5 ms·

On the other hand digital dating makes it easy to meet quite a volume of people. When I feel like it, I can meet a different woman every other night. I wouldn'

On the other hand digital dating makes it easy to meet quite a volume of people. When I feel like it, I can meet a different woman every other night. I wouldn't even know how to do that without it. The more women I can meet, the less I'm dependent on luck.

ggg9990 8y ago
If I had met a new woman every night, I have no idea how I would have chosen her specifically. And I really have no idea how she would have chosen me if she had met a new man every night.
- always_good 8y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. If I'm talking to multiple women at a time, there's pretty much one that rises above the rest in terms of chemistry: We laugh more, she seemed particularly interested in me, she's cuter than others, we talked for hours, we had sexual chemistry. Some combo of the above. Over time I choose to spend more time with her, it turns into a relationship, I stop talking to others. Same for women. This is how dating works. Since women are the ones approached, they already are picking from a line of suitors in general (compared to men) yet long term relationships are still forged. How?
  - iClaudiusX 8y ago
    I think he's saying you're overfitting for first-date success, which may not be indicative of a fulfilling long term relationship.
    - kevhsu 8y ago
      Literally said "over time", nothing about deciding after a first date.
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    What I am saying is that by virtue of me not having met thousands of women in a dating/romantic context, it was pretty clear to my wife and I, early on, that we were working a lot better than any of our previous relationships. It's like if you gave me three apples, and said "which one is the best," I'd be able to tell you pretty easily. If you gave me two thousand, the best one would probably be better, but I'd probably be very indecisive about which one was best, and probably be wondering even as I picked it whether perhaps another one was actually the best.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      Sure as hell won't be hungry in that second example.
    - always_good 8y ago
      Well, it's not 2,000 apples at once though. That's not a realistic model of how relationships work out. It's more like balancing spinning plates. You don't have the bandwidth to keep up more than a few, and you have a pretty good idea of which one is doing the best. Some of the plates drop off, or you stop them, or the other party does, and you can take on new ones as you please. Or you decide you're done looking. But that's exactly what you did. You settled after some samples. But worrying about indecision because you have so many options is like worrying about exercise because you don't want to accidentally look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or not wanting to apply to too many jobs because you don't want to have too many godlike offers to choose from; Having so many women to choose from that you're indecisive is not easy and it's a quality problem to have, but I don't think that's most men's realities despite their efforts.
    - jsutton 8y ago
      In the case of dating, meeting 2000 potential partners is likely past the point of usefulness, while 3 is probably too little. There's an optimal number in between there that's different for everyone. The Secretary Problem[1] comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

ggg9990 8y ago

If I had met a new woman every night, I have no idea how I would have chosen her specifically. And I really have no idea how she would have chosen me if she had met a new man every night.

always_good 8y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. If I'm talking to multiple women at a time, there's pretty much one that rises above the rest in terms of chemistry: We laugh more, she seemed particularly interested in me, she's cuter than others, we talked for hours, we had sexual chemistry. Some combo of the above. Over time I choose to spend more time with her, it turns into a relationship, I stop talking to others. Same for women. This is how dating works. Since women are the ones approached, they already are picking from a line of suitors in general (compared to men) yet long term relationships are still forged. How?
- iClaudiusX 8y ago
  I think he's saying you're overfitting for first-date success, which may not be indicative of a fulfilling long term relationship.
  - kevhsu 8y ago
    Literally said "over time", nothing about deciding after a first date.
- ggg9990 8y ago
  What I am saying is that by virtue of me not having met thousands of women in a dating/romantic context, it was pretty clear to my wife and I, early on, that we were working a lot better than any of our previous relationships. It's like if you gave me three apples, and said "which one is the best," I'd be able to tell you pretty easily. If you gave me two thousand, the best one would probably be better, but I'd probably be very indecisive about which one was best, and probably be wondering even as I picked it whether perhaps another one was actually the best.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Sure as hell won't be hungry in that second example.
  - always_good 8y ago
    Well, it's not 2,000 apples at once though. That's not a realistic model of how relationships work out. It's more like balancing spinning plates. You don't have the bandwidth to keep up more than a few, and you have a pretty good idea of which one is doing the best. Some of the plates drop off, or you stop them, or the other party does, and you can take on new ones as you please. Or you decide you're done looking. But that's exactly what you did. You settled after some samples. But worrying about indecision because you have so many options is like worrying about exercise because you don't want to accidentally look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or not wanting to apply to too many jobs because you don't want to have too many godlike offers to choose from; Having so many women to choose from that you're indecisive is not easy and it's a quality problem to have, but I don't think that's most men's realities despite their efforts.
  - jsutton 8y ago
    In the case of dating, meeting 2000 potential partners is likely past the point of usefulness, while 3 is probably too little. There's an optimal number in between there that's different for everyone. The Secretary Problem[1] comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem