Okay, confession time. Sometimes, scrolling through dating apps or thinking about relationships feels like wandering around IKEA without a map – confusing, overwhelming, and you’re constantly wondering if you missed the shortcut to the good stuff (aka the meatballs, or in this case, lasting love!). We’ve all been there, right? Wondering “Is this it?” or “Should I wait and see who else is out there?”
It’s messy and emotional, and usually, the last place you’d look for answers is… a math textbook.
But get this: I stumbled upon this totally fascinating (and okay, kinda nerdy) mathematical idea that people have applied to dating, and it’s too weirdly interesting not to share. It’s called the Optimal Stopping Problem, and it basically tries to figure out the best time to stop searching and make a choice when options come one after another.
So, How Does This Math Magic (Allegedly) Work for Dating?
Bear with me, because it sounds a bit bonkers at first! The most famous takeaway is often called the “37% Rule.”
The theory goes like this:
- Guesstimate Your Dating Journey: Think very roughly about your serious dating life. Maybe it’s the years you expect to be dating (like, say, from whenever you started till maybe your late 30s/early 40s?), or maybe you imagine having a certain number of significant relationships before you settle down (like 10? 15?). Don’t stress this part; it’s just for the thought experiment!
- The “Just Looking” Phase (First 37%): Here’s the wild bit. The rule suggests you spend the first 37% of that timeframe or that number of partners just exploring. Date people, learn what you like and don’t like, figure out your non-negotiables. But – and this is the kicker – the pure mathematical strategy says you don’t commit to anyone in this phase, even if they seem amazing. The goal here is purely research – setting your own personal benchmark for what a great partner looks like to you.
- The “Okay, Let’s Do This” Phase (Post-37%): Once you’re past that initial 37% exploration zone, the strategy shifts. You keep dating, but now, the very next person who comes along and is better than everyone you dated in that first “just looking” phase? According to the math, that’s your optimal person to choose!
Putting Some (Totally Hypothetical!) Numbers On It:
- Thinking in Years: If your main dating window feels like age 20-40 (a 20-year span), 37% is about 7.4 years. So, if you were following this purely mathematically, you’d explore until your late 20s (around 27/28). Then, the next person better than anyone before? Bingo.
- Thinking in Partners: If you guess you might date around 10 serious partners total, 37% is 3-4 people. So, you’d date those first few just to learn. Then, the next person who really impresses you compared to that initial group? The math says: go for it.
🤓 Okay, Let’s Dive Deeper: Why That 37%? (Extra Nerd Corner!)
Alright, so you want a bit more behind the curtain on how mathematicians landed on 37%? Fair enough! The full-blown math involves calculus and probability theory that can make your head spin (it did mine!), but we can definitely unpack the idea behind their calculations a bit more.
Remember, the goal isn’t just to find a good partner, but to maximize your chance of finding the single best partner out of all the potential people you might seriously date (let’s call that total number ‘N’).
The strategy involves deciding when to stop exploring and start committing. Let’s say you decide to explore the first ‘k’ partners (date them but automatically reject them) and then choose the next person who is better than anyone in that first group ‘k’. The big question is: what’s the best number for ‘k’?
Here’s how the thinking goes:
- Consider a Specific Person: Let’s imagine the actual perfect #1 person happens to be the 5th person you date (out of maybe N=20 total). For you to successfully pick them using this strategy:
- You need to have explored fewer than 5 people (your ‘k’ must be 1, 2, 3, or 4). If you explored 5 or more, you’d automatically reject them!
- They also need to be better than everyone in your exploration group (k=1, 2, 3, or 4). Since they are the #1 best overall, this condition is automatically met.
- Crucially, no one between the end of your exploration (person k+1) and person #5 can also be better than everyone in your exploration group. If someone was, you’d have picked them first and “lost” the chance to get the true #1.
- Calculating Probabilities for Each Scenario: Mathematicians basically calculated the probability of success for every possible scenario. What’s the chance the best person is #1, #2, #3… #N? And for each of those possibilities, what’s the chance your chosen strategy (explore ‘k’, then pick the next best) actually succeeds in picking them?
- Summing it Up & Finding the Best ‘k’: They added up the probabilities of success for a given ‘k’ across all possible positions for the best person. This gave them the overall probability of success for exploring exactly ‘k’ people.
- Finding the Peak Probability: They then did this calculation for different values of ‘k’ (exploring 1 person, 2 people, 3 people… up to N people). They discovered a pattern:
- If ‘k’ is very small (exploring too little), the overall success probability is low.
- As ‘k’ increases, the success probability rises because you’re getting a better baseline.
- But if ‘k’ gets too large (exploring too much), the success probability falls again, because you’re increasingly likely to have already rejected the best person within your large exploration group ‘k’.
- The Optimal Point: The math showed that the value of ‘k’ which gives the highest overall probability of success is when ‘k’ is approximately 36.8% of the total number ‘N’ (especially when ‘N’ is reasonably large). This specific percentage emerges naturally from optimizing those probability calculations – it’s the point where you perfectly balance the risk of stopping too early versus stopping too late.
And that 36.8% is rounded up to the memorable 37%!
So, it’s derived from meticulously calculating the strategy that maximizes your odds of picking the single best candidate in this sequential decision problem. It’s the mathematically proven sweet spot between looking and leaping!
Phew! That’s the slightly deeper dive without getting too lost in formulas. Hope that satisfies your inner mathematician! 😉
Okay, Okay, Reality Check Time!
Now, before you start calculating percentages and turning down amazing dates because they arrived “too early,” let’s be real. My brain immediately starts shouting:
- HELLO, FEELINGS! We’re humans, not robots! Love, chemistry, shared laughter, how someone makes you feel safe – that stuff doesn’t fit neatly into equations.
- Life Isn’t a Neat Timeline: You might meet your soulmate at 21, or reconnect with a childhood friend later in life. It’s messy!
- Who is “Better”? Isn’t that super subjective and doesn’t it change as we change?
- Rejecting Someone Great? The idea of meeting someone wonderful during the “exploration” phase and having to let them go based on a formula? Ouch! That sounds like potential rom-com tragedy material.
So, What’s the Point Then?
Honestly? I don’t think the 37% rule is a literal instruction manual for love. Please don’t dump anyone based on this article!
But I do think it’s a super interesting perspective shift. Maybe it helps us:
- Take the pressure off early dating: It’s okay if the first few people aren’t “the one.” Maybe that phase really is just about learning.
- Trust our judgment later: It hints that after we’ve experienced a bit, we’re better equipped to recognise something truly special when it comes along.
- Appreciate the blend of logic and heart: Maybe finding a partner isn’t just magic and fate; maybe a little bit of knowing what you’re looking for (based on experience) helps too.
Think of it as a fun little mental tool, a quirky conversation starter, or just proof that even mathematicians might think about finding love sometimes!
Ultimately, navigate the dating world with your heart open, your intuition tuned in, and maybe… just maybe… with a tiny, amused nod to the weird and wonderful 37% rule.
What do you think? Is this math-meets-love idea totally nuts or kinda brilliant? I’d love to hear your take in the comments!