Mating, dating, and mathematics: It's all in the game

Abstract

Why do people stay together in monogamous relationships? Love? Fear? Habit? Ethics? Integrity? Desperation? In this paper I will consider a rather surprising answer that comes from mathematics. It turns out that cooperative behaviour, such as mutually-faithful marriages, can be given a firm basis in a mathematical theory known as game theory. I will suggest that faithfulness in relationships is fully accounted for by narrow self interest in the appropriate game theory setting. This is a surprising answer because faithful behaviour is usually thought to involve love, ethics, and caring about the well being of your partner. It seems that the game-theory account of faithfulness has no need for such romantic notions. I will consider the philosophical upshot of the game-theoretic answer and see if it really does deliver what is required. Does the game-theoretic answer miss what is important about faithful relationships or does it help us get to the heart of the matter? Before we start looking at lasting, faithful relationships, though, let’s get a feel for how mathematics might be employed to help in matters of the heart. Let’s first consider how mathematics might shed light on dating to find a suitable partner.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Mating, Dating, and Mathematics.Mark Colyvan - 2010-09-24 - In Fritz Allhoff, Kristie Miller & Marlene Clark (eds.), Dating ‐ Philosophy for Everyone. Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 211–220.
Game Theory in Business Ethics: Bad Ideology or Bad Press?Kay Mathiesen - 1999 - Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (1):37-45.
the philosophical interpretation of language game theory.Nick Zangwill - 2021 - Journal of Language Evolution 6 (2):136–153.
Can Strategic Ignorance Explain the Evolution of Love?Adam Bear & David G. Rand - 2019 - Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (2):393-408.
Relative Expectation Theory.Mark Colyvan - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (1):37-44.
A Game Theory Of Logic — A Logic Of Game Theory.Jaakko Hintikka - 1998 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 5:315-323.
Could a Feminist and a Game Theorist Co-Parent?Karen Wendling & Paul Viminitz - 1998 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28 (1):33 - 49.
On the Narrow Epistemology of Game Theoretic Agents.Boudewijn de Bruin - 2009 - In Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen & Tero Tulenheimo (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-08-04

Downloads
591 (#45,503)

6 months
591 (#2,056)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mark Colyvan
University of Sydney

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references