= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think the science/engineering-distinction used by Douglas Knight and Lumifer provides no good model, so you have to ask them.
It's both. I think the distinction can be reasonably clean - science aims at understanding via explicitly modeling the process (not necessarily mathematically but often) and then testing the model. The process of building the LHC was engineering, the experiments themselves are part of science.
The problem is that you don't know how different people who take the survey make their choices. Some people who are in a relationship that's shorten then 2 years will answer one of the other options. That makes the whole data set difficult to interpret because you don't know a a particular person made their decision.
Alright full disclosure - if you had just said "You should probably have included a "show me the answers" option", I would had agreed and moved on. But instead your tone of ~Bah, everything is ruined!~ I found quite jarring*, especially since I had already gained some useful and surprising information off of despite its limitations. This isn't a particularly scientific poll for many reasons, I don't know how to tease apart strategies that are popular with strategies that lead to long term success which is what the qualifier was for - if I figure out a way to do this some day, I'll be more careful in its implementation.
*I'm not sure why, this LessWrong after all.
The poll is screwed up because it lacks a "just show the answers field".
Additionally the dichomy of being in a relationship lasting greater than 2 years and I'm not in a relationship lacks cases that exist in reality.
I was going to redo the poll a few hours after I made it, but I didn't think this was a big deal. Just choose I'm not in a relationship or other - neither is an interesting field anyway.
I think the yuck-ness is pianoforte611's point.
Not exactly, see my response to OrphanWilde.
The most common anecdote that I've heard is of the form "I really wanted this person and I pursued them persistently until they settled for me"
My fiance might describe it that way; she's more or less stated that she feels I'm out of her league. I'd define it less (which is to say, not) as "settling" and more "noticing that this relationship is emotionally healthy for me".
The whole concept of "settling" is... wrong. The goal of dating isn't to find the "best", by some criteria, person you can find, which is unfortunately how many people tend to see it. The goal of dating should be to find your complement; somebody who enhances you (and ideally, who you enhance as well).
[Edited: Typographical error corrected]
I agree vehemently and should have probably used a different phrasing. What I was really getting at is that in most anecdotes that I've heard - one person is significantly more enthusiastic to start off with (and I don't think this is necessarily a problem).
In response to
A Rationalist Guide to OkCupid
I'd love to see the results of a large survey on how successfuly married people found their partner. Is the "love finds you" meme based in anything real? The most common anecdote that I've heard is of the form "I really wanted this person and I pursued them persistently until they settled for me".
That's what the Research request pages are for, but did you check Google Scholar?
Paywall
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm pretty sure someone asked Scott on tumblr for his opinions on the first post. I think his reply was something like, "seems plausible but not my area of expertise", but I can't find it now.
edit: I just scrolled through seventeen pages of his tumblr (until I got to before the first one was posted) and didn't find it. I could have missed it, but this decreases my confidence that it happened.
Yes he said it could be plausible but would require more work to form better thoughts on.