more about this latter, but wanted to note that the popular press seems overly impressed by math that they don’t understand, and that they have a willingness to accept assumptions that bear only the flimsiest relationship to relaity.

Robert Buxbaum, January 20, 2020

A mathematical approach to finding Mr (or Ms) Right.

1 Reply

A lot of folks want to marry their special soulmate, and there are many books to help get you there, but I thought I might discuss a mathematical approach that optimizes your chance of marrying the very best under some quite-odd assumptions. The set of assumptions is sometimes called “the fussy suitor problem” or the secretary problem. It’s sometimes presented as a practical dating guide, e.g. in a recent Washington Post article. My take, is that it’s not a great strategy for dealing with the real world, but neither is it total nonsense.

The basic problem was presented by Martin Gardner in Scientific American in 1960 or so. Assume you’re certain you can get whoever you like (who’s single); assume further that you have a good idea of the number of potential mates you will meet, and that you can quickly identify who is better than whom; you have a desire to marry none but the very best, but you don’t know who’s out there until you date, and you’ve an the inability to go back to someone you’ve rejected. This might be he case if you are a female engineering student studying in a program with 50 male engineers, all of whom have easily bruised egos. Assuming the above, it is possible to show, using Riemann Integrals (see solution here), that you maximize your chance of finding Mr/Ms Right by dating without intent to marry 36.8 % of the fellows (1/e), and then marrying the first fellow who’s better than any of the previous you’ve dated. I have a simpler, more flexible approach to getting the right answer, that involves infinite serieses; I’ll hope to show off some version of this at a later date.

Bluto, Popeye, or wait for someone better? In the cartoon as I recall, she rejects the first few people she meets, then meets Bluto and Popeye. What to do?

With this strategy, one can show that there is a 63.2% chance you will marry someone, and a 36.8% you’ll wed the best of the bunch. There is a decent chance you’ll end up with number 2. You end up with no-one if the best guy appears among the early rejects. That’s a 36.8% chance. If you are fussy enough, this is an OK outcome: it’s either the best or no-one. I don’t consider this a totally likely assumption, but it’s not that bad, and I find you can recalculate fairly easily for someone OK with number 2 or 3. The optimal strategy then, I think, is to date without intent at the start, as before, but to take a 2nd or 3rd choice if you find you’re unmarried after some secondary cut off. It’s solvable by series methods, or dynamic computing.

It’s unlikely that you have a fixed passel of passive suitors, of course, or that you know nothing of guys at the start. It also seems unlikely that you’re able to get anyone to say yes or that you are so fast evaluating fellows that there is no errors involved and no time-cost to the dating process. The Washington Post does not seem bothered by any of this, perhaps because the result is “mathematical” and reasonable looking. I’m bothered, though, in part because I don’t like the idea of dating under false pretense, it’s cruel. I also think it’s not a winning strategy in the real world, as I’ll explain below.

One true/useful lesson from the mathematical solution is that it’s important to learn from each date. Even a bad date, one with an unsuitable fellow, is not a waste of time so long as you leave with a better sense of what’s out there, and of what you like. A corollary of this, not in the mathematical analysis but from life, is that it’s important to choose your circle of daters. If your circle of friends are all geeky engineers, don’t expect to find Prince Charming among them. If you want Prince Charming, you’ll have to go to balls at the palace, and you’ll have to pass on the departmental wine and cheese.

If you want Prince Charming, you may have to associate with a different crowd from the one you grew up with. Whether that’s a good idea for a happy marriage is another matter.

The assumptions here that you know how many fellows there are is not a bad one, to my mind. Thus, if you start dating at 16 and hope to be married by 32, that’s 16 years of dating. You can use this time-frame as a stand in for total numbers. Thus if you decide to date-for-real after 37%, that’s about age 22, not an unreasonable age. It’s younger than most people marry, but you’re not likely to marry the fort person you meet after age 22. Besides, it’s not great dating into your thirties — trust me, I’ve done it.

The biggest problem with the original version of this model, to my mind, comes from the cost of non-marriage just because the mate isn’t the very best, or might not be. This cost gets worse when you realize that, even if you meet prince charming, he might say no; perhaps he’s gay, or would like someone royal, or richer. Then again, perhaps the Kennedy boy is just a cad who will drop you at some time (preferably not while crossing a bridge). I would therefor suggest, though I can’t show it’s optimal that you start out by collecting information on guys (or girls) by observing the people around you who you know: watch your parents, your brothers and sisters, your friends, uncles, aunts, and cousins. Listen to their conversation and you can get a pretty good idea of what’s available even before your first date. If you don’t like any of them, and find you’d like a completely different circle, it’s good to know early. Try to get a service job within ‘the better circle’. Working with people you think you might like to be with, long term, is a good idea even if you don’t decide to marry into the group in the end.

Once you’ve observed and interacted with the folks you think you might like, you can start dating for real from the start. If you’re super-organized, you can create a chart of the characteristics and ‘tells’ of characteristics you really want. Also, what is nice but not a deal-breaker. For these first dates, you can figure out the average and standard deviation, and aim for someone in the top 5%. A 5% target is someone whose two standard deviations above the average. This is simple Analysis of variation math (ANOVA), math that I discussed elsewhere. In general you’ll get to someone in the top 5% by dating ten people chosen with help from friends. Starting this way, you’ll avoid being unreasonably cruel to date #1, nor will you loose out on a great mate early on.

Some effort should be taken to look at the fellow’s family and his/her relationship with them. If their relationship is poor, or their behavior is, your kids may turn out similar.

After a while, you can say, I’ll marry the best I see, or the best that seems like he/she will say yes (a smaller sub-set). You should learn from each date, though, and don’t assume you can instantly size someone up. It’s also a good idea to meet the family since many things you would not expect seem to be inheritable. Meeting some friends too is a good idea. Even professionals can be fooled by a phony, and a phony will try to hide his/her family and friends. In the real world, dating should take time, and even if you discover that he/ she is not for you, you’ll learn something about what is out there: what the true average and standard deviation is. It’s not even clear that people fall on a normal distribution, by the way.

Don’t be too upset if you reject someone, and find you wish you had not. In the real world you can go back to one of the earlier fellows, to one of the rejects, if one does not wait too long. If you date with honesty from the start you can call up and say, ‘when I dated you I didn’t realize what a catch you were’ or words to that effect. That’s a lot better than saying ‘I rejected you based on a mathematical strategy that involved lying to all the first 36.8%.’

Robert Buxbaum, December 9, 2019. This started out as an essay on the mathematics of the fussy suitor problem. I see it morphed into a father’s dating advice to his marriage-age daughters. Here’s the advice I’d given to one of them at 16. I hope to do more with the math in a later post.

Say no to the dress

1 Reply

A popular reality TV show follows the struggles of young brides-to-be shopping for a wedding dress at a famous store, Kleinfeld’s. They’ve come to believe that this charming adornment will make their dream-wedding really perfect. There is some sort of idea that the perfect wedding is necessary (or desirable) to get you started on a perfect life. This is stated in various ways throughout the show with phrases like: “you deserve to be the princess,” or “you deserve your special day.”

Each woman brings a retinue to help her pick the gown, and to help advise her about what dress has the most pop, or looks best on her, or makes her look the most special. Often it’s someone in this retinue that will pay for the dress too, a father, uncle, or a close family member. The store caters to the retinue at lest at the beginning to get a commitment to the price, generally $5,000 to $10,000, but sometimes to “no limit on the price.” It then provides a dazzling variety of dresses and an old hand or two to guide the young lady to the right one. At first, the retinue chimes in, but eventually the retinue is detached, and the bride is made to embrace that it’s her special day, alone. Then, when the perfect dress is finally chosen (often at the high-end of the budget), the bride is asked: “are you ready to say yes to the dress?” She does, with tears, and everyone claps, especially the retinue. Often, there is a final shot of the beautiful bride at the beautiful wedding. It’s touching, but perhaps unnecessary. So here’s an alternate  thought: just say “no”. No to the expensive dress; no to the expensive cake (sorry, cake boss) and no to the fancy, big diamond. instead, throw a big fun wedding on the cheap, perhaps at a park in a rented gown; friends will get you through life, the big dress and big cake will not.

An expensive wedding didn’t keep John Kennedy faithful, nor did it help cement Elizabeth Taylors 7 husbands (two to Richard Burton). Just the opposite: a recent study on marriage stability showed that the higher priced the wedding, the more likely it is to end in divorce.

Marriage stability goes down as the wedding costs go up.

Marriage stability goes down as the wedding costs go up. If you dress costs $5,000, your wedding is unlikely to come in at less than $10k. From Francis and Mialon, “A diamond is forever and other Fairy Tales,” 2014. The average cost of a US wedding: $30,000.

The point of the wedding is to have a long, happy marriage, not a one day party, and expensive weddings appear to be counter-productive to stability. Things are worse for those who enter poor, backing up the observation that money stresses are among the main causes of marriage failure. This is not to say that you should not have a wedding party, but that spending should be watched especially if the couple isn’t that extraordinarily rich. The average, employed US 20-something earns about $26,000/year before taxes. That’s not bad money until you realize that the average US wedding costs over $30,000 not including dress, ring and honeymoon. There is a far lower chance of divorce for the couple with the $5-$10k wedding, and even lower if the couple can keep expenses in the 0-$5k range.

Give her a diamond ring, but the ideal cost is between $100 and $2000 (unless you're super rich)

Give her a ring, but the ideal cost is between $200 and $2000 unless you’re super rich.

Statistics suggest that spending on the diamond doesn’t help either, unless it’s a very expensive stone — and that, perhaps, is because the very expensive stone is only bought by the very rich groom. Still, even for the 1% who can afford it, the dress or stone should be considered a sunk cost, not an investment. You’ll never be able to resell that dress at all, and though you can resell a diamond it is virtually impossible to get even half your money back. This isn’t to say that you should not give a ring — without a ring the bride will feel cheated, but most grooms will be better served giving one in the $100-$2000 range.

It seems that having lots of people at the wedding is perhaps the single best thing you can do for marriage stability. On the other hand, this graph might show that the sort of person who has 200 good friends is the sort of person to remain happily married.

Having lots of people at the wedding is perhaps the single best thing you can do for marriage stability. On the other hand, this graph might show that the sort of person who has 200 good friends is the sort of person to remain happily married. ibid.

While your wedding should be cheap, or at least affordable, it should not be small. It turns out that having lots of friends and family in attendance correlates strongly with having a long, stable marriage. I’m not sure if this is entirely cause and effect: perhaps those with lots of friends and family are giving and stable than those without. Still, it strikes me that friendships are good for every couple, and very worth maintaining. These are people who will be there for advice, or just be there when things get rocky. Give them a good party, and don’t drive them away by sending a message that a large gift is expected. If you get married on the cheap, it’s likely your guests will feel more comfortable showing up in business clothes with simple affordable gifts. Most bridesmaids are happier if they don’t have to buy a big expensive dress.

Honeymoons help malaise stability too.

Honeymoons help marriage stability too. ibid.

Robert E. Buxbaum, July 12, 2015. My 3 children are all entering marriageable age — and PhD age (I wrote a post comparing a wedding to a PhD.) The above are my thoughts before being hornswoggled into buying $5,000 worth of taffeta. They are also suggestive of the sort of work to get a PhD. Another good spending investment, I think, is to go on a honeymoon. I didn’t, and though we didn’t get divorced, in retrospect it seems like a good idea. I plan to finally go on a honeymoon for our 25th anniversary. Let’s toast (with Geritol) to finding the right mate. Good luck.

Marriage vs PhD

Marriage vs PhD, from Piled Higher and Deeper (PhD) comics.

Marriage vs PhD, from Piled Higher and Deeper (PhD) comics.

Here’s a PhD comic comparing getting married to getting a PhD. The similarities are striking. It’s funny because …

 

 

….one does not expect so many similarities between the two endeavors. On thinking a bit further, one realizes that marriage and graduate school are the main, long-term trust relationship options for young college grads, 21-23 years old who want to move out of home and don’t want to yet enter the grind of being a single, wage slave (grease monkey, computer-code monkey, secretary, etc.)

College grads expect some self-fulfillment and, as they’ve lived away from home, mostly prefer to not move back, Entry level jobs are generally less-than fulfilling, and if you move away from home as a single, living costs can eat up all your income. One could get a same-sex room-mate, but that is a low commitment relationship, and most young grads want more: they’ve an “urge to merge.” Either PhD or marriage provides this more: you continue to live away from home, you get an environment with meals and room semi-provided (sometimes in a very cool environment) and you have some higher purpose and long-term companionship that you don’t get at home, or as a secretary with a room-mate.

I suspect that often, the choice of marriage or grad-school depends on which proffers the better offer. Some PhD programs and some marriages provide you with a stipend of spending-money. In other programs or marriages, you have to get an outside job. Even so, your spouse or advisor will typically help you get that outside job. In most communities, there’s more honor in being a scholar or a wife/ husband than there is in being a single working person. And there’s no guarantee it will be over in 7 years. A good marriage can last 30-50 years, and a good PhD may lead to an equally long stay in academia as a professor or a researcher of high standing. While not all majors are worth it financially, or emotionally, you can generally do more and make more money as a PhD than with a low-pay undergraduate degree. Or you can use your college connections to marry well.

What type of job are you looking for?

Some people are just cut out for the grad-school life-style, and not particularly for normal jobs. Ask yourself: What type of job will make me happy? Could be it’s research or home-making? Then go find a mate or program.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum (married with children and a PhD), July 1,, 2015. Growing up is perhaps the most difficult and important thing anyone does; getting married or entering a PhD program is a nice step, though it doesn’t quite mean you’re an adult yet. Some months ago, I wrote an essay about an earlier stage in the process: being a 16-year-old girl. For those interested in research, here’s something on how it is done using induction, and here’s something on statistics.

The Italian funeral joke.

One day, while having a latte at my favorite Starbucks, I noticed a most unusual Italian funeral. Instead of one hearse, there were two, one after the other, moving slowly down the street. Behind the hearse, there walked a man with a dog an a leash. Perhaps 80 other men walked behind him, single file.

As this was very unusual, I went up to the man with the dog and asked about it as respectfully as I could. I don’t want to intrude on your sorrow, sir, but I couldn’t help notice this funeral procession. Who passed away, if I may ask. The man looked at me and said that the first hearse contained his wife. “She’d gotten real mad at the dog, and the dog attacked her and killed her.” “I see,” I said, but what about the second hearse? After a pause, the man said, “That’s my mother-in-law. She started to beat the dog, and and the dog went and killed her too.” There then passed a moment of silent brotherhood between me and the fellow.

“Can I borrow the dog?”

“Get in line.”

Robert Buxbaum, January 7, 2014. It’s another shaggy dog story. Long story, sort of pointless; common phrase at the end. It’s funny because it’s a mini-mystery. All the clues were there from the start. Every now and again, I post jokes: engineering jokes, buddhist jokes, a dwarf joke and a Canadian joke, art, architecture.

On being a 16 year old girl

2 Replies

I’m not a teenage girl, in case you thought otherwise. I’m the father of a girl who just turned 16 though, and she asked me to write on the subject of what to expect from the next year or so. Here’s my sense of expectations.

You'll find yourself creeping up on adulthood, as a partner, not a kid; it's a scary and wonderful transition.

You’ll find yourself creeping up on adulthood, as a partner, not a kid; it’s a scary and wonderful transition.

In retrospect, you’re likely to say that 16 was among the best years of your life. These are the last glorious, innocent days with friends: days before competition means anything, before you really have to think of the world beyond your high school community. You are still hanging out, working together, and trying to feel your way towards a dim future as adults. Sorry to say, that’s in retrospect. While living through it, you’ll find this year fairly boring, and somewhat nerve-wracking. You’ll find your time filled with activities: school, home, hobbies. You’re likely to find these activities somewhat less stressful than before, because you’re more used to them and higher-up in the pecking order. Still, there are a lot of activities, and you’ll notice your day is pretty full. My advice: take time to enjoy your friends. Take pictures; they’ll be priceless.

At sixteen hobbies begin to be taken more seriously.

At sixteen, hobbies begin to be taken more seriously.

For both boys and girls, you are beginning the single most difficult, painful, and important transition of your life: the transition to adulthood. It’s not painful yet, but it will get worse in the next year or two. If all goes well, by age 22 or 23, you will be through it. Once through it, you will think of yourself as an independent moiety: someone who’s formed by us (your parents, family, and friends) but not defined by us. Once through it, if all goes well, you will be able to support yourself financially, and you will be able to live on your own. You are likely to want to live on your own too (teary smile) at least for a good portion of the year. At 16, this is a dimly seen, scary future, far off in the fog.

At this  point, you’re still tied to us, and I’m glad you don’t resent it. You’re happy to be a daughter, a sister to your siblings, a peer to your friends, and a student in your high school. Some teachers and classes you like, others less so. Your grades and hobbies are important to you, but your friends are more important. It’s nice to have high grades, but not so important as to disturb a friendship. You think of your hobbies as fun sidelights, and home as a place to relax with them. At home you write, read, draw, or cook for the fun of it. As the next few years wear on, this will change. You’ll think of yourself more as a writer, an artist, or plumber; as a private first class, or whatever. You’ll be good at something, not just generally bright. Some friends will fit better into this self-view; the friends who don’t fit will slowly drift away.

Sexuality rears its head in new ways at 16.

Sex rears its head unexpectedly.

At 16, I started thinking of myself as ‘an engineer’ or perhaps as a scientist or mathematician based on my hobbies and what I was good at in school. It became clear that I was not going to be an athlete, a historian, or a musician (though I retained an interest). Dropping options is a big, painful part of the transition. I recall almost hearing the doors closing behind me. You want to turn back, to catch the options. Know that, to not choose is to choose. As those doors close (and they should) new, better ones open that you didn’t realize existed. Losing friends and hobbies that are too high maintenance is good for you, and for them at this stage. Sex will rear its head, unexpectedly, and in new ways. Sexuality and homosexuality were words; for some they are becoming the dominant reality. For better or worse, you’ll be drawn in.

As the year draws to a close, you’re likely to find our parental presence more and more annoying. This is a good thing; it’s what will get you out the door, and launch you as a person. We’re on your side here, but won’t be able to help as your old you will begin to fight the new one. You plan to go to college, perhaps away from home (both options are good), but some of your friends will want to stay at home and do on-line vocational courses, or get married as soon as possible. You’ll likely drift away from those friends. Some college-bound friends will pick schools far from yours, or will pick majors or activities that you’re not interested in. You’re likely to find yourself gravitating to those friends who’re going to your college or for majors that match yours. There is pain in realizing that you won’t be as close with the remaining friends. Know that doors are opening here in two ways. First, just as high school provided your current friends, college and pre-college will provide you a new group — ones you may keep longer since the relationship based on shared direction, not just shared experiences. Also, know that some of the friends who drift away now will come back later — perhaps when you and they are married.

You may come to realize that some of your closest friends are your competitors for college places, scholarships. This may seem bad (or disloyal) but it’s good. Competition will help you improve, and will increase your drive, and that’s what you need this year. Think of the relationship in “A separate peace.” Think of how the relationship between the young Harper Lee and Truman Capote likely shaped “to kill a mockingbird” and furthered both of their careers. Competition with your cousins is good too. Watch how they deal with competition and life choices. Are there family members that could be life models or coaches? A big reason we have the family reunions is so that you can have a choice of life models and coaches.

Teen jobs are rarely all that exciting, but are an important part of personal development.

Teen jobs are rarely all that exciting, but are an important part of personal development.

Money will become a lot more important in the next few years — for things, travel, school applications, and clothes. You’re likely to find it’s annoying to get your money from us, and you’re likely to start working more for money. This is the beginning of financial independence. As you do, you’ll find yourself becoming defined by the job you do, how much you make, and what you spend your money on. This is good, but includes a loss of Idyl. Your first jobs will not be great, and you may find leaches hanging on: financial and emotional. As annoying as it is to have a leech, it’s worse to be the leach. Try to avoid it; be a good friend or neighbor. You may want to buy stock, or start a company, or produce a product for sale: a book, album, or whatever. If it’s something you’re interested in and you try to make money at it, the experience will be worth the effort. Even if it turns out a financial failure, it will be an important part of the emotional and financial person you make of yourself. If you don’t go into business, you may get involved in politics or religion, moving right or left. That’s OK, and very normal — another part of self-development.

You may find yourself re-evaluating your thoughts on religion and government.

You’re already beginning to develop wonderful life-skills. We don’t compliment you enough on this. You’ve learned to cook eggs and noodles, and find you like the independence it gives. That’s the ticket to adulthood. You’ll need more life skills to give you real independence, but you’re on the right track. You’ll need to learn to do laundry, shopping, and cleaning. You’re likely to need to be better at driving, writing, and negotiating: all difficult things. You’re likely to go through emotional cycles or depression as you think of the stuff you can’t do, or don’t understand, the friends you’re losing, or the things you’d like to do, but can’t. Don’t stress; you’ve got 5 years, or more. We’re very proud of you, and will try to help by tutoring, hugs, more-freedom, and the assurance that independence is worth the struggle. All beginnings are difficult, and this is a big beginning.

You can define yourself by your hobbies or by your man, but try not to define yourself by your man's hobbies.

You can define yourself by your hobbies or by your man, but try not to define yourself by your man’s hobbies.

Switching schools includes the opportunity to reinvent yourself as something completely new. Most people do this to a greater or lesser extent. Embrace your inner weirdo, but not your inner crook. Try to invent yourself as something fun and active, not sinful or destructive. Try to be the young scholar, mechanic, artist, or athlete, not the young goth, gangster, or drug addict. High schools try to help here by exposing you to books and movies about alienated 16-20 year olds. Popular in my day were Great Expectations, The Outsiders, Catcher in the Rye, The Dead Poets Society, To Kill a Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse 5, and A Separate Peace. Take what comfort you can. School assignments will include essays on law, government, and God. Write honestly, with conviction. These assignments can help develop your life views and personality. We’ll try not to stifle you here, even when your opinions differ significantly from ours. Of course, if you come up with something truly stupid or awesome, we’ll tell you.

Your friends will start dating, or discussing boys, and you are almost certain to start looking at boys differently: first as exciting possibilities, and then as potential mates. Part of the attraction involves the ability to define yourself by the boy you choose. This is a comfort and a curse. The comfort is that it avoids you having to define yourself, or grow up quite. The curse is that the boy doesn’t know who he is either. You’ll find that some boys are nice and some are grounded, others are not. And some are really messed up. With the right kind, you’ll find you can do more as a pair than as a single. Eventually you’re likely to pair off; in our community that happens at about 21-24. When it happens, I hope it’s with a nice, grounded fellow. It works best if you first know who you are, but even otherwise, it can work. Couples sometimes discover who they are together. And, at that point the transition will be over. You’ll be a married adult; you’ll introduce yourself as Mrs Shnicklefritz, or as Dr. and Mr Schniklefritz, or whatever, and we’ll prepare ourselves to spoil our grandkids.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, proud father of you and your two older siblings. October 4, 2014. Though further along in their life paths, I can hope that the older siblings will enjoy these thoughts too. I’ve previously mused about US education, and whether ADHD was a real disease. For my older daughter’s 21st birthday, I invented a new mixed drink.

When to enter a neighbors war or family dispute

6 Replies

As I write this, our favored insurgents in Syria have been over-run by our disfavored insurgents, who may be over-run by the government we are trying to topple. We have also committed to help Japan and Vietnam in their disputes with China. I’ve also had the experience of dealing with a couple going through a bitter divorce. So here are five thoughts for myself and president Obama on getting involved in other people’s problems. I’ll hope that at least one person (me) listens.

1. Learn how to wait without committing to either side so you don’t step in something really smelly. Commiserate with both sides; yes you have grievances, yes what they’ve done isn’t nice. Suggest outside review. Just don’t commit until you feel comfortable sticking with this one side in victory, defeat, or (possible) reconciliation.

In a war, even simple gifts of food or transport are support; avoid these gifts, and especially avoid gifts to both sides. Assume any support to a side will be considered treason from the other side. Supporting both sides just causes havoc, and it’s always possible that your gifts will fall in the hands of the wrong side, as in Syria.

Being helpful isn't always helpful. Matthew Deffee, The New Yorker

Being helpful isn’t always helpful, or appreciated. Learn to wait. Matthew Deffee, The New Yorker

Remind yourself that disputes are a normal part of life, that peace always comes eventually, and that disputes are sometimes good in the long run. Offer sympathy only until you really want to support one side or the other — or until they make peace. When peace comes, it’s possible that the resolution will be better than the status quo-anti. As such, perhaps long-term non-intervention is the best cure. Time often answers what wisdom does not.

2.  If you choose to support a side, only support one that openly, and traditionally supports us. No Syrian leaders have openly pledged support to the US and its allies; why ally with someone who won’t support you? The enemy of your enemy might be another enemy, as with the Taliban. In a marriage dispute, lean to support your close relative or friend — it’s less offensive than the opposite, and less likely to cause hurt. As bad as it is when two sides attack each other, it’s worse when both attack you.

Only support someone who could rule reasonably honestly and well. Chaos is worse than a dictator. Kanin from the New Yorker.

Only support someone who could rule reasonably well. Chaos is worse than a dictator. Kanin from the New Yorker.

3. If you feel it’s important to act in a neighbor’s dispute, you don’t always have to ally with either side. You can retaliate for someone blowing up a ship or killing an advisor, or beating their children by intervening at a distance. Perhaps you can use a missile (ideally against a pointless target), or sanctions, or by the UN or a volunteer force (this tends to work for the US). In family disputes, it’s often best to send a councilor or the police or child protective services. There is room to escalate or de-escalate an action like this depending on how things play out. And it’s easier to distance yourself from a 3rd party’s actions than from one’s own. It is not necessary to support either side to achieve a personal goal or protect children in a divorce.

4.  If you decide to choose sides, make sure to keep in mind the end you seek: what good you want to do, what reasonable peace you seek, then act. Do not worry that you can not do everything, but make sure you target a viable end, and that you support a side that could win and rule. Try to pick a side that’s moral and perceived as legitimate from within, but if you can’t, at least pick one that could rule the country or manage the family without your help. Don’t support a loser, or one who can’t stand on his/her own. Chaos is worse than a crooked dictator; see, for example, the French Revolution. In a fight between parents, make sure the one you support could actually raise the kids. And once the goal is achieved, don’t stay too long. If a friend tells you to go, as in Afghanistan, leave quickly. Independence is the goal we hope for — for our children, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being a fair broker of peace is a great role -- in the proper time. From the New Yorker

Being a fair broker of peace is a great role — but only for the right person in the proper time. From the New Yorker

5. Be willing to serve as an honest broker of the peace. An honest broker is very valuable, and it requires that you’re perceived as unbiassed by both sides. Wait till the right moment before offering this service, and offer it like the precious jewel it is. Offer it when asked or when the fighting dies down. If the offer is refused, be willing to go away and return to the first rule. T. Roosevelt won the Nobel peace prize for ending the Russo-Japanese war because he was a good, honest broker: someone who understood the situation and could stand back when not needed.

Robert E. Buxbaum, Dec 18, 2013. Blessed are the peacemakers.