4 ms·

I can't find it at the moment but I remember reading about this in an article about how the infinite pool of options in online dating broke the optimal stopping

I can't find it at the moment but I remember reading about this in an article about how the infinite pool of options in online dating broke the optimal stopping model (which previously had to do with optimal stopping relative to our Dunbar number) and made all matches unsatisfactory. Seems like folk science, but a variation of it could be applied to job satisfaction in tech, where the greater number of perceived options makes all choices seem to be in the less green field.

Apocryphon 6y ago
Keeping up with the Joneses where everyone else in the world is your neighbor.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Absolutely. I get the sense that we're approaching a cultural "oh, shit" moment when we realize we've just been building massive global mimetic conflict machines. Oops!
Tanath 6y ago
I don't think that would break it because you have a limited amount of time. You base it on 1/e of the number of people you expect to date not the number of potential options.
ChrisCinelli 6y ago
The problem in dating (and arguably also in the secretary problem) is that the criteria for selecting a person are not so clear to most of the people and may not be so easy to assess. My not optimal algorithm has been to have at least 2 lists of attributes you want in your partner. I had 3. One is the "MUST HAVE" (or deal breakers), another one for the IMPORTANT ones, the last one was the "NICE TO HAVE". I stopped when I found someone with all MUST HAVE and most of the IMPORTANT ones. I have been married for 10+ years =)
- tzs 6y ago
  I don't see how unclear criteria would be an issue in the secretary problem. For the secretary problem you only need to be able to answer the question "if I had to hire one of person 1, 2, 3, ..., k would it be person k?". Most people can do that without having a clear idea of what their actual criteria are. > I have been married for 10+ years =) That's sensible. Assume you want to be married for 40+ years. Applying reasoning similar to that of the secretary problem to determining how long you should stay married to your current partner before divorcing and marrying someone else, you've got another 5 years in the baseline establishment stage. :-)
vmception 6y ago
Most of those apps have a (totally gameable) ratings system based on other people’s action of liking you or not I think the apps should allow users to be opt out of that (short of being completely regulated away) because most users dont think their match/not match choice is affecting that profile’s visibility to others Even when you are aware of it, and game it to increase your own visibility, its a very toxic way to treat other people Oh yeah, many profiles you liked are never seeing your profile to make a decision, in case you didn’t know
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  > Even when you are aware of it, and game it to increase your own visibility, its a very toxic way to treat other people How does gaming it work if it depends on other people's actions?
  - Jarwain 6y ago
    Optimize for conventional attraction?
  - vmception 6y ago
    Depends on others and your own. You basically have to act as discerning as actually visually ideal people will be acting. Matching everyone means matching already skipped people, which lowers your algorithm desirability to their level. More desired people wont even see your profile after that point. You wont appear in their feed and they aren't paying to see the whole queue of their matches. So it is more important to imagine your desirability score than it is to amplify reach by matching more hoping for a bite. As far as actually refining your profile, you’ll have to figure that out either way. A/B test, do whatever, thats its own separate art. But making sure it stays visible means being discerning. Takes several weeks for the algorithms to set you in place, and several weeks to change. So best to keep yourself distracted with other things, otherwise it'll just hurt your self esteem until more consensus-attractive people start matching you.
    - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago

Apocryphon 6y ago

Keeping up with the Joneses where everyone else in the world is your neighbor.

motohagiography 6y ago
Absolutely. I get the sense that we're approaching a cultural "oh, shit" moment when we realize we've just been building massive global mimetic conflict machines. Oops!

Tanath 6y ago

I don't think that would break it because you have a limited amount of time. You base it on 1/e of the number of people you expect to date not the number of potential options.

ChrisCinelli 6y ago

The problem in dating (and arguably also in the secretary problem) is that the criteria for selecting a person are not so clear to most of the people and may not be so easy to assess. My not optimal algorithm has been to have at least 2 lists of attributes you want in your partner. I had 3. One is the "MUST HAVE" (or deal breakers), another one for the IMPORTANT ones, the last one was the "NICE TO HAVE". I stopped when I found someone with all MUST HAVE and most of the IMPORTANT ones. I have been married for 10+ years =)

tzs 6y ago
I don't see how unclear criteria would be an issue in the secretary problem. For the secretary problem you only need to be able to answer the question "if I had to hire one of person 1, 2, 3, ..., k would it be person k?". Most people can do that without having a clear idea of what their actual criteria are. > I have been married for 10+ years =) That's sensible. Assume you want to be married for 40+ years. Applying reasoning similar to that of the secretary problem to determining how long you should stay married to your current partner before divorcing and marrying someone else, you've got another 5 years in the baseline establishment stage. :-)

vmception 6y ago

Most of those apps have a (totally gameable) ratings system based on other people’s action of liking you or not I think the apps should allow users to be opt out of that (short of being completely regulated away) because most users dont think their match/not match choice is affecting that profile’s visibility to others Even when you are aware of it, and game it to increase your own visibility, its a very toxic way to treat other people Oh yeah, many profiles you liked are never seeing your profile to make a decision, in case you didn’t know

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
> Even when you are aware of it, and game it to increase your own visibility, its a very toxic way to treat other people How does gaming it work if it depends on other people's actions?
- Jarwain 6y ago
  Optimize for conventional attraction?
- vmception 6y ago
  Depends on others and your own. You basically have to act as discerning as actually visually ideal people will be acting. Matching everyone means matching already skipped people, which lowers your algorithm desirability to their level. More desired people wont even see your profile after that point. You wont appear in their feed and they aren't paying to see the whole queue of their matches. So it is more important to imagine your desirability score than it is to amplify reach by matching more hoping for a bite. As far as actually refining your profile, you’ll have to figure that out either way. A/B test, do whatever, thats its own separate art. But making sure it stays visible means being discerning. Takes several weeks for the algorithms to set you in place, and several weeks to change. So best to keep yourself distracted with other things, otherwise it'll just hurt your self esteem until more consensus-attractive people start matching you.
  - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago