The odds that your date is your soulmate

[RyanJ]

People seem to have an unrealistically low estimate of how many compatible people are out there, which in turn causes people to over-value relationships and stay with people when they shouldn't. I've had this opinion for a while, but every good scientist knows their opinion alone is worth nothing until they have some basic evidence, and even then it isn't worth much.

 

I am only about halfway through my study, but for those of you who are curious, here are some preliminary numbers from my research:

 

So far, it seems like the average number of long term relationships (3+ months) people have before marriage is four. If one in every four dates turns into a long term relationship, and one in every five long term relationships turns into a marriage, it's easy to ballpark the number of potential marriage partners in a city.

 

Let's use Chicago as an example:

 

Population: 2,695,000

 

Let's say: you're a 35 year old man looking for women between the ages of 25-44

 

Percentage of the population in that age group: 32%

 

2,695,000 x 0.32 = 862,400 -> divide by two since the population is roughly half female 862,400 / 2 = 431,200

 

There are roughly 431,200 women in Chicago between the ages of 25 and 44. If you could somehow date all of them, and if one in four dates turns into a long term relationship, you would have [ 431,200 x 0.25 = ] 107,800 long term relationships. This would result in [ 107,800 x 0.20 = ] 21,560 marriages.

 

 

In the city of Chicago, a 35 year old man who is willing to date women between the ages of 25-44 has a pool of 21,560 marriage quality women to choose from.

 

 

When surveyed, most responses indicate the general population believes there are "a few" people in their city they would marry (a few in this case is defined as less than 10) which stands in stark contrast against the numbers.

 

My guess is this discrepancy is a result of our over-zealous ideas of what will make us happy, causing us to eliminate partners who are not a certain race, height, education level etc. even though we may otherwise be perfectly compatible.

 

What are your thoughts?

[camus154]

Interesting topic.

 

However, I'm a bit unclear on the following:

 

Where are you getting the assumption "if 1 in every 4 dates turns into a long term relationship"? You mention that the average number of long term relationships prior to marriage is 4, but that doesn't correlate to 1 in every 4 dates turning into a LTR.

 

Also, not every marriage is a measure of compatibility. At least if we are to factor in the relatively high divorce rate.

[RyanJ]

All my information is based on surveying research volunteers.

 

Say you go on four dates, and one date turns into a long term relationship. Four long term relationships won't work out for every one that does (becomes marriage). So if it takes four dates for one long term relationship, and five long term relationships for a marriage, it takes roughly 20 dates to find someone you'd be willing to settle with.

[camus154]

Right, I get the jump from # of LTRs to marriage, based on the info you've gathered. What I don't get is where you're coming up with the number, 1 in 4 dates leads to an LTR. Is that also from the info you've gathered?

 

From my own experience that seems like a pretty high success rate.

[patterned]

While there are plenty of wonderful people out there connect with I don't think your methodology works.

 

Some thoughts.

1. 3 months is not a long term relationship.

2. Quite a few people are paired up significantly reducing the numbers.

3. A certain percentage of the population is off the table on the basis of fundamental differences. (sexual preference for example)

[Habibi]

I like the numbers...got foundation although they miss external factors like age, sexual preference,etc etc

but definitely a good starting point.

Anyways, I found my soul mate so from my 21,560 potential candidates I am willing to share the 21,559 left from my pool.

Any one ?

[RyanJ]

Right, I get the jump from # of LTRs to marriage, based on the info you've gathered. What I don't get is where you're coming up with the number, 1 in 4 dates leads to an LTR. Is that also from the info you've gathered?

 

From my own experience that seems like a pretty high success rate.

 

Yes. The way I'm running the study is simple: research posting to gather volunteers, volunteers fill out a questionnaire, data from questionnaire is logged.

 

The "1 in 4 dates leads to an LTR" is from the following question: "What is the average number of dates you go on before entering a serious relationship? (a relationship of over 3 months)"

 

The mean is 3.92, rounded up to 4, and the median is also 4. There were some answers that will probably end up as outliers, like 1 date in the case of a prearranged marriage or two people who dated in high school, and 10+ dates for people who are either very unlucky or have very high standards.

 

While there are plenty of wonderful people out there connect with I don't think your methodology works.

 

Some thoughts.

1. 3 months is not a long term relationship.

2. Quite a few people are paired up significantly reducing the numbers.

3. A certain percentage of the population is off the table on the basis of fundamental differences. (sexual preference for example)

 

1. I share your opinion on number one, but ultimately what constitutes a long term relationship is a completely subjective issue. "3 months" is based on responses to the question "After what amount of time is a relationship considered 'serious'?", which was asked prior to the study.

 

2. What I'm saying here is for the average man, there are about 21,000 women that meet their standards. Sure, some may be taken, some people may have smaller pools due to niche preferences, some people may have larger pools due to wealth or status, and these are all things we can apply on an individual basis. My aim here is to get people who believe there aren't options out there to rethink their worldview.

 

3. Yes, absolutely. The calculation accounts for most differences (i.e. 1 in 4 dates becoming a relationship - 3 people are eliminated from the final calculation due to differences, lack of interest, or incompatibility) but when we're done and have some concrete numbers absolute disqualifiers such as sexual orientation will be factored in.

 

I like the numbers...got foundation although they miss external factors like age, sexual preference,etc etc

but definitely a good starting point.

 

Age is taken into account here - in the example it is a 35 year old man looking for 25-44 year old women. Other preferences mentioned above (sexual preference) that are absolute disqualifiers will be accounted for once all numbers are in.

 

 

Thanks everyone for your replies!

[Batya33]

Just because a relationship might be considered serious after 3 months doesn't make it a long term relationship. I think you make so many assumptions about what constitutes "marriage quality" and other aspects of the "pool", as well as the age range you chose that I wouldn't put much weight on your conclusions. Also you're assuming that your definition of "compatible" (which excludes considerations of education level, race, etc) works generally.

[Wayfara]

I think the percentage taken and off-limits is pretty significant, probably around half the population or more. Also according to your study one every four dates turn into a relationship but we do a lot of preliminary elimination prior to dating too as very few people are willing to date everyone of the opposite gender even when in the same age group. Even if we would be less selective with who we date then that elimination would probably happen in the dating phase and instead decrease the percentage of dates turning into a relationship. Those are my thoughts anyway.

[Godel]

Ah, the law of large numbers. You won't get a lot of support around here, but I like your post. One in twenty, intuitively sounds a bit low, but even if it's one in 200, that's still over 2,000 "soulmates". Even if you remove half the population as wayfara suggested, the number is still over ten thousand.

 

OP: expect people to pick every little, insignificant detail about this post apart. This whole post flies in the face of the notion of "the one" and destiny. Plus, you're mixing logic with women, a truly volatile combination.

[Wayfara]

OP: expect people to pick every little, insignificant detail about this post apart. This whole post flies in the face of the notion of "the one" and destiny. Plus, you're mixing logic with women, a truly volatile combination.

 

I don't believe in "the one" or destiny, I'm just saying we have to take account of all big factors before we can make an accurate estimation. If we are going to estimate how many single people in the region the average heterosexual American is compatible with we should take account of how many who are not attractive to the person in question, already taken, homosexual and other big factors.

 

I think around 5-10% are homosexual. Just saw that America 51% of the adult population is married so I estimate the singles are maybe one third of the population as not everyone in relationships are married. I don't know the precentage the average person find attractive enough to date (physically and emtionally) but let's say for the average person it's one in ten (some are attracted to more people but nothing will come out of it if it isn't mutual).

 

 

Reusing Chicago as example with the 35 year old man

 

Population Chicago: 2,695,000

 

Percentage of the population in Chicago in the age group 25-44 2,695,000 x 0.32 = 862,400

 

Percentage of these who are heterosexul/bisexual 862,400 - (0.05 x 862,400) = 819,280[/b]

 

Percentage of these who are singles: 819,280 x 0.33 = 270,362

 

Percentage of these who are females: 270,362/2 = 135,181

 

Percentage of these who have enough mutual attraction with the 35 year old to lead to a date: 135,181 x 0.1 = 13,518

 

One in four dates leads to a relationship: 13,518 x 0.25 = 3379

 

One in five relationships leads to marriage: 3380 x 0.20 = 679

 

 

679 marriage compatible people at a given point is still a good number though and the number would increase if the 35 year old man is ready wait around until some of the taken people divorce or break up.

[Batya33]

Ah, the law of large numbers. You won't get a lot of support around here, but I like your post. One in twenty, intuitively sounds a bit low, but even if it's one in 200, that's still over 2,000 "soulmates". Even if you remove half the population as wayfara suggested, the number is still over ten thousand.

 

OP: expect people to pick every little, insignificant detail about this post apart. This whole post flies in the face of the notion of "the one" and destiny. Plus, you're mixing logic with women, a truly volatile combination.

 

I didn't believe in the one or destiny and that's not why I disagreed with his findings/speculations I would call it. As for your comment about women, well, I hope the OP took into account those people who might be in the right age group and single but not quite ready to be in a healthy relationship that includes treating a person as an individual. If you were "joking" well, sure, I guess it's fun to resurrect outdated stereotypes.

[StrawberryYogurt]

You neglect to account for factors such as financial compatibility (e.g. similar mindset on spending vs saving), religious compatibility, views on having children, smoking vs non-smoking, not wanting to date a divorced person, not wanting to date a person who's cheated in the past, mental illnesses, physical appearance, use of alcohol, thus making this not as logical an exercise as it could have been.

[RyanJ]

Ah, the law of large numbers. You won't get a lot of support around here, but I like your post. One in twenty, intuitively sounds a bit low, but even if it's one in 200, that's still over 2,000 "soulmates". Even if you remove half the population as wayfara suggested, the number is still over ten thousand.

 

OP: expect people to pick every little, insignificant detail about this post apart. This whole post flies in the face of the notion of "the one" and destiny. Plus, you're mixing logic with women, a truly volatile combination.

 

Haha yeah I definitely expected it.

 

The criticism is good though, since the audience I'm trying to target is a lot more like the average relationship forum goer than the average academic peer reviewer. Look at the difference in public popularity of Psychology Today vs Psychological Bulletin or American Psychologist and you'll see what I mean.

[PJK]

Ah, the law of large numbers. You won't get a lot of support around here, but I like your post. One in twenty, intuitively sounds a bit low, but even if it's one in 200, that's still over 2,000 "soulmates". Even if you remove half the population as wayfara suggested, the number is still over ten thousand.

 

OP: expect people to pick every little, insignificant detail about this post apart. This whole post flies in the face of the notion of "the one" and destiny. Plus, you're mixing logic with women, a truly volatile combination.

 

Agreed, also in a city like Chicago the immediate metropolitian area bumps the population up to I think around 8,000,000...I was born and raised in the area.

 

I have no research other than personal observations but how many people do you know have found their "one" in their immediate social circle or in college or at work which has exponentially less population than the city and surrounding area.

 

And think about how many people move to or have to work in other cities and areas of the country so then you add that population to the equation. The point is there really FAR more people who would make suitable long term partners than we think there are. I absolutely believe this...good post!

[RyanJ]

Agreed, also in a city like Chicago the immediate metropolitian area bumps the population up to I think around 8,000,000...I was born and raised in the area.

 

I have no research other than personal observations but how many people do you know have found their "one" in their immediate social circle or in college or at work which has exponentially less population than the city and surrounding area.

 

And think about how many people move to or have to work in other cities and areas of the country so then you add that population to the equation. The point is there really FAR more people who would make suitable long term partners than we think there are. I absolutely believe this...good post!

 

Thank you for your reply, it seems you understood my point exactly. The criticisms are mainly that I did not take into account negative factors reducing the total pool, but I did not take into account positive factors either. Method is reviewed by peers and superiors long before a study begins, and we all agreed positive and negative factors would roughly balance out. Even if it slides one way or the other, the point remains: there are MANY more potential mates than people believe there to be.

[Wayfara]

I have no research other than personal observations but how many people do you know have found their "one" in their immediate social circle or in college or at work which has exponentially less population than the city and surrounding area.

 

Some people are simply lucky. Some people are easier paired up than others, less selective with an easy personality to get along with. Through our lives we also meet thousands of people, neighboors, classmates, workmates, friends of friends etc. Most of us have been classmates with at least a hundred people, probably more, sometimes twice or thrice that number. In college most are also unmarried, in our age range and the probability of having something in common with a classmate is higher as you both have chosen the same subject to study. People finding "the one" in their social circles is therefore bound to happen pretty often even with much lower odds.

 

The criticisms are mainly that I did not take into account negative factors reducing the total pool, but I did not take into account positive factors either. Method is reviewed by peers and superiors long before a study begins, and we all agreed positive and negative factors would roughly balance out. Even if it slides one way or the other, the point remains: there are MANY more potential mates than people believe there to be.

 

The original post makes the assumption that as long the other person is of the opposite gender and in your age range you would want to date them which is not true. With that logic the average woman in a class with twenty males would date all twenty of them if she could, see herself in a long-term relationships with five of them and marriage with one. I don't see that reflect in reality, I've been in many male dominated groups where I haven't wanted to date even one of them.

 

It might be true one every four dates turn into a relationship but it still have to make it to the first date to have that chance. Disregarding that step is a mistake in my opinion because it makes a huge difference in numbers. What positive factors would balance out taking away such a big step? As for now the calculated odds of the original post only holds true for those who have gender and age as their only criteria for wanting to date someone, for those who have more criteria like attraction the odds are much lower.

[lalalollipops]

I've met a couple of soulmates (guys) and one other girl who was one too (soulmates aren't all romantic, they can be friendships too).

You don't go out looking for them, they come into your life when they're meant to.

[Batya33]

I've met a couple of soulmates (guys) and one other girl who was one too (soulmates aren't all romantic, they can be friendships too).

You don't go out looking for them, they come into your life when they're meant to.

 

I found my "one" by being proactive. So did most of my friends. I love the stories where the people involved just happen to meet their soulmate and label it "destiny" or "fate" -my story was a lot like that but a far more accurate assessment is that I had to be proactive about meeting people and proactive about becoming the right person to find the right person. What a sad world it would be if people just waited passively for a soulmate and passed up opportunities that involved being proactive or even worse refused to be proactive because "he/she will come along and knock on my door someday".

[lalalollipops]

^ But I'm talking actual soulmates, not just any person that you become close to or get into relationships with. Actual soulmates come into your life when they should, you don't need to search for them anywhere.

[Batya33]

^ But I'm talking actual soulmates, not just any person that you become close to or get into relationships with. Actual soulmates come into your life when they should, you don't need to search for them anywhere.

 

LOL. Sorry I just find that whole definition of "soulmates" kind of funny. That's not how I define soulmate. And I wasn't referring to any particular person you're in a serious relationship with. I was referring to the person you choose to be with long term - the right person for you. I don't use the label "soulmate" but, um, yes, I relate to and understand the concept and that's how I define it. If you define "soulmate" as someone who just appears one day without having to be proactive then in my opinion you're referring to a pleasant romantic fairy tale about how some relationships happen. Some. And among those "some" are relationships where the people assume they've found a soulmate, often because the person seems to have dropped from the heavens one day "when they weren't looking" until 3-4 months later when the newness wears off and they wait again for the next "soulmate".

 

I would never, ever advise someone to wait passively for a "soulmate". And, anyway, my soulmate wouldn't have gone for me if I had been that passive - one reason we're together is because we admire how we each go for things we really want, including relationships. I'm not saying you are giving that advice to others, just giving my opinion on your definition of soulmate. I would also add that even if fate/destiny plays a role in finding a good match for yourself, you have to be proactive about being in the right place to accept that person, and proactive about being out there to meet people you have things in common with including relationship goals. Most people I know would be miserable if they had waited passively for a "soulmate".

[lalalollipops]

^ I don't think you understand the concept of soulmates at all. I was referring to someone you feel very familiar to in the first few seconds of you meeting them. You know a big connection and you feel like you've met them before, and you have that connection on all levels. A soulmate is someone that you learn lessons from that comes into your life to help you grow as a person.

 

So no, it's not people you end up in long relationships with- soulmates are not made.

 

I never used to believe in them until I met a guy who was one. You don't really know what it feels like until you meet one. It has nothing to do with looks or attraction. It's a deeper thing. It's like a recognition of them bc they were in your life in a past life.

 

And I wasn't talking about silly people who think every guy they get with is their soulmate. -_-

[lalalollipops]

And it's not 'just' a 'click' cos I meet quite a few people I click with. It's more than that- you can talk 12 hours straight on the phone with them the first time they call you even if you only met them the day before. They also have an uncanny amount of things in common with you, have really similar experiences and past childhood, when you look into their eyes, it feels like you're being sucked in lol. It's just a different feeling and unfortunately alot of people have never met one so wouldn't know what I'm describing.

[Sportster2005]

There's your mistake. You are applying logic and math to emotions and relationships. I'm not a scientist, just correct

[Sapientia]

Personally, I prefer the odds on intelligent life on other planets. Run me those numbers for a soulmate, would you?