Improspectives

Improv skills lead to success

Posts Tagged ‘Stanford

Review: Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating

leave a comment »

In addition to blogging here, writing books, and creating online training courses, I’m also the editor and lead reviewer for Technology and Society Book Reviews. Here’s my most recent review.

Title: Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating

Author: Paul Oyer

Publisher: Harvard Business Review Press

Copyright: 2014

ISBN13: 978-1-4221-9165-1

Length: 256

Price: $25.00

Rating: 89%

I purchased this book for personal use.

Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating, written by Paul Oyer and published by Harvard Business Review Press, takes a friendly approach to teaching basic economic concepts. The book covers topics including search, signalling, selection, and network externalities, in an approachable and personal manner. Oyer tells the tale through his own experiences in online dating. As someone who met his wife through online dating, I found myself rooting for the balding economist trying to find love while going through an unhurried divorce.

Light-Hearted, but not Lightweight

Paul Oyer is a professor of economics at the Stanford graduate school of business, so he is used to explaining economics to graduate students. It’s not a simple undertaking to translate that knowledge into terms that can be understood by the general reader. Yes, I understand that anyone who would purchase a book published by Harvard Business Review Press is probably not your average reader, but the book’s title and in the author’s writing style make it clear that this is not a weighty academic tome. If you want one of those, see if you can find a copy of The Economics of Electronic Commerce by Choi, Stahl, and Whinston, which I reviewed on this site in 1998.

Online dating is an interesting process. You go to a site such as Match.com or OkCupid, fill out a profile or answer questions, and let the computer code running in the background show you who it thinks you might be compatible with. It’s a combination of many economic activities: advertising, search, signaling, and network effects among many others. And, just as economics is often called the “dismal science”, online dating can take on an air of despair when you’ve been at it for a while but haven’t found anyone to spend time with.

Of course, some of this frustration can be self-inflicted. On page 12, the author cites an online dating profile published by a graduate student in China:

Never married; master’s degree or more; not from Wuhan; no rural ID card; no only children; no smokers; no alcoholics; no gamblers; taller than 172 cm; more than a year of dating before marriage; sporty; parents are still together; annual salary over 50,000 yuan; between 26 and 32 years of age; willing to guarantee eating for dinners at home per week; at least two ex-girlfriends, but no more than four; no Virgos; no Capricorns.

I hate to say it, but I think the guy she’s looking for is already married.

Economics and the Online World

I’d imagine that most of my readers will be familiar with at least some of the economic concepts that Oyer discusses in this book. That said, even though I have spent quite a bit of time with the popular literature discussing the economics of online commerce, I learned a few things from reading his book and was reminded of quite a few more concepts that I hadn’t encountered for a while. I also like that the author summarizes the economic concepts that he discussed in each chapter with a series of takeaways at the end. He lists a key insight from economics, a valuable or important empirical finding by economists, how dating compares to the concept discussed in the chapter, and a bit of humorous dating advice that puts a button on the chapter. In the chapter on signaling, for example, he gives this dating advice: “If you want to prove you are rich, burn a big pile of money on the first date.”

I enjoyed the author’s take on economics through the lens of online dating. He writes in a familiar, personal style, and ties the economic concepts he wants to explain into his personal narrative seamlessly. I’m just guessing, but I bet his first draft was pretty good. His editor, Tim Sullivan, certainly helped bring the manuscript together into an enjoyable, coherent whole.

Conclusions

I recommend Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating to anyone who is interested in contemporary economics, either as a casual reader just digging into the subject or as a more experienced hand who would enjoy a good-natured review.

Curtis Frye is the editor of Technology and Society Book Reviews. He is the author of more than 30 books, including Improspectives, his look at applying the principles of improv comedy to business and life. His list includes more than 20 books for Microsoft Press and O’Reilly Media; he has also created over twenty online training courses for lynda.com. In addition to his writing, Curt is a keynote speaker and entertainer. You can find more information about him at www.curtisfrye.com.

Diversity Doesn’t Always Look Different

leave a comment »

In my last post, I talked about the bullying that went on between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin. The two men play football for the Miami Dolphins…or rather, they did. Martin left the team as a result of what he termed “harassment” and the Dolphins have suspended Incognito indefinitely for conduct detrimental to the team. They reportedly plan to cut ties with him.

It’s come out in the last couple of days that Incognito might have been given instructions from the Miami coaching staff to “toughen up” Martin. Martin grew up in a well-off household and went to Stanford, which doesn’t cut athletes too many breaks on GPA and academic performance. He’s quiet and thoughtful. Incognito, on the other hand, is a brasher, tougher person who didn’t grow up in the nice part of town.

Martin is black and Incognito is white, but there’s an interesting racial dynamic to the situation. On the November 6 episode of ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption, Michael Wilbon, who is black, pointed out that there’s an ongoing conversation in the community about what it means to be black. That conversation takes on a special meaning in the context of the super-macho NFL. According to media reports on ESPN’s web site and Wilbon’s commentary on PTI, Incognito is considered an “honorary” black person who could use the n-word casually in the locker room without offense. In fact, again according to Wilbon, Incognito was seen as “blacker” than Martin because Incognito’s behavior fit into the team’s cognitive model of what an NFL, and more specifically a black NFL player, should be like.

And that’s where the problem lies: the stereotype of how an NFL player should act. A thoughtful, sensitive, introverted person like Martin plays the game differently than his teammates. Maybe he’s not as forceful as his fellow linemen, but he wasn’t voted the second dirtiest player in the league like Incognito was, either. The stereotypical means of “toughening up” a player drove Martin from the team and to document his teammate’s behavior. Veteran Dolphin players have backed Incognito’s actions, calling him Martin’s “big brother” and characterized him as a person who always had Martin’s back. By contrast, when asked if Martin would be welcome in the Dolphins locker room, most players declined to answer.

I have to admit I have a lot more sympathy for Incognito than I did after I first heard about his conduct. Rather than acting as a rogue agent, he appears to have behaved in a manner consistent with the team’s culture. Whether that behavior is “right” or “legal” is up for discussion.

It’ll be interesting to see how this situation shakes out. I characterized the issue as one of diversity in the post’s title, pointing to the difference in cognitive style, personality, and approach Martin takes to life and the game. He’s a minority within the NFL, so there’s a question of whether he and (presumably) his attorney choose to make a hostile work environment claim based in whole or part on his status. Certainly the allegations in the case point to consistent behavior that might be contrary to the law, but I’m not a lawyer. I have a feeling we’ll all learn more about it in the coming months.

Finally, let me conclude with something that, thankfully, doesn’t apply to anyone with whom I currently work: If you think I need toughening up, you’re welcome to try it. I will become more aggressive, but it’ll be in your direction. I do what I do and I’m good at it. My approach works for me. If you think I’m doing it wrong, that’s your problem, not mine. Maybe you screwed up when you hired me.