wedrifid comments on Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance - LessWrong

54 Post author: lukeprog 04 October 2011 02:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (609)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 October 2011 06:02:41AM 6 points [-]

It's almost never true that for someone whose breasts one once found sufficient, her breasts would be a deal breaker

It is more or less true of people who gain a significant amount of status without a commensurate improvement in the status of their partner. Standards change.

Sure, it isn't going to be the only reason but it can certainly be significant enough to single out.

Comment author: lessdazed 04 October 2011 10:37:01AM 5 points [-]

The principle of no aspect being the cause of too low value still applies.

How many guys are out of Morena Baccarin's league because her breasts are small? She has everything else going for her so her weakest attribute is compensated for.

To call the weakest attribute of someone you reject the "true reason" makes sense only if it is a lone sufficient condition, which it probably won't be even for someone who you no longer want to be with because you think you can do better.

Comment author: CronoDAS 14 October 2011 06:48:26AM 4 points [-]

In an episode of Seinfeld, Elaine was dating a man because she wanted to be dating a doctor. She then finds out that he never managed to pass his licensing exams and therefore couldn't yet practice medicine. After she helps him pass, he dumps her, saying this:

Ben: I'm sorry, Elaine. I always knew that after I became a doctor, I would dump whoever I was with and find someone better. That's the dream of becoming a doctor.

Which illustrates the point rather nicely.