4 ms·

The same goes for spouses, by the way. You don't have a happy marriage/partnership because you met the person of your dreams and then both accidentally stay th

The same goes for spouses, by the way. You don't have a happy marriage/partnership because you met the person of your dreams and then both accidentally stay the same person forever. Happy marriages exist because people continuously and mutually change each other in a positive way.

brundolf 4y ago
That's a big part of it, though I think it's fair to be a little more selective when there's only going to be one person in that role for the rest of your life But there's no such constraint on other relationships. Those deserve an abundance-mindset; go out into the world, see what people are like, don't assume you already know what you're looking for, see which relationships stick. You have almost nothing to lose. Edit: That said, lots of people are way too far on this end of the spectrum even when it comes to life-partnerships. The key is to dial in and not overestimate how much you actually know about other people, the world, and even yourself.
dkersten 4y ago
This is something that always bothers me. A lot of people forget that you have to work on relationships and then eventually they fall apart. I'm of the opinion that a belief in "soulmates" or finding "the one" or whatever is a big part of the problem: if they're your soulmate, then everything should always be perfect, right? and if its not, then that means they weren't actually the one, so end of relationship and move on hoping to find the true one... But it doesn't work like that in real life, no relationship is perfect all the time and both people need to work on them. Relationships are like gardens, they don't stay beautiful if they're neglected.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  No, the concept of a soul mate is that you have a bind that transcends this life, that there this is a journey your souls decided to take together before your birth. Ups, downs, whatever, it will work in the end, because that was the mission. To teach a lesson. Maybe the lesson was how to overcome differences? Now the common modern usage of soulmate just means “person was meant for me” and that’s open to 100% of your criticism.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Do you think they were using the meaning that nobody's heard of or the modern one that everyone knows?
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      “Nobody has heard of” You are not everyone. But I included the second caveat to cover each potential usage. Maybe you’ve learned something today
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        Just gonna trudge on with the pedantry then? Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody. It's a rhetorical exaggeration.
        shepherdjerred 4y ago
        > Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody. This is a funny sentence because you're using "nobody" in the exact way that you claim "nobody" else does.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        I mean that's half the joke, but am I though? :)
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        Maybe take that one back to the drawing board. It’s got some potential.
        cgriswald 4y ago
        The other poster was actually pointing out something insightful: That the term "soulmate" can (and does) mean different things to different people. What you call the modern usage... isn't. It's used to describe multiple concepts including "the perfect puzzle piece human" and "someone I am bound to through thick and thin". The former is problematic because it allows people to bail at the first sign of trouble while taking no responsibility whatsoever. The later is probably better overall, but I've seen it used to rationalize staying in an abusive relationship.
- iratewizard 4y ago
  I think understanding "soulmate" -whether or not it exists - can be understood by looking at the antithesis. I know I've been in a mistake of a relationship where I had found the opposite of a soulmate. The things that made her awful for me are characteristics I used to filter people out until I found my wife. There's definitely an argument that soulmate don't exist. That anyone can be the one that you want as long as you see it through until you feel indifference. For some people, though, that indifference comes much faster. Trust and respect erode way faster than can be undone.
  - dkersten 4y ago
    I think its pretty clear that some people just don't get on, so I don't think its true that basically any two people can "be the one". You need some kind of shared values and ideals first. Beyond that though, I think most people can work if both are willing to work on it. My main point is that a belief in the romantic notion of someone being "the one" seems to give people a false sense of complacency: if they're truly "the one", then surely you don't need to work on the relationship, and if the cracks start to show, that's clearly a sign that they weren't actually "the one". In reality, life isn't so rosy and we have to work on our relationships, even if we get on amazingly well with that person.
- senorqa 4y ago
  I think we can "blame" romanticism for that imaginary vision of a soul mate. I really like Alain de Botton's take on Romanticism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOuIyEJnbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOuIyEJnbE
  - BasDirks 4y ago
    Romanticism, that sweet youthful foolishness. Living tragically can be beautiful, and lead to deep despair.
  - beaker52 4y ago
    Thanks for sharing this. It was an important watch for my wife and I.
  - dkersten 4y ago
    That's a great video, thanks for posting it!
- every 4y ago
  We have been together for over four decades and are cautiously optimistic it might work out...
jiggawatts 4y ago
An analogy that might appeal to machine learning enthusiasts: The quality of friendships and romantic relationships can be thought of as the dot product of two high-dimensional vectors. The elements of the vectors describe mutual interests, attributes that are important for relationships, etc... The dot product means that as your interests and personalities are more aligned, the relationship can become stronger. (Aside: There is good scientific evidence that the opposites attract myth is just a myth. The converse is true. More similar people find each other more attractive.) But here's the rub: by default the vectors are already fairly aligned by the simple fact that we're all human. We all have some baked-in interests, wants, and personality traits that align well with the same in the fellow members of our species. Secondly, most people meet people that are physically near them, which means that statistically, their "vectors" will align significantly better than chance. Like... way, way better. I can sympathise with the author of the blog article. I get it. I really do. I'm a political refugee, and three decades later, I still don't quite fit in with the people in my new home. Combine that with esoteric interests and a shy personality, and I start to look like the author an awful lot. But I've had surprisingly little trouble living with romantic partners from hugely different backgrounds. Literal polar opposites of the planet, different religions, you name it. Turns out that they're just... human. They want hugs and romantic meals, trips overseas and back rubs. Same as everyone else. It really doesn't take much at all to "align". It's basically our wired-in default! Essentially, the best we can do is optimise this dot product, but there isn't anyone on the planet that will reach 100%. Despite this, we can get a surprisingly good match without even trying, because we're all already set up for being a 90% match for each other. People like the author are complaining about being an 80% match, not a 5% match. I got to my 90% by simply finding partners that were also political refuges and/or expats. That's all it took. I didn't have to change my personality or become a different person. To put things in perspective: There are people that put up with abusive spouses. Seriously, think about that! If you don't think you can get along with a friend or a romantic partner, just consider for a minute that other people find physical abuse tolerable, because it's just one dimension in a high dimensional vector where everything else mostly aligns. I mean... sheesh... just... don't hit people? You're already way ahead of a surprising fraction of people just by doing that one thing.

brundolf 4y ago

That's a big part of it, though I think it's fair to be a little more selective when there's only going to be one person in that role for the rest of your life But there's no such constraint on other relationships. Those deserve an abundance-mindset; go out into the world, see what people are like, don't assume you already know what you're looking for, see which relationships stick. You have almost nothing to lose. Edit: That said, lots of people are way too far on this end of the spectrum even when it comes to life-partnerships. The key is to dial in and not overestimate how much you actually know about other people, the world, and even yourself.

dkersten 4y ago

This is something that always bothers me. A lot of people forget that you have to work on relationships and then eventually they fall apart. I'm of the opinion that a belief in "soulmates" or finding "the one" or whatever is a big part of the problem: if they're your soulmate, then everything should always be perfect, right? and if its not, then that means they weren't actually the one, so end of relationship and move on hoping to find the true one... But it doesn't work like that in real life, no relationship is perfect all the time and both people need to work on them. Relationships are like gardens, they don't stay beautiful if they're neglected.

imwillofficial 4y ago
No, the concept of a soul mate is that you have a bind that transcends this life, that there this is a journey your souls decided to take together before your birth. Ups, downs, whatever, it will work in the end, because that was the mission. To teach a lesson. Maybe the lesson was how to overcome differences? Now the common modern usage of soulmate just means “person was meant for me” and that’s open to 100% of your criticism.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Do you think they were using the meaning that nobody's heard of or the modern one that everyone knows?
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    “Nobody has heard of” You are not everyone. But I included the second caveat to cover each potential usage. Maybe you’ve learned something today
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Just gonna trudge on with the pedantry then? Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody. It's a rhetorical exaggeration.
      - shepherdjerred 4y ago
        > Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody. This is a funny sentence because you're using "nobody" in the exact way that you claim "nobody" else does.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        I mean that's half the joke, but am I though? :)
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        Maybe take that one back to the drawing board. It’s got some potential.
      - cgriswald 4y ago
        The other poster was actually pointing out something insightful: That the term "soulmate" can (and does) mean different things to different people. What you call the modern usage... isn't. It's used to describe multiple concepts including "the perfect puzzle piece human" and "someone I am bound to through thick and thin". The former is problematic because it allows people to bail at the first sign of trouble while taking no responsibility whatsoever. The later is probably better overall, but I've seen it used to rationalize staying in an abusive relationship.
iratewizard 4y ago
I think understanding "soulmate" -whether or not it exists - can be understood by looking at the antithesis. I know I've been in a mistake of a relationship where I had found the opposite of a soulmate. The things that made her awful for me are characteristics I used to filter people out until I found my wife. There's definitely an argument that soulmate don't exist. That anyone can be the one that you want as long as you see it through until you feel indifference. For some people, though, that indifference comes much faster. Trust and respect erode way faster than can be undone.
- dkersten 4y ago
  I think its pretty clear that some people just don't get on, so I don't think its true that basically any two people can "be the one". You need some kind of shared values and ideals first. Beyond that though, I think most people can work if both are willing to work on it. My main point is that a belief in the romantic notion of someone being "the one" seems to give people a false sense of complacency: if they're truly "the one", then surely you don't need to work on the relationship, and if the cracks start to show, that's clearly a sign that they weren't actually "the one". In reality, life isn't so rosy and we have to work on our relationships, even if we get on amazingly well with that person.
senorqa 4y ago
I think we can "blame" romanticism for that imaginary vision of a soul mate. I really like Alain de Botton's take on Romanticism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOuIyEJnbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOuIyEJnbE
- BasDirks 4y ago
  Romanticism, that sweet youthful foolishness. Living tragically can be beautiful, and lead to deep despair.
- beaker52 4y ago
  Thanks for sharing this. It was an important watch for my wife and I.
- dkersten 4y ago
  That's a great video, thanks for posting it!
every 4y ago
We have been together for over four decades and are cautiously optimistic it might work out...

jiggawatts 4y ago

An analogy that might appeal to machine learning enthusiasts: The quality of friendships and romantic relationships can be thought of as the dot product of two high-dimensional vectors. The elements of the vectors describe mutual interests, attributes that are important for relationships, etc... The dot product means that as your interests and personalities are more aligned, the relationship can become stronger. (Aside: There is good scientific evidence that the opposites attract myth is just a myth. The converse is true. More similar people find each other more attractive.) But here's the rub: by default the vectors are already fairly aligned by the simple fact that we're all human. We all have some baked-in interests, wants, and personality traits that align well with the same in the fellow members of our species. Secondly, most people meet people that are physically near them, which means that statistically, their "vectors" will align significantly better than chance. Like... way, way better. I can sympathise with the author of the blog article. I get it. I really do. I'm a political refugee, and three decades later, I still don't quite fit in with the people in my new home. Combine that with esoteric interests and a shy personality, and I start to look like the author an awful lot. But I've had surprisingly little trouble living with romantic partners from hugely different backgrounds. Literal polar opposites of the planet, different religions, you name it. Turns out that they're just... human. They want hugs and romantic meals, trips overseas and back rubs. Same as everyone else. It really doesn't take much at all to "align". It's basically our wired-in default! Essentially, the best we can do is optimise this dot product, but there isn't anyone on the planet that will reach 100%. Despite this, we can get a surprisingly good match without even trying, because we're all already set up for being a 90% match for each other. People like the author are complaining about being an 80% match, not a 5% match. I got to my 90% by simply finding partners that were also political refuges and/or expats. That's all it took. I didn't have to change my personality or become a different person. To put things in perspective: There are people that put up with abusive spouses. Seriously, think about that! If you don't think you can get along with a friend or a romantic partner, just consider for a minute that other people find physical abuse tolerable, because it's just one dimension in a high dimensional vector where everything else mostly aligns. I mean... sheesh... just... don't hit people? You're already way ahead of a surprising fraction of people just by doing that one thing.