4 ms·

> But good old society frowns upon that, and people are often still timid to say they met their spouse on a dating site. The respectable way to meet a life part

> But good old society frowns upon that, and people are often still timid to say they met their spouse on a dating site. The respectable way to meet a life partner is by dumb luck, by bumping into them randomly or being introduced to them from within your little pool. Well, yeah. This is how social networks work: similar people group together, people socialize within that group, and they match with people who they are similar to or find ideal. They don't need to search for a partner because their ideal partner is already somewhere within their social network. People with poor social networking skills will not "bump into" potential partners because their network is poor. It's like expecting to find an investor for your startup if all you do is post to "Show HN". You might have to actually leave your forum, or computer. And so, after eliminating all choices from one's existing in-person social network, people with bad social networking skills look for dates on the internet. This is an uncomfortable yet common-sense truth: much like marrying your cousin, there is a stigma for a reason. There is currently no online service that can correctly predict if someone will enjoy your physical presence. You can check however many boxes you like and you will still end up being weird. This is perhaps one of the biggest reasons that there is a stigma against online dating: usually it does not work out. If online dating really worked you would only have to go on three dates before you met a perfect partner [that was also geographically and socially convenient to date]. But it turns out that online services are just another poor social network. -- Aside from that probably-going-to-get-me-downvoted-to-hell-unpopular opinion: the author presents one view of how to pick your life partner, from one way of life. Depending on where you live, your personal values, your preferences, your goals, etc your ideal partner may look quite a bit different than the author describes. Humans change over time. Your ideal partner right now may end up being a completely different person in 10 years. You can either accept this, or accept that your life partner is simply a "current partner" and that, similar to all other kinds of partnerships, it may not last forever. The author is also conflating life partnership with marriage. Traditional marriage is a generally horrible custom that developed around the idea that one partner didn't have as much agency as another, and that the partnership is necessary so that the oppressed individual can retain some form of protection, usually in exchange for sexual or other reciprocation, and the relationship is almost always exclusive (for the oppressed partner). You may want a life partner, but don't want to get married. This is increasingly the norm in modern western society (whereas before it might have landed you in jail or dead). You may want more than one partner, or your partner does. Non-monogamous relationships are becoming more common and better understood by the general public. I'm not an expert, so I can't tell anyone how to pick a life partner. All I know is that to understand what you want in someone else, first you have to know what you like and don't like, for yourself as well as in others. Then you need to be able to express that coherently and immediately, without shame, regret, or miscommunication. Knowing how to do that will help you to search for and identify a potential life partner. But remember that it may not fall within the normal accepted standards of society, and you have to accept that, or you may indeed fall into the same trap that so many others have when they rely on a universal measuring stick to find the right fit. And above all, I think that if you can't find what you're looking for in your social network, you need to expand your social network - and not just via dating sites.

asdf33323 9y ago
Most peoples "social circle" is very, very small. Think about the number of eligible women (or men) within your circle - it can probably be counted on 2 hands. Are you sure you want to limit your selection of something as important as a forever partner?
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Network, not circle. The term 'social circle' isn't really well defined, so I'll define it as "people with whom you have social interaction with on a regular or semi-regular basis". A social network is anyone they are connected to, and them to them, etc. Your social network is much larger than a social circle. Think six degrees of kevin bacon. In order to dramatically grow a social network you might only need to make friends with 1 person who is outside your normal social network. For example, if you joined a gym and made friends with one person whom you then played squash with every week, and that person is otherwise unconnected to anyone else you know, now there is at least a plausible chance to meet any of the people in their social network. I'm no expert here, but surely someone at Facebook can give an example of how adding a new friend who isn't in your normal group of friends can drastically increase your connections. If you can use this social network effectively, you have (I think) a much better chance of finding a lifetime partner than using a dating site, both because of how difficult it is to identify an appealing personality online, and because social network connections are (I think) much better paths to a potential match.
- StillBored 9y ago
  My first response here was to explain in this circumstance a person with "strong social skills" would have a number large groups they interacted with. For example religious groups, exercise groups, charity groups, etc.. All of which could provide a handful of potential mates through casual encounters. So easily a few dozen opportunities given a reasonable sized city. But... that really implies there is something wrong with people who don't have the time, or inclination to involve themselves in such activities, or simply aren't the kind of people who can successfully get a date from a casual encounter (heck I've known people who get get dates from 30 second interactions in the grocery store) like this. So, while I'm far from an expert on this, I suspect this is just more of our modern sickness. The idea that not only does a person have to fit a long list of criteria to be eligible, but they also have to have honed their social skills to the point of being able to woo someone into a date with just a casual encounter. And frankly, the people I know who could accomplish this were also some of the "worst" people I knew (lets start with the idea that they were completely unreliable lairs). So, I return to the idea that traditional human society weren't these huge cities, but rather smaller villages where it was possible to have such a limited pool as to generally grow up with your spouse, and be aware that a large part of bringing up children/etc was spending time on those lower rungs of the ladder working out issues. To keep going with the idea that someday in the future it would be possible to climb back up those stairs to happiness. But this also means that such modern conveniences as birth control are actually harmful to society because its possible for a couple to fall into/out of love without the traditional responsibility of raising the children that were the result of a few weeks of biological romance (and lets face it the lusty rutting of 20 somethings is little more than biology having its way).

asdf33323 9y ago

Most peoples "social circle" is very, very small. Think about the number of eligible women (or men) within your circle - it can probably be counted on 2 hands. Are you sure you want to limit your selection of something as important as a forever partner?

peterwwillis 9y ago
Network, not circle. The term 'social circle' isn't really well defined, so I'll define it as "people with whom you have social interaction with on a regular or semi-regular basis". A social network is anyone they are connected to, and them to them, etc. Your social network is much larger than a social circle. Think six degrees of kevin bacon. In order to dramatically grow a social network you might only need to make friends with 1 person who is outside your normal social network. For example, if you joined a gym and made friends with one person whom you then played squash with every week, and that person is otherwise unconnected to anyone else you know, now there is at least a plausible chance to meet any of the people in their social network. I'm no expert here, but surely someone at Facebook can give an example of how adding a new friend who isn't in your normal group of friends can drastically increase your connections. If you can use this social network effectively, you have (I think) a much better chance of finding a lifetime partner than using a dating site, both because of how difficult it is to identify an appealing personality online, and because social network connections are (I think) much better paths to a potential match.
StillBored 9y ago
My first response here was to explain in this circumstance a person with "strong social skills" would have a number large groups they interacted with. For example religious groups, exercise groups, charity groups, etc.. All of which could provide a handful of potential mates through casual encounters. So easily a few dozen opportunities given a reasonable sized city. But... that really implies there is something wrong with people who don't have the time, or inclination to involve themselves in such activities, or simply aren't the kind of people who can successfully get a date from a casual encounter (heck I've known people who get get dates from 30 second interactions in the grocery store) like this. So, while I'm far from an expert on this, I suspect this is just more of our modern sickness. The idea that not only does a person have to fit a long list of criteria to be eligible, but they also have to have honed their social skills to the point of being able to woo someone into a date with just a casual encounter. And frankly, the people I know who could accomplish this were also some of the "worst" people I knew (lets start with the idea that they were completely unreliable lairs). So, I return to the idea that traditional human society weren't these huge cities, but rather smaller villages where it was possible to have such a limited pool as to generally grow up with your spouse, and be aware that a large part of bringing up children/etc was spending time on those lower rungs of the ladder working out issues. To keep going with the idea that someday in the future it would be possible to climb back up those stairs to happiness. But this also means that such modern conveniences as birth control are actually harmful to society because its possible for a couple to fall into/out of love without the traditional responsibility of raising the children that were the result of a few weeks of biological romance (and lets face it the lusty rutting of 20 somethings is little more than biology having its way).