If this line of reasoning were correct in general, then we would expect to see an astonishingly low number of people in any kind of relationship. The simple observation that people all over the world pair up quite readily suggests that this whole thing is wrong.<p>In fact, since the author puts the odds of a given mate being in a relationship at 50% we can conclude that either:<p>1) The author thinks there is a fundamental difference in the process of seeking a woman compared to the process of seeking a man;<p>2) The author thinks that, while his standards are completely rational, the vast majority of people simply settle for someone convenient;<p>or 3) the argument itself is self-contradictory.
The conclusion kind of falls apart if you're able to evaluate potential mates at a rate several orders of magnitudes faster than one per week. For example, it takes a split second to determine whether or not you're physically attracted to someone. That alone cuts it down to ~80 weeks to find someone.
It might be worth considering that some people just work/study so much that a normal relationship just isn't going to happen. I imagine grad school and early startup life is like this, to some extent. Personally, I just don't balance my life that well; too much time goes into studying and hacking.<p>A "pickup artist" did math similar to this and concluded guys should spend very little time on girls that aren't interested in them, as it's emotionally taxing and numerically daft.
Reminds me of joke I heard at cocktail party recently, told by a rather attractive female scientist:<p>"So, what do mathematicians and physicists use for birth control? Their personalities."
A happier version of the same kind of argument: <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/02/14/drake-stacy-infographic/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2012/02/14/drake-stacy-infographic/</a>