5 ms·

"Wait to long and all the good ones might be gone". The older I get, the more I see what a fallacy this kind of thinking is. A lot of the "good ones" often ex

by l33tbro 11y ago

"Wait to long and all the good ones might be gone". The older I get, the more I see what a fallacy this kind of thinking is. A lot of the "good ones" often exit marriages and long-term relationships to better themselves. On the other hand, the "good ones" that stay often stop becoming "good ones" and settle. I found dating to be about concentrating on yourself and your own development, then things kind of took care of themselves.

dudul 11y ago
"concentrating on yourself and your own development" Agreed. Always baffles me to see people complaining that they can't find "a good guy/girl" as if it was self-evident that they deserve a good partner in a first place. What do you bring to the table? Why would a "good guy" want to be with you? Work on yourself first, I'll give that a +1 :)
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  This is a rather horrible thing to say. Unless someone is themselves a "bad person", then why shouldn't they be able to find a "good guy/girl"? Why should they have to bring anything special to the table for that? Shouldn't there be a ready supply of good datable partners, if most people really are generally good as many people like to believe? Of course, the real problem is that lots of people aren't willing to settle for just anyone, just because they're a nice person. They want them to be attractive, have a decent job, not have any serious baggage, etc. So what happens is they complain about not being able to find a "nice" or "good" guy/girl, but when they do meet them, they don't meet their other requirements, which may or may not be realistic or too picky. I mean, if you're an athletic guy and you meet some nice girl who weighs twice as much as you, I don't personally think it's wrong for you to not be attracted to her. However there's a such thing as being too picky and unrealistic, like people who reject someone because they don't have an advanced degree, or rejecting someone who was married before when you're over 40 yourself. But I would hope that finding a "good" person should be a basic requirement. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to date anyone who's evil.
  - AI_Overlord 11y ago
    There is something that really bothers me about your comment. I think it's the expectation that the universe should care about you.
  - graeme 11y ago
    I think you're willfully misinterpreting the parent comment. When someone says "Why can't I find a good man/woman", they usually mean your third paragraph. The parent poster likely agrees with you.
graeme 11y ago
>A lot of the "good ones" often exit marriages and long-term relationships to better themselves. Second marriage divorce rates are 67%. Doesn't this strategy imply a fair bit of medium to long run risk? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce... I agree on the bettering yourself bit.
Xcelerate 11y ago
> A lot of the "good ones" often exit marriages and long-term relationships to better themselves. I would not consider someone who exited a marriage for the sole purpose of bettering themselves to be one of the "good ones". The more apt term would perhaps be "selfish" (this assumes that both parties accepted the conventional terms of what a marriage implies). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with ending a long-term relationship to better one's self — no permanent commitment has been established.
- Swizec 11y ago
  Personally, I want a partner who actively chooses to stay with me every day. Not one who settles. So, for me, a good one is absolutely somebody who exits a long term relationship as soon as it isn't optimal enough for them anymore.
  - Xcelerate 11y ago
    I see nothing wrong with that, as long as you and your partner are both clear on that point before marriage occurs. The problem materializes when there is a mismatch on what "marriage" means to the two people involved. As long as neither party reneges on the terms that were mutually agreed upon prior to the marriage, the particular nature of those terms is largely irrelevant.
    - Swizec 11y ago
      Exactly. Which means that the terms they are on with their ex, are an even stronger indicator of how much of a "good one" they are. Communication skills are important. Foresight to agree on things before hand is also important. All great symptoms of someone who will make a good partner. Someone trapped in a bad marriage <<< someone on excellent terms with their ex.
  - aaroninsf 11y ago
    I find this very interesting, as it is more or less directly opposed to the traditional (sic) framing of marriage as for better and for worse; and it explicitly foreground self interest where traditional marriage is/was often a contract at least as much about family, business, or social interests, as personal benefit. Restated, this view asserts that marriage, or, the partner, are of value only in as much as they remain beneficial on a limited horizon extended by limited extrapolation to future goods. That sounds to me like precisely the same sort of short-term-results focus that is increasingly being criticized for producing non-desirable behaviors by public corporations beholden to hit their numbers, regardless of long term costs, externalities, etc. etc. I am NOT being critical, btw. This is a total valid and rational formulation, and it has refreshing clarity. That said at a personal, anecdotal, level, I can report after 15 years of marriage (and 25 together) with a partner, that there seem to be good reasons for the traditional formulations to have evolved as they have. E.g. that there is great value when the market is down (e.g. under the decade-long stress of parenting young children) is knowing that your partner has committed (is stuck) to you, even when you don't have the resources to give them your best self. We all err; disaster strikes; forgiveness takes time; sometimes it will take more than a day to heal. But YMMV :)
dionidium 11y ago
The older I get the more I'm fooled by prospective partners. When I was younger, the girls I was interested in were people I'd gone through life experiences with: school, general growing up, etc. But now, in my thirties, I'm meeting people randomly. And I'm realizing that character is pretty easy to fake (for a while). I knew that the girls in my past had character, because I watched them grow, overcome hurdles, and so on. But meeting people in your 30s removes all context and -- I'm finding, at least -- that people who lie and cheat and who are generally bad actors are really hard to distinguish from those people who don't act like that.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  >I'm finding, at least -- that people who lie and cheat and who are generally bad actors are really hard to distinguish from those people who don't act like that. This is a great example of how easy it is to misinterpret stuff in English. If someone is really good at faking good character, doesn't that make them a "good actor"? :-)
  - ionforce 11y ago
    We could say that the phrase "(good|bad) actor" has a high collocation, so that it has a higher likelihood of meaning something specific. Also, we could disambiguate by using alternatives like "poor actor" (bad at acting) and "bad agents" (immoral people).
AznHisoka 11y ago
Funny you say this.. A friend of mine basically is playing the long game with a few of his huge crushes (who are married). He stays in touch with him, remembers to send thoughtful emails on their b'day, Christmas hoping they'll divorce one day. And when they do, the first person they'll jump ship to will be him. That's his thinking... Although, he's married too currently, so there's that.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  That is messed up and if I was the current spouse on either side of that, there would be a major problem. Further, divorces are horrible messes, even in the best of circumstances. To "hope" that for anyone else is even more messed up.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Well, clearly the kind of low self-esteem psychopath who keeps track of past crushes in the hopes of weaseling his way into an affair/relationship with women who have already proven they are less likely to make suitable partners than baseline, doesn't have much regard for what society has deemed "messed up".
    - angmarsbane 11y ago
      Wait, how have the women proven they are less likely to make suitable partners than baseline? Are you basing this off the assumption one of those women eventually divorces? Divorce doesn't necessarily mean someone is an unsuitable partner.
- marincounty 11y ago
  I only kinda know the games/rules in America. In America this is wrong. On the other hand, what do I know. It just seems weird. I'll tell the world one thing, I found out about my character that I'm not proud of. I found "the one" a few years ago. She was sweet, caring, had brilliant foresight, knew people, wasen't materialistic, smart, put others before herself, etc. I would have died for this woman. She was the one I measured the others by. I ran into her at an office a few weeks ago. I didn't recognize her. I talked to her for close to an hour. She didn't have those qualities seemingly left. I drove home, and asked--still asking myself; "Did I project these qualities on her because of her looks--years ago? I met her just after a severe life crisis. She was a coworker. Could I have projected these qualities on her because she was so stunning? I'm still questioning myself. I really didn't think I was that shallow. I actually, didn't think, I was shallow in the slightest, but maybe I am?
wrsh07 11y ago
I think the best thing about this problem/solution is that it encourages people to date more people [as a rule]. ie don't settle for the first one that likes you back
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>"Wait to long and all the good ones might be gone". This assumes there are not new good ones entering the dating pool, either by aging in or by maturing/developing enough to cross the line from not good one to good one.
deciplex 11y ago
The longer a person has been "dating" without settling down, or been in a failed marriage or two, the less likely that person is a long-term suitable partner compared to baseline. Of course the difference in likelihood may not be all that great, and if you find a partner who gives you other reasons to think they are suitable for you, you should go ahead. But, to think that the population of people who have already demonstrated a lack of either desire, or ability, or both, to form a lasting intimate relationship with another human, is a better sample to draw your prospects from, than those who have not demonstrated these qualities yet, is a basic arithmetic fail.

by l33tbro 11y ago

dudul 11y ago

"concentrating on yourself and your own development" Agreed. Always baffles me to see people complaining that they can't find "a good guy/girl" as if it was self-evident that they deserve a good partner in a first place. What do you bring to the table? Why would a "good guy" want to be with you? Work on yourself first, I'll give that a +1 :)

Grishnakh 11y ago
This is a rather horrible thing to say. Unless someone is themselves a "bad person", then why shouldn't they be able to find a "good guy/girl"? Why should they have to bring anything special to the table for that? Shouldn't there be a ready supply of good datable partners, if most people really are generally good as many people like to believe? Of course, the real problem is that lots of people aren't willing to settle for just anyone, just because they're a nice person. They want them to be attractive, have a decent job, not have any serious baggage, etc. So what happens is they complain about not being able to find a "nice" or "good" guy/girl, but when they do meet them, they don't meet their other requirements, which may or may not be realistic or too picky. I mean, if you're an athletic guy and you meet some nice girl who weighs twice as much as you, I don't personally think it's wrong for you to not be attracted to her. However there's a such thing as being too picky and unrealistic, like people who reject someone because they don't have an advanced degree, or rejecting someone who was married before when you're over 40 yourself. But I would hope that finding a "good" person should be a basic requirement. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to date anyone who's evil.
- AI_Overlord 11y ago
  There is something that really bothers me about your comment. I think it's the expectation that the universe should care about you.
- graeme 11y ago
  I think you're willfully misinterpreting the parent comment. When someone says "Why can't I find a good man/woman", they usually mean your third paragraph. The parent poster likely agrees with you.

graeme 11y ago

>A lot of the "good ones" often exit marriages and long-term relationships to better themselves. Second marriage divorce rates are 67%. Doesn't this strategy imply a fair bit of medium to long run risk? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce... I agree on the bettering yourself bit.

Xcelerate 11y ago

> A lot of the "good ones" often exit marriages and long-term relationships to better themselves. I would not consider someone who exited a marriage for the sole purpose of bettering themselves to be one of the "good ones". The more apt term would perhaps be "selfish" (this assumes that both parties accepted the conventional terms of what a marriage implies). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with ending a long-term relationship to better one's self — no permanent commitment has been established.

Swizec 11y ago
Personally, I want a partner who actively chooses to stay with me every day. Not one who settles. So, for me, a good one is absolutely somebody who exits a long term relationship as soon as it isn't optimal enough for them anymore.
- Xcelerate 11y ago
  I see nothing wrong with that, as long as you and your partner are both clear on that point before marriage occurs. The problem materializes when there is a mismatch on what "marriage" means to the two people involved. As long as neither party reneges on the terms that were mutually agreed upon prior to the marriage, the particular nature of those terms is largely irrelevant.
  - Swizec 11y ago
    Exactly. Which means that the terms they are on with their ex, are an even stronger indicator of how much of a "good one" they are. Communication skills are important. Foresight to agree on things before hand is also important. All great symptoms of someone who will make a good partner. Someone trapped in a bad marriage <<< someone on excellent terms with their ex.
- aaroninsf 11y ago
  I find this very interesting, as it is more or less directly opposed to the traditional (sic) framing of marriage as for better and for worse; and it explicitly foreground self interest where traditional marriage is/was often a contract at least as much about family, business, or social interests, as personal benefit. Restated, this view asserts that marriage, or, the partner, are of value only in as much as they remain beneficial on a limited horizon extended by limited extrapolation to future goods. That sounds to me like precisely the same sort of short-term-results focus that is increasingly being criticized for producing non-desirable behaviors by public corporations beholden to hit their numbers, regardless of long term costs, externalities, etc. etc. I am NOT being critical, btw. This is a total valid and rational formulation, and it has refreshing clarity. That said at a personal, anecdotal, level, I can report after 15 years of marriage (and 25 together) with a partner, that there seem to be good reasons for the traditional formulations to have evolved as they have. E.g. that there is great value when the market is down (e.g. under the decade-long stress of parenting young children) is knowing that your partner has committed (is stuck) to you, even when you don't have the resources to give them your best self. We all err; disaster strikes; forgiveness takes time; sometimes it will take more than a day to heal. But YMMV :)

dionidium 11y ago

The older I get the more I'm fooled by prospective partners. When I was younger, the girls I was interested in were people I'd gone through life experiences with: school, general growing up, etc. But now, in my thirties, I'm meeting people randomly. And I'm realizing that character is pretty easy to fake (for a while). I knew that the girls in my past had character, because I watched them grow, overcome hurdles, and so on. But meeting people in your 30s removes all context and -- I'm finding, at least -- that people who lie and cheat and who are generally bad actors are really hard to distinguish from those people who don't act like that.

Grishnakh 11y ago
>I'm finding, at least -- that people who lie and cheat and who are generally bad actors are really hard to distinguish from those people who don't act like that. This is a great example of how easy it is to misinterpret stuff in English. If someone is really good at faking good character, doesn't that make them a "good actor"? :-)
- ionforce 11y ago
  We could say that the phrase "(good|bad) actor" has a high collocation, so that it has a higher likelihood of meaning something specific. Also, we could disambiguate by using alternatives like "poor actor" (bad at acting) and "bad agents" (immoral people).

AznHisoka 11y ago

Funny you say this.. A friend of mine basically is playing the long game with a few of his huge crushes (who are married). He stays in touch with him, remembers to send thoughtful emails on their b'day, Christmas hoping they'll divorce one day. And when they do, the first person they'll jump ship to will be him. That's his thinking... Although, he's married too currently, so there's that.

caseysoftware 11y ago
That is messed up and if I was the current spouse on either side of that, there would be a major problem. Further, divorces are horrible messes, even in the best of circumstances. To "hope" that for anyone else is even more messed up.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Well, clearly the kind of low self-esteem psychopath who keeps track of past crushes in the hopes of weaseling his way into an affair/relationship with women who have already proven they are less likely to make suitable partners than baseline, doesn't have much regard for what society has deemed "messed up".
  - angmarsbane 11y ago
    Wait, how have the women proven they are less likely to make suitable partners than baseline? Are you basing this off the assumption one of those women eventually divorces? Divorce doesn't necessarily mean someone is an unsuitable partner.
marincounty 11y ago
I only kinda know the games/rules in America. In America this is wrong. On the other hand, what do I know. It just seems weird. I'll tell the world one thing, I found out about my character that I'm not proud of. I found "the one" a few years ago. She was sweet, caring, had brilliant foresight, knew people, wasen't materialistic, smart, put others before herself, etc. I would have died for this woman. She was the one I measured the others by. I ran into her at an office a few weeks ago. I didn't recognize her. I talked to her for close to an hour. She didn't have those qualities seemingly left. I drove home, and asked--still asking myself; "Did I project these qualities on her because of her looks--years ago? I met her just after a severe life crisis. She was a coworker. Could I have projected these qualities on her because she was so stunning? I'm still questioning myself. I really didn't think I was that shallow. I actually, didn't think, I was shallow in the slightest, but maybe I am?

wrsh07 11y ago

I think the best thing about this problem/solution is that it encourages people to date more people [as a rule]. ie don't settle for the first one that likes you back

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>"Wait to long and all the good ones might be gone". This assumes there are not new good ones entering the dating pool, either by aging in or by maturing/developing enough to cross the line from not good one to good one.

deciplex 11y ago

The longer a person has been "dating" without settling down, or been in a failed marriage or two, the less likely that person is a long-term suitable partner compared to baseline. Of course the difference in likelihood may not be all that great, and if you find a partner who gives you other reasons to think they are suitable for you, you should go ahead. But, to think that the population of people who have already demonstrated a lack of either desire, or ability, or both, to form a lasting intimate relationship with another human, is a better sample to draw your prospects from, than those who have not demonstrated these qualities yet, is a basic arithmetic fail.