Both at home and in the office, I am sifting through piles of things and deciding what to take with me to Motovun and what to leave here in Reading. All kinds of things surface in the process. Thus I just stumbled upon a piece of yellowing paper torn out of a notebook with a square table drawn on it. On a closer look, it is a game-theory table. It has two rows and two columns, showing game outcomes for two players. From the top-left to the bottom right field, they are marked “romance,” “pregnancy,” “affair,” and “marriage.” The first row and column are marked “smart,” and the second row and column are marked “dumb.” The player by row is marked “man,” and the player by column is marked “woman.” To wit, a smart man and a smart woman will have a romance; a smart man and a dumb woman will result in pregnancy; a dumb man and a smart woman will have an affair; and a dumb man and a dumb woman will end up in marriage. I must have picked this up from some silly message that was forwarded to me by a friend via electronic mail, but the game-theoretic framework must be mine. That was my embellishment of the message. Having played the game over and over again for so many decades, the framework strikes me as plausible. Painfully so, as a matter of fact.