4 ms·

Money is something to be sure you're aligned on before getting married. I'd argue that marriages that're based on alignment on money, kids, and lifestyle tend

Money is something to be sure you're aligned on before getting married. I'd argue that marriages that're based on alignment on money, kids, and lifestyle tend to do much better than ones that are based on passion, attraction, and wish-fulfillment. Unfortunately the popular image of love, dating, and marriage doesn't really reinforce this. (As a side note, I think pop conceptions of dating are seriously broken: there's this idea that it's about impressing the other person and making yourself more desirable, while you're significantly better off if you just be yourself and continue letting people reject you until you find the one person who doesn't reject you.)

lifeisstillgood 7y ago
>> you're significantly better off if you just be yourself and continue letting people reject you until you find the one person who doesn't reject you.) Woody Allen joke: (Girlfriend leaving him for good): It's over. You weren't like this when we first dated. You were passionate and attentive (Allen): I couldn't keep that up - I would have had a heart attack. I think there are heuristics to help find a good partner (the above idea is a doozy, and then the well known secretary problem). But in the end this is just helping you get past the, say, 80% of people who don't match you. Getting from 80% to The One is probably impossible - and after twenty years of marriage I would say not needed - marriage is about growing together, working on the problems and fixing things. If you marry literally the most perfect partner on the planet, and then fail to spend 20 years understanding or working on the relationship you will probably be in worst state than picking the first person on plentyoffish and putting in the effort.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  There isn't really The One in an objective sense - there's a whole lot of people who would be bad matches and then a smaller group who would be decent ones. There's a One in a subjective sense, in that once you find a decent one and commit to them, you stop looking and work on making your relationship with The One as strong as possible.
  - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
    That's what I meant. Actually there may be (theoretically there must be) one perfect match, but even if you could find that person the chances of staying perfect without work is zero. The best option is find Mrs almost perfect then work hard
    - journalctl 7y ago
      The idea that everyone has a “The One” is a Hollywood trope. What if you meet someone perfect and they become a bitter alcoholic in ten years? Or what if they end up cheating on you? Were they not “The One”? Why didn’t you notice? Humans are imperfect and they change over time. Hollywood has been selling a specific idea of love for decades, and it’s not anywhere close to reality. That’s not to say you should marry the first stranger you meet, but it’s unrealistic to think there’s only ever one person “for you”.
      - jbay808 7y ago
        Every ordered finite set has a maximum; GP's point is that even given the maximally best possible match, not investing effort into a relationship will be worse than investing effort into a relationship with a moderately good match.
        brazzy 7y ago
        > Every ordered finite set has a maximum; Only if the order relation is total, which I'm pretty sure is not the case for romantic compatibility.
        journalctl 7y ago
        Exactly! Maybe you don’t get along the best with one person, but they still have nice qualities and you decide to work through your problems. Or you could leave them for someone similar, but where you don’t have to do that. It’s tempting to try to order those, but ultimately I don’t think it’s fair or reflects reality. It’s so subjective.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago

>> you're significantly better off if you just be yourself and continue letting people reject you until you find the one person who doesn't reject you.) Woody Allen joke: (Girlfriend leaving him for good): It's over. You weren't like this when we first dated. You were passionate and attentive (Allen): I couldn't keep that up - I would have had a heart attack. I think there are heuristics to help find a good partner (the above idea is a doozy, and then the well known secretary problem). But in the end this is just helping you get past the, say, 80% of people who don't match you. Getting from 80% to The One is probably impossible - and after twenty years of marriage I would say not needed - marriage is about growing together, working on the problems and fixing things. If you marry literally the most perfect partner on the planet, and then fail to spend 20 years understanding or working on the relationship you will probably be in worst state than picking the first person on plentyoffish and putting in the effort.

nostrademons 7y ago
There isn't really The One in an objective sense - there's a whole lot of people who would be bad matches and then a smaller group who would be decent ones. There's a One in a subjective sense, in that once you find a decent one and commit to them, you stop looking and work on making your relationship with The One as strong as possible.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  That's what I meant. Actually there may be (theoretically there must be) one perfect match, but even if you could find that person the chances of staying perfect without work is zero. The best option is find Mrs almost perfect then work hard
  - journalctl 7y ago
    The idea that everyone has a “The One” is a Hollywood trope. What if you meet someone perfect and they become a bitter alcoholic in ten years? Or what if they end up cheating on you? Were they not “The One”? Why didn’t you notice? Humans are imperfect and they change over time. Hollywood has been selling a specific idea of love for decades, and it’s not anywhere close to reality. That’s not to say you should marry the first stranger you meet, but it’s unrealistic to think there’s only ever one person “for you”.
    - jbay808 7y ago
      Every ordered finite set has a maximum; GP's point is that even given the maximally best possible match, not investing effort into a relationship will be worse than investing effort into a relationship with a moderately good match.
      - brazzy 7y ago
        > Every ordered finite set has a maximum; Only if the order relation is total, which I'm pretty sure is not the case for romantic compatibility.
        journalctl 7y ago
        Exactly! Maybe you don’t get along the best with one person, but they still have nice qualities and you decide to work through your problems. Or you could leave them for someone similar, but where you don’t have to do that. It’s tempting to try to order those, but ultimately I don’t think it’s fair or reflects reality. It’s so subjective.