19 ms·

Love seems like a high priority

172 points by apsec112 5y ago

xixixao 5y ago
Dating apps are working on this, albeit higher up the funnel (which is arguably more important), and so a lot of resources are being invested in this area.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Dating apps have gotten worse as there has been consolidation and attempts are being (successfully) made to extract more money out of customers.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    My last experience with Tinder over 3 years ago was that it's a carefully controlled dopamine drip. You get a lot of matches at first on the free tier then it slowly decreases until it convinces you to pay then you get a lot of matches again to justify the price and then it decreases again to keep you hooked.
    - dibujaron 5y ago
      Tinder is crap, but others are better. I've had quite a few high-quality dates from Hinge recently.
      - pm90 5y ago
        Can confirm. Hinge is great.
      - idontwantthis 5y ago
        That's interesting because they're both owned by Match Group.
        maest 5y ago
        It makes sense for Match Group to specialise their offerings based on the types of people they think might want to date - e.g. quick flings vs more serious relationships.
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
        Hinge has been my best one too. I hate the $20 price tag per month though. Basically extortion. Tinder is a joke now tbh. Bumble is like tinder but saves the guys time. OkCupid is bloated and nobodies on it.
        indigo945 5y ago
        Okcupid used to be the only good option, but it got increasingly worse since match.com bought it. They recently did another overhaul and now it's so bad that it feels like they're deliberately trying to kill their userbase. Which might actually be true - it's probably better for match.com from a business perspective to kill off some of their less popular offerings and force the users to migrate to Tinder. The network effects and hence the potential monopoly are nothing to scoff at.
      - jimbob45 5y ago
        The strategy seems obvious: make an account on the top 5 dating apps, use mostly the same profile if you want to save time, and have access to virtually the entire population of dating app users rather than one subset. Trying to get my single friends to do this is absolutely impossible. The elephant in the room is masturbation removing the desperation to find a partner. They say necessity is the mother of invention and porn keeps their sights aiming higher and higher as they spend less and less time working on themselves.
- caseyross 5y ago
  Dating apps are in a weird place because they invariably use a subscription model, which means they're incentivized to provide a long-term drip of temporary and mediocre matches rather than finding each user a single good long-term partner. Incentives could be better aligned through a "reverse subscription" model, in which a user pays nothing until the app finds them someone they'd like to date, whereupon they must then "subscribe" as long as that relationship continues.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    I have to disagree on that model. That may work for dudes who aren't confident and can barely make a decent profile. But for guys who can, it would be extremely annoying that I have to pay to attempt to date someone I'm not really that interested in. Vice versa for the women as well. Now you're giving them another reason to not consider you because they have to pay money too. The solution exists. It's natural selection. Unfortunately a lot of guys (especially in the midwest where I'm in) just do not understand how to game the system. I've been on enumerable dates. I am by all means a loser who peaked in high school then bounced back 9 years later and never even had a real relationship. So how was I successful? Pictures. With friends, in public, signaling social intelligence, and showing hobbies that interest women. Most guys take just cringy pictures that scream "Not only am I a loser, but I'm so depressed I'm embarrassed to do things in front of other people." That is why no girls want to date them. Even the very low status ones. Also, being confident and just being capable of holding a conversation is basically required.
    - indigo945 5y ago
      You don't understand the problem the parent commenter is talking about. This isn't about who is or isn't successful, it's about incentive structures, and the degree to which dating service providers have an interest in having more or less people find love. Currently, people finding partners and being happy means that dating service providers lose money, which means that they will deliberately show you partners that are less interesting to you, to make sure you keep feeling unhappy and come back to the app for another try. Your experience actually corroborates this, as most people do not want to do a lot of serial dating, and your advice is all about serial dating.
- jeffreyrogers 5y ago
  I think the current generation of tinder style apps are probably worse for this than previous generations of dating sites.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    It's such a shame, how much devastation was done to okcupid over the last few years.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> What I have in mind, ideally, is a relatively quick and cheap activity, using behavioral, psychological and/or pharmaceutical techniques, that two people who have already matched for general compatibility (e.g. with a kind of dating service) can take in order to induce a mutual limerence-like state that can naturally turn into a stable long-run relationship. It's both sad and amusing to read discussions related to love that are so logical, cold and mechanical. Limerence is not love and if you want to use pharmaceutical techniques to form a "stable long-run relationship", why not just lock "pre-matched" men and women in a room with a bed and put them on a perpetual Soma-drip?
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  I'm pretty terrified of the idea of any relationship built on pharmaceuticals. It seems dangerous and unsustainable in the long run.
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  Logic can work on anything. In fact, it exists to serve emotions. I don't have a logical reason to keep living, I just want to do it so I do. But the logical reason to stay married to my partner is that it makes me happy to do so. The only reason people are sour about perpetual Soma drips is that they wouldn't work well long-term. Most drugs would be really good if they had no negative short-term and long-terms effects.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > But the logical reason to stay married to my partner is that it makes me happy to do so. Ostensibly, you actually love your partner and are not in a stable long-run relationship that was initiated by a mutual limerence-like state induced using behavioral, psychological and/or pharmaceutical techniques.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    > Logic can work on anything. In fact, it exists to serve emotions. That's a frightening idea (a riff of the classic Humean quip). Luckily, it is false. Emotions have their place. Properly developed and proportioned to reason, they can motivate us to do what is good and they can be pleasant. They are a good per se and a deficiency of them is defective as is an excess, but in mature adults, they are subject to reason. You wouldn't cheer at the funeral of your dead spouse, right? But if reason is subject to emotion, then there's no way to really object to the idea. > I don't have a logical reason to keep living, I just want to do it so I do. I disagree. The reason we wish to live is because to live is good. To exist is good. Being is better than non-being. We are by nature bound to want to exist. Even suicide is not really a wish for non-being, but escape from a predicament.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
My partner and I actually tried the questionnaire and eye contact technique when we started dating. There are a lot of confounding factors - We were already good friends, and I already had a crush on them. But it probably didn't make anything worse. It's funny to see it pop up on HN.
- killtimeatwork 5y ago
  > We were already good friends, and I already had a crush on them. them?
  - maest 5y ago
    It's being used in the singular sense.
    - killtimeatwork 5y ago
      I get it, but I thought it's merited in cases where the gender of the person referred to cannot be determined - usually because the reference points to an abstract class of people of any gender ("a manager") and not to a particular person of known gender ("John Smith"). In OP's case, the gender of their significant other is known, so why use "they" instead of "he" or "she"?
      - DJBunnies 5y ago
        To respect their gender identity.
      - elbows 5y ago
        OP's partner may be non-binary or otherwise use they/them pronouns.
      - anonymoushn 5y ago
        It seems appropriate to use whenever their gender is irrelevant.
every 5y ago
Initially, people do not fall in love. Rather, they fall in lust. This is typically short term. Love emerges when there is deep, long term compatibility and commitment. Humor helps as well. This is an anecdotal observation from someone who has been "in love" for over four decades...
- cm2012 5y ago
  Same here, been with my wife for more than half my life now, we build on our love all the time. It's funny, I've had infatuation before for a couple acquaintances and celebrities and it's amazing how on a timer it is. Six months, like clockwork, that strong feeling is gone if you don't feed it.
- xwdv 5y ago
  What happens if you never fall in lust with a partner but then fall in love just because of compatibility reasons? Is it really still as satisfying?
  - pm90 5y ago
    It depends on the people in question and how open minded they are. If either one wants good sexual compatibility but the partner isn’t able to provide it, that’s a recipe for disaster. If you both don’t have much of a sex drive then it’s probably fine.
  - every 5y ago
    I don't know. But as you age, the lust factor tends to diminish. The relationship tends to depend on more than the mere carnal. Like being friends and enjoying each others company for instance. Partners in life, as it were...
  - kadoban 5y ago
    As long as there is some sort of intimacy (including non-sexual and non-physical), I'd say it can be. Lust is just really convenient socially and biologically for getting an intimate relationship started.
  - vecinu 5y ago
pm90 5y ago
It would be great if there was more research on on “love” and it wasn’t left to silly Hollywood stories to define it. I’m happy that therapy is normalized and that people (both single and couples) get professional help. But it would be great if therapy was common, and silly notions of finding the “perfect person” didn’t have so much power over so many people.
- brabel 5y ago
  The Hollywood portrait of love has done a lot of damage to young people the world over. Believing things like "love at first sight" or that it's healthy to "do anything to get the person you want", "never give up", for example. Or that there's always the "one" person who you're destined to find, and if you don't it's somehow a failure of yours. Incredibly frustrating beliefs that I suffered myself in my youth. Just hope young people today can see love for what it is: chemicals in the brain, mostly instinctive. Most of what makes it work is unconscious, too... your smell (not your freaking perfume, but your natural smell) may disgust, or arouse a potential partner, for example... same with things you have zero control over, like the shape of your chin or ears, the length of your legs, how symmetrical your face is, the way you walk and talk (you can change that, maybe, but not easy)... It's cruel, but no, if the other person doesn't "like" you, don't waste your time and health trying to make them fall for you - they just won't. Just like you can't control who you yourself "like", it just happens (and it's unfortunate that almost everyone seems to "like" the same few attractive people around... if you're not one of them, understand that as soon as possible to avoid being hurt! And try to be happy with other non-perfect people you can find that also understand that).
  - dsign 5y ago
    That, and the parent, spot on comments. Hollywood is a disease for romance. I do wonder for example, how general is something like "dating"? Did people everywhere always used to go to dates? Was that the mainstream "approved" way to fall in love always? Everywhere? What else is out there? Are most westerners missing out because of the Hollywood stuff? And not only in real life, but also in the arts?
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
i5heu 5y ago
What strikes me about „Love“ is that we lack the vocabulary and the framework to speak about it. There is not just „Love“ there are a bazillion feelings that fall under this term, and we cannot speak about it.
- the_af 5y ago
  I think I know what you mean, but your assertion seems wrong to me. At times "love" is all what mankind seems to be able to talk about: it's the topic of most songs, but also of literature, cinema, poetry, art in general. I'd risk to say it's the number one topic of art, and we have multiple ways of depicting it and talking about it! It's, of course, also one topic of science.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    I think it is English language problem because we only have one word to cover emotional bonds. I would wager other languages with more terms have it easier. Greek several different word describing types of love; Agape (love of a parent for their child), Eros (erotic love), Philia (love of siblings and close friends), Storge (familial love), Philautia (self love), Xenia (love of guest).
    - therealdrag0 5y ago
      Those Greek words don’t seem to add much over obvious context 99% of the time.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  What we seem to lack is an education. The Greeks, for example, and later the Scholastics, already had a much more sophisticated way to speak of love than we seem to. As I wrote elsewhere, love can be erotic and agathonic. Within each we can make finer distinctions, and we can speak of various varieties of love depending on the object (love of father vs. love of son; love of wife vs. love of mother). Love is not an emotion, even if emotions accompany various kinds of love. Ultimately, love is a desiring of the good for oneself or for another. We desire the good because it perfects us or because it perfects another. Our cultural understanding of love is often very infantile, and that's on the milder end of the spectrum. The very idea that you would leave your spouse because you've "fallen out of love" is preposterously childish.
snvzz 5y ago
The takeaway is to focus on solving the issue of Aging, and not waste time in this Love nonsense. SENS Foundation is doing good work there.
- sedeki 5y ago
  SENS Foundation, or at least Aubrey de Grey, has gotten some sexual harrassment allegations recently. Hope it doesn't stop them from their core mission.
  - snvzz 5y ago
    It's sad how popular or important people get targeted.
hikerclimber1 5y ago
No it isn’t. Love serves no purpose.
HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
If the goal is to have love in your life, there's actually no need to get two people to cooperate. It may seem surprising to hear it, but love is something that you can simply do alone, "sending" it to faraway people, classes of people including enemies, the entire world, or even to all beings without exception. This practice is very old (thousands of years). Those who are interested in it, I recommend they read this book: https://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the_path_to_nibbana__d_johnson_f18.pdf https://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the...
Tieje 5y ago
Honestly, love seems to be a byproduct of good economics. Less work gives people more time to love.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
No reason is actually given why love is supposed to be important? Many societies seem to work very well without it? Parents choose marriage partners for their kids, and things seem to work out? Not sure what percentage of such marriages also end up with love?
YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
I'm working on this. Though when I initially talked to some vc-adjacent types and accelerator mentors, they over-indexed on current dating apps. It's my belief that if one does indeed crack interpersonal chemistry, that'd be a major disruption...
thunderbong 5y ago
Link to the study (PDF) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167297234003 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014616729723400... The 36 Questions - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-or-small.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-o...

172 points by apsec112 5y ago

Dating apps are working on this, albeit higher up the funnel (which is arguably more important), and so a lot of resources are being invested in this area.

colechristensen 5y ago
Dating apps have gotten worse as there has been consolidation and attempts are being (successfully) made to extract more money out of customers.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  My last experience with Tinder over 3 years ago was that it's a carefully controlled dopamine drip. You get a lot of matches at first on the free tier then it slowly decreases until it convinces you to pay then you get a lot of matches again to justify the price and then it decreases again to keep you hooked.
  - dibujaron 5y ago
    Tinder is crap, but others are better. I've had quite a few high-quality dates from Hinge recently.
    - pm90 5y ago
      Can confirm. Hinge is great.
    - idontwantthis 5y ago
      That's interesting because they're both owned by Match Group.
      - maest 5y ago
        It makes sense for Match Group to specialise their offerings based on the types of people they think might want to date - e.g. quick flings vs more serious relationships.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
      Hinge has been my best one too. I hate the $20 price tag per month though. Basically extortion. Tinder is a joke now tbh. Bumble is like tinder but saves the guys time. OkCupid is bloated and nobodies on it.
      - indigo945 5y ago
        Okcupid used to be the only good option, but it got increasingly worse since match.com bought it. They recently did another overhaul and now it's so bad that it feels like they're deliberately trying to kill their userbase. Which might actually be true - it's probably better for match.com from a business perspective to kill off some of their less popular offerings and force the users to migrate to Tinder. The network effects and hence the potential monopoly are nothing to scoff at.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      The strategy seems obvious: make an account on the top 5 dating apps, use mostly the same profile if you want to save time, and have access to virtually the entire population of dating app users rather than one subset. Trying to get my single friends to do this is absolutely impossible. The elephant in the room is masturbation removing the desperation to find a partner. They say necessity is the mother of invention and porn keeps their sights aiming higher and higher as they spend less and less time working on themselves.
caseyross 5y ago
Dating apps are in a weird place because they invariably use a subscription model, which means they're incentivized to provide a long-term drip of temporary and mediocre matches rather than finding each user a single good long-term partner. Incentives could be better aligned through a "reverse subscription" model, in which a user pays nothing until the app finds them someone they'd like to date, whereupon they must then "subscribe" as long as that relationship continues.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  I have to disagree on that model. That may work for dudes who aren't confident and can barely make a decent profile. But for guys who can, it would be extremely annoying that I have to pay to attempt to date someone I'm not really that interested in. Vice versa for the women as well. Now you're giving them another reason to not consider you because they have to pay money too. The solution exists. It's natural selection. Unfortunately a lot of guys (especially in the midwest where I'm in) just do not understand how to game the system. I've been on enumerable dates. I am by all means a loser who peaked in high school then bounced back 9 years later and never even had a real relationship. So how was I successful? Pictures. With friends, in public, signaling social intelligence, and showing hobbies that interest women. Most guys take just cringy pictures that scream "Not only am I a loser, but I'm so depressed I'm embarrassed to do things in front of other people." That is why no girls want to date them. Even the very low status ones. Also, being confident and just being capable of holding a conversation is basically required.
  - indigo945 5y ago
    You don't understand the problem the parent commenter is talking about. This isn't about who is or isn't successful, it's about incentive structures, and the degree to which dating service providers have an interest in having more or less people find love. Currently, people finding partners and being happy means that dating service providers lose money, which means that they will deliberately show you partners that are less interesting to you, to make sure you keep feeling unhappy and come back to the app for another try. Your experience actually corroborates this, as most people do not want to do a lot of serial dating, and your advice is all about serial dating.
jeffreyrogers 5y ago
I think the current generation of tinder style apps are probably worse for this than previous generations of dating sites.
- scotty79 5y ago
  It's such a shame, how much devastation was done to okcupid over the last few years.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> What I have in mind, ideally, is a relatively quick and cheap activity, using behavioral, psychological and/or pharmaceutical techniques, that two people who have already matched for general compatibility (e.g. with a kind of dating service) can take in order to induce a mutual limerence-like state that can naturally turn into a stable long-run relationship. It's both sad and amusing to read discussions related to love that are so logical, cold and mechanical. Limerence is not love and if you want to use pharmaceutical techniques to form a "stable long-run relationship", why not just lock "pre-matched" men and women in a room with a bed and put them on a perpetual Soma-drip?

sidewndr46 5y ago
I'm pretty terrified of the idea of any relationship built on pharmaceuticals. It seems dangerous and unsustainable in the long run.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
Logic can work on anything. In fact, it exists to serve emotions. I don't have a logical reason to keep living, I just want to do it so I do. But the logical reason to stay married to my partner is that it makes me happy to do so. The only reason people are sour about perpetual Soma drips is that they wouldn't work well long-term. Most drugs would be really good if they had no negative short-term and long-terms effects.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > But the logical reason to stay married to my partner is that it makes me happy to do so. Ostensibly, you actually love your partner and are not in a stable long-run relationship that was initiated by a mutual limerence-like state induced using behavioral, psychological and/or pharmaceutical techniques.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > Logic can work on anything. In fact, it exists to serve emotions. That's a frightening idea (a riff of the classic Humean quip). Luckily, it is false. Emotions have their place. Properly developed and proportioned to reason, they can motivate us to do what is good and they can be pleasant. They are a good per se and a deficiency of them is defective as is an excess, but in mature adults, they are subject to reason. You wouldn't cheer at the funeral of your dead spouse, right? But if reason is subject to emotion, then there's no way to really object to the idea. > I don't have a logical reason to keep living, I just want to do it so I do. I disagree. The reason we wish to live is because to live is good. To exist is good. Being is better than non-being. We are by nature bound to want to exist. Even suicide is not really a wish for non-being, but escape from a predicament.

ReactiveJelly 5y ago

My partner and I actually tried the questionnaire and eye contact technique when we started dating. There are a lot of confounding factors - We were already good friends, and I already had a crush on them. But it probably didn't make anything worse. It's funny to see it pop up on HN.

killtimeatwork 5y ago
> We were already good friends, and I already had a crush on them. them?
- maest 5y ago
  It's being used in the singular sense.
  - killtimeatwork 5y ago
    I get it, but I thought it's merited in cases where the gender of the person referred to cannot be determined - usually because the reference points to an abstract class of people of any gender ("a manager") and not to a particular person of known gender ("John Smith"). In OP's case, the gender of their significant other is known, so why use "they" instead of "he" or "she"?
    - DJBunnies 5y ago
      To respect their gender identity.
    - elbows 5y ago
      OP's partner may be non-binary or otherwise use they/them pronouns.
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      It seems appropriate to use whenever their gender is irrelevant.

every 5y ago

Initially, people do not fall in love. Rather, they fall in lust. This is typically short term. Love emerges when there is deep, long term compatibility and commitment. Humor helps as well. This is an anecdotal observation from someone who has been "in love" for over four decades...

cm2012 5y ago
Same here, been with my wife for more than half my life now, we build on our love all the time. It's funny, I've had infatuation before for a couple acquaintances and celebrities and it's amazing how on a timer it is. Six months, like clockwork, that strong feeling is gone if you don't feed it.
xwdv 5y ago
What happens if you never fall in lust with a partner but then fall in love just because of compatibility reasons? Is it really still as satisfying?
- pm90 5y ago
  It depends on the people in question and how open minded they are. If either one wants good sexual compatibility but the partner isn’t able to provide it, that’s a recipe for disaster. If you both don’t have much of a sex drive then it’s probably fine.
- every 5y ago
  I don't know. But as you age, the lust factor tends to diminish. The relationship tends to depend on more than the mere carnal. Like being friends and enjoying each others company for instance. Partners in life, as it were...
- kadoban 5y ago
  As long as there is some sort of intimacy (including non-sexual and non-physical), I'd say it can be. Lust is just really convenient socially and biologically for getting an intimate relationship started.
- vecinu 5y ago

pm90 5y ago

It would be great if there was more research on on “love” and it wasn’t left to silly Hollywood stories to define it. I’m happy that therapy is normalized and that people (both single and couples) get professional help. But it would be great if therapy was common, and silly notions of finding the “perfect person” didn’t have so much power over so many people.

brabel 5y ago
The Hollywood portrait of love has done a lot of damage to young people the world over. Believing things like "love at first sight" or that it's healthy to "do anything to get the person you want", "never give up", for example. Or that there's always the "one" person who you're destined to find, and if you don't it's somehow a failure of yours. Incredibly frustrating beliefs that I suffered myself in my youth. Just hope young people today can see love for what it is: chemicals in the brain, mostly instinctive. Most of what makes it work is unconscious, too... your smell (not your freaking perfume, but your natural smell) may disgust, or arouse a potential partner, for example... same with things you have zero control over, like the shape of your chin or ears, the length of your legs, how symmetrical your face is, the way you walk and talk (you can change that, maybe, but not easy)... It's cruel, but no, if the other person doesn't "like" you, don't waste your time and health trying to make them fall for you - they just won't. Just like you can't control who you yourself "like", it just happens (and it's unfortunate that almost everyone seems to "like" the same few attractive people around... if you're not one of them, understand that as soon as possible to avoid being hurt! And try to be happy with other non-perfect people you can find that also understand that).
- dsign 5y ago
  That, and the parent, spot on comments. Hollywood is a disease for romance. I do wonder for example, how general is something like "dating"? Did people everywhere always used to go to dates? Was that the mainstream "approved" way to fall in love always? Everywhere? What else is out there? Are most westerners missing out because of the Hollywood stuff? And not only in real life, but also in the arts?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago

i5heu 5y ago

What strikes me about „Love“ is that we lack the vocabulary and the framework to speak about it. There is not just „Love“ there are a bazillion feelings that fall under this term, and we cannot speak about it.

the_af 5y ago
I think I know what you mean, but your assertion seems wrong to me. At times "love" is all what mankind seems to be able to talk about: it's the topic of most songs, but also of literature, cinema, poetry, art in general. I'd risk to say it's the number one topic of art, and we have multiple ways of depicting it and talking about it! It's, of course, also one topic of science.
- smegger001 5y ago
  I think it is English language problem because we only have one word to cover emotional bonds. I would wager other languages with more terms have it easier. Greek several different word describing types of love; Agape (love of a parent for their child), Eros (erotic love), Philia (love of siblings and close friends), Storge (familial love), Philautia (self love), Xenia (love of guest).
  - therealdrag0 5y ago
    Those Greek words don’t seem to add much over obvious context 99% of the time.
bobthechef 5y ago
What we seem to lack is an education. The Greeks, for example, and later the Scholastics, already had a much more sophisticated way to speak of love than we seem to. As I wrote elsewhere, love can be erotic and agathonic. Within each we can make finer distinctions, and we can speak of various varieties of love depending on the object (love of father vs. love of son; love of wife vs. love of mother). Love is not an emotion, even if emotions accompany various kinds of love. Ultimately, love is a desiring of the good for oneself or for another. We desire the good because it perfects us or because it perfects another. Our cultural understanding of love is often very infantile, and that's on the milder end of the spectrum. The very idea that you would leave your spouse because you've "fallen out of love" is preposterously childish.

snvzz 5y ago

The takeaway is to focus on solving the issue of Aging, and not waste time in this Love nonsense. SENS Foundation is doing good work there.

sedeki 5y ago
SENS Foundation, or at least Aubrey de Grey, has gotten some sexual harrassment allegations recently. Hope it doesn't stop them from their core mission.
- snvzz 5y ago
  It's sad how popular or important people get targeted.

hikerclimber1 5y ago

No it isn’t. Love serves no purpose.

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago

If the goal is to have love in your life, there's actually no need to get two people to cooperate. It may seem surprising to hear it, but love is something that you can simply do alone, "sending" it to faraway people, classes of people including enemies, the entire world, or even to all beings without exception. This practice is very old (thousands of years). Those who are interested in it, I recommend they read this book: https://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the_path_to_nibbana__d_johnson_f18.pdf https://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the...

Tieje 5y ago

Honestly, love seems to be a byproduct of good economics. Less work gives people more time to love.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

No reason is actually given why love is supposed to be important? Many societies seem to work very well without it? Parents choose marriage partners for their kids, and things seem to work out? Not sure what percentage of such marriages also end up with love?

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago

I'm working on this. Though when I initially talked to some vc-adjacent types and accelerator mentors, they over-indexed on current dating apps. It's my belief that if one does indeed crack interpersonal chemistry, that'd be a major disruption...

thunderbong 5y ago

Link to the study (PDF) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167297234003 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014616729723400... The 36 Questions - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-or-small.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-o...