= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rational approach to finding life partners
Speaking from personal experience, finding the right relationship can be HARD. I recently came across a rational take on finding relationship partners, much of which really resonated with my experiences:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner.html
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner-part-2.html
(I'm still working my way through the Sequences, and lw has more than eight thousand articles with "relationship" in them. I'm not promising the linked articles include unique information)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (127)
It's straightforward to make a list of how to be poor and then by not doing those things to possibly not be poor. But it's hard to make a list of how to be rich and do those things and be rich. Similarly, it's easy to make a list of how to be alone and then by not doing those things possibly not be alone. But it's hard to make a list of how to be with someone and then do those things and be with someone. So - eliminate all the negatives first. If wearing clothes that don't fit, ignoring cleanliness and avoiding people makes for being alone, don't do those things. Don't do those negative things first and always, then keep an eye open for chances for the positive things. The negative things ruin the positive things you have going on. Eliminate the negatives first.
Negative things are (mostly) universal, positive things are (mostly) extremely specific to the individual.
There's really two independent things, though.
a) How to not be single/how to get someone to date you. b) How to find the person(s) and build/maintain the kind of relationship(s) that you want for the rest of your life (/the forseeable future).
In my experience, (a) is much easier than (b). The articles address (b), not (a).
I find that the Orthodox Jewish system seems to work quite well, at least for religious most people I know. I grew up and married in that system, and I've never "dated" in the normal Western sense, so I have no idea how the system compares or might be applicable in the "normal" world.
[Note: There isn't really one Orthodox Judaism system. Different communities have very different systems, ranging from basically arranged marriages in many Hassidic communities, to almost-normal Western dating in Modern Orthodox communities. I grew up in what's called the "yeshivish" or Lithuanian community, and that's the system about which I said it seems to work pretty well. Even in the yeshivish community there are different ways of doing it, but this is the way they usually do it where I come from.]
Basically, the most important parts of the system the way I see it are:
Basically, the process of looking for a life partner becomes comparable to the process of taking on a business partner. References need to be called and background checks need to be made. You need to establish a level of trust, shared goals, shared basic approach, etc. You need to make sure there's a good personality match.
No idea if that'll help anybody, but for the religious people I know it seems to usually lead to stable, happy marriages. And when it doesn't it's often because not enough research was done initially, or they didn't date long enough to really be certain that they got what they wanted.
The Correct Rational Approach to Finding Life Partners:
Start with two facts: First, the vast majority of women are not, in fact, suitable life partners for you. Second, you are not a suitable life partner for the vast majority of women.
These imply a course of action which starts with elimination. If building an online dating profile? Your goal is not to attract as many suitable people as possible. Your goal is to -reject- as many unsuitable people as possible; this is the entry point for people looking for you, and there are far, far more unsuitable people than suitable people. The same is true in real life, which can be as simple as avoiding locations which are primarily populated by unsuitable people. (Bars, as a rule, for pretty much anybody who would be reading this.)
Likewise, when searching for people, your goal is -rejection-. If you're looking for the hottest girl in the bar - you've already failed, because you're not looking to reject people. Also, you're in a bar. Reject the locations, first. "Is this somewhere I'm likely to meet somebody who fits my interests, who who would be interested in me?" Maximize the ratio of acceptable to unacceptable people.
This is Less Wrong - go to Lindy Hop or otherwise swing dance classes. It's the nerdiest dance community you'll find, and the gender proportions, depending on where you are, will probably favor you if you're male. Also, it will help with your proprioception, which, given that you're on Less Wrong, could probably use some help anyways.
Once you've eliminated the unsuitable, do -not- pick the "best". You're probably pretty good at identifying what won't work, but you're probably pretty terrible at identifying what will.
So be open to short-term flings. These can turn into long-term relationships - although you shouldn't expect them to.
Hell, be open to casual sex. These encounters can -also- turn into long-term relationships - although, again, you shouldn't expect them to.
Be open to friendships. Once again, expect nothing.
In general - once you've eliminated the unsuitable, be open. You're looking for pearls; once you've sorted them out, don't toss the oysters overboard before you've checked. They may surprise you.
Don't seduce people into long-term relationships in any terms, let long-term relationships happen on their own. If it takes a special effort to make somebody fall in love with you, it will take a special effort, constantly, forever, for them to stay in love with you.
So, I agree with the premises behind this prediction, but:
I know someone who scraped okCupid for information which he used to eliminate women he wouldn't want to date from the pool. I read an article about someone else who scraped okCupid for information which he used to appear as acceptable as possible to women, and then would go on dates to find out if they were acceptable to him. The second person was considerably more effective, both at figuring out what actually led to a good date and getting good dates.
Consider this like prices. If you are having too many dates, your prices are too low, and you should raise them (i.e. exclude more people / look less presentable and more authentic). If you are having too few dates, your prices are too high, and you should lower them (i.e. appear more presentable so you don't get excluded as much).
I think of it more as a Type 1 versus Type 2 error tradeoff; there's a point at which you are excluding too many people, true, but I'd treat it less a function of raw dates, and more a function of the number of obviously unacceptable dates you have. You can relax exclusion criteria if you're not getting enough dates, but if in relaxing it, the number of unacceptable people rises without a commensurate rise in acceptable people, you went too far.
(The criteria will differ wildly according to the population you're searching. The style of profile I had living in the Northeast was -much- more exclusionary than the style of profile I used in the Midwest or South, both because the pool of potential people was much larger, and the percentage of them I would consider dating was much smaller.)
I agree that this is a big issue. My point there is more that you need to look at that curve, figure out your tangent line, figure out your value tangent line, and then move so that the two are identical, and this requires both advice on what to do if you are going on too many dates and advice on what to do if you are going on too few dates.
The secondary issue is that presenting as exclusionary typically is discussed in terms of relative turn-offs; if it turns off 5% of the people you would want to date and 50% of the people you wouldn't want to date, your pool's average has increased. (Ideally, someone decreases the turn-off chance in people you'd like to date and increases it in people you wouldn't like to date, but I think people are overly sanguine about what strategies have that effect.)
<snort> ...dating advice on LW ... even mentions looking at curves ...</snort>
:-D
I realized earlier this morning that I had forgotten my main point, and so the sibling comment only hints at it instead of making it explicit: many people talk about plans with the assumption that all of them are on the possibilities frontier, and so the relevant thing is moving along the possibilities frontier until they're at the right tradeoff.
But being optimal is surprising--one should assume that there is lots of room for growth, and should try to get more of everything (i.e. move perpendicular to the perceived frontier) until it's clear that they are actually on the frontier. (In the stats case, getting more data means both less Type 1 and Type 2 error.)
The same principle ("reject the middle, explicitly look at the tail of the distribution") as The Verjus Manifesto:
(talking about how to make good-for-you metaphorical vegetables palatable)
:-)
I didn't quite understand this, could you please elaborate?
Your ability to judge both yourself, and another person, and how your personalities will interact, is limited. It's sufficient to identify people with whom you absolutely will not get along, with reasonable accuracy; this is low-hanging fruit. So let's say you've eliminated 95% of the candidate pool by this point.
The remaining 5%? You're now considering a pool of candidate partners who you can't immediately eliminate (assuming you have more than one person remaining, after all probably-unsuitable people are eliminated). At this point your list of candidates are people about whom you are uncertain. -Remember- that you're uncertain.
Or, from a different angle: If you are absolutely certain that a relationship with somebody will work out, that sense of certainty should, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, be taken as evidence that you should be less certain.
Ok, so why not pick the "best"? This sounds like defeatist to me. You are assuming that the best is probably to good for me, over my league and instead of wasting time and energy on that I should rather focus on more realistic options. Is that it?
No. It's that you're probably overestimating your ability to judge which relationship will be the "best" for you. The Halo Effect means, for example, you'll probably overestimate all the positive qualities of a person, based on one quality that is exceptional (say, physical attractiveness).
I don't see the point of getting married at all, especially when you're royally screwed once you're divorced.
I'm very happy about being married. It allows us to plan knowing we can count on the other one to be there, and embark on large joint projects like childraising.
Divorce would suck, but we both know that and would try very hard to avoid it. Talking a lot seems important here, prioritizing the relationship, and valuing the other person's happiness as your own. I only have six years of practice though, so I could be wrong.
It doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
What is your estimate of the probability that you'll change your mind about that at some point during your lifetime? :-D
That presumably depends on how the relevant laws change (or not).
I don't think this probability is driven by laws.
The grand-parent's complaint was about being screwed by divorce, which is driven by divorce laws.
Being unhappy about divorce laws post- or during divorce is a very different thing from having one's decision to marry being strongly influenced by divorce laws.
In fact, if you are researching divorce laws before your wedding, you probably should call that wedding off -- regardless of whether you'll find these laws reasonable or not.
Don't tell me you're one of those hopeless "love conquers all and isn't subject to rational laws" romantics.
Do I detect a subtle hint of disapproval in that sneering?
I expect much more from a spouse than just being a business partner bound by a long contract.
As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people. That makes divorce laws irrelevant.
Ok, taboo "good person". What kind of evidence do you expect to see to be sure that the person you're planning to marry is "good"? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
I mean entirely traditional old-fashioned virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness.
LOL. I wonder how you cross streets. Are you quite sure no one will run you down? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant, unless you define "good" so strongly that it's basically impossible to be justifiably confident that one is marrying a good person.
I'm talking on a personal level, not social. In the same way I would suggest that you not rob anyone and if you follow that suggestion, laws about robbery will be irrelevant to you (insert the usual disclaimers).
Isn't what you're saying completely contradictory to basic decision theory? A possibility of a personal catastrophe in the future should not be ignored. Marriage introduces that possibility and non-marriage doesn't have it.
You are privileging a particular viewpoint. Both paths have risks, costs and benefits.
Note that researching divorce laws before the wedding has a strong self-fulfilling prophecy flavour.
Explain this.
You are assuming that being not married is the default state of being and any deviations from it must be justified.
I don't know. I don't think I'll ever get married or that there is even hope for me to get married.
Many articles at that blog are worth reading, not just this one.
This. Wait but Why is excellent.
I'd also recommend his three-part series on procrastination that starts here. There are links to the next post in the series at the bottom.
Just pulled myself away from some of his other stuff. So much good stuff. At some point I need to compare his take on AI with the lw articles. So much to read, so little time.
The best advice I have in the area is to consider what you want before you go out and get it. Where many people do not; you have the opportunity to chose something more specific before hitting the marketplace. (I can say more on this topic if there is interest)
Please do.