= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Punoxysm comments on What are you learning? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (126)
I think that article describes an approach that's not-exactly-honest. Also, note that while he had lots of dates, most weren't very good. He was genuinely reducing the quality of his matches.
A milder, one-account approach is probably reasonable.
Well. Yes. But then I'd guess that most dating by many people is not-exactly-honest.
I don't think so. I put significant thought into estimating how many dates (by my current measure conversions with >1000 words count as dates) are needed to find someone who clicks (meaning emotional response/infatuation). The OKC questions only ensure lifestyle-compatibility but not physical attributes and 'chemistry' which are mostly orthogonal. Thus one doesn't get around the 25-100 needed dates (except if you accept non-clicking).
I agree.
Just take a woman who's vegan and has a principle not to be in a relationship with any person who eats meat. Take a new atheists and a believing Christian.
I personally don't really believe that "clicking" is mostly a matter of matching but a process of a mating procedure.
If a human goes through a certain process he feels an emotional response. That process is not easy to engineer. However in the somato-psycho education there are a bunch of practitioners who feel more physical intimacy (=chemistry) with their clients than the feel with their romantic partners.
Practically for myself opening up myself and not screwing up somewhere along the process is a lot harder than creating initial "chemistry".