Mathematical principle reveals how to get what you want
Joyce Park stashed this in Economics
The Gale-Shipley algorithm isn't a perfect model of real life -- why do any of the girls have to say yes to any of the boys? is the "best" candidate for the job someone who has done the exact same work before, or a more junior person who would appreciate the ability to grow? and most importantly, behavioral economics shows that people are horrible at knowing what will actually make them happy when there are essentially infinite choices -- but it's a great rationale for why you should go after what you think you want instead of waiting for it to come to you.
My takeaway is that you'll get better results if you are active than if you are passive.
For any relationship.
Essentially, whoever does the asking (and is willing to face rejection until achieving the best available option) is better off.
Meanwhile, the person who sits back and waits for advances settles for the least bad option on the table.
The Gale-Shapley matching algorithm applies to plenty of situations beyond weekend hookups — including, say, hiring.
For example, a hiring manager who posts a job listing and lets the résumés roll in ultimately hires the best of the candidates who applied. But of course, that's a limited pool. On the other hand, a hiring manager who reaches out to the best professionals in the field and ends up with his or her third choice is still more likely to have a better candidate.
By the same token, a job seeker who approaches all the companies he or she wants to work for, starting with the most desirable, ends up with the best available employer.
My take away is to take initiative. Always. Which is the same as step 1 or maybe it was 2 of 7 habits of highly effective people.
Or at least make an offer of something. You never know what will happen if you make an offer.
The person who makes the first move is not just risking something, s/he is SPENDING something -- offering information first has a cost, as many studies have shown. So there needs to be a bigger reward for people to keep using that strategy.
You're right. I often don't think about the cost of information, but you're right.