Great post! Intuitively, it feels like allowing for negative preferences (i.e. disliking something that other people like, like chattiness or introversion) would actually increase equitableness and maybe allow for increased other-satisfaction. (Depending on what distribution we draw people from)
Rerunning the sim with ‘non-negative preferences’, I get an average self-satisfaction of 21.44 and average other-satisfaction of 23.82; doing it with a random preference direction I get an average self-satisfaction of 0.53 and average other-satisfaction of 5.43 (with 95% preferring their partner). So with preferences that are less correlated between people, the matching has more ability to drive up other-satisfaction, which makes sense.
[I was expecting the average self-satisfaction to be 0, so I’m not quite sure why it’s so high; maybe the randomness of the simulations is high enough that’s a reasonable result? Running it some more times I get 0.28, −0.37, 0.10, −0.13, and −0.04 for self-satisfaction averages, which seems consistent with “you had an abnormally pleased group that time, but the average is 0”.]
(I’m noticing I divided by net numbers by 2, which means they’re “per-relationship” numbers instead of “per-person” numbers, and that was probably a mistake; oops!)
Great post! Intuitively, it feels like allowing for negative preferences (i.e. disliking something that other people like, like chattiness or introversion) would actually increase equitableness and maybe allow for increased other-satisfaction. (Depending on what distribution we draw people from)
Rerunning the sim with ‘non-negative preferences’, I get an average self-satisfaction of 21.44 and average other-satisfaction of 23.82; doing it with a random preference direction I get an average self-satisfaction of 0.53 and average other-satisfaction of 5.43 (with 95% preferring their partner). So with preferences that are less correlated between people, the matching has more ability to drive up other-satisfaction, which makes sense.
[I was expecting the average self-satisfaction to be 0, so I’m not quite sure why it’s so high; maybe the randomness of the simulations is high enough that’s a reasonable result? Running it some more times I get 0.28, −0.37, 0.10, −0.13, and −0.04 for self-satisfaction averages, which seems consistent with “you had an abnormally pleased group that time, but the average is 0”.]
(I’m noticing I divided by net numbers by 2, which means they’re “per-relationship” numbers instead of “per-person” numbers, and that was probably a mistake; oops!)