3 ms·

> 1. Forget what they say—instead look at who they marry. Reminds me of Moneyball when they are evaluating potential prospects on how good looking their girlfr

> 1. Forget what they say—instead look at who they marry. Reminds me of Moneyball when they are evaluating potential prospects on how good looking their girlfriends are. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6naO8n6HsqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6naO8n6HsqE

samastur 4y ago
This one really irks me for a couple of reasons. My wife and I have a friend whose partner is pretty despicable person. He didn't used to be before they got kids and kind of evolved into what he is now. First, with couples in long relationships who they are now tells you little about who they were when they met and why they are still together. Second, you have no idea what their relationship is like. You can't tell at a dinner party if they value the things you value in their partner or are bothered by same things. Nobody gets a perfect specimen matching their desires and needs including my wife.
skizm 4y ago
Which turns out to be completely wrong in the end though lol.
- NegativeK 4y ago
  That exchange seems like it's taking the author's suggestion to a hyperbolic extreme.
uticus 4y ago
Seems there is some level of wisdom here. Of course you can't see inside a man's head by doing this, but some things are gonna be obvious. Besides, when it comes to judging, only God can see the heart - the rest of us mortals have to rely on what is exposed to us.
roughly 4y ago
I think “marry” is some old-school shorthand here, but there’s merit to paying attention to who someone keeps close.
rcarr 4y ago
Larry David takes the exact opposite stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViS2QEzPLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViS2QEzPLY
- mc32 4y ago
  They both overstate it for effect. In Larry's case he treats the subject's wife as unidimensional --as if she could not possibly have other characteristics that endear her to the subject. In the Moneyball, it's over the top attention to a single aspect. They're both preposterous.

samastur 4y ago

This one really irks me for a couple of reasons. My wife and I have a friend whose partner is pretty despicable person. He didn't used to be before they got kids and kind of evolved into what he is now. First, with couples in long relationships who they are now tells you little about who they were when they met and why they are still together. Second, you have no idea what their relationship is like. You can't tell at a dinner party if they value the things you value in their partner or are bothered by same things. Nobody gets a perfect specimen matching their desires and needs including my wife.

skizm 4y ago

Which turns out to be completely wrong in the end though lol.

NegativeK 4y ago
That exchange seems like it's taking the author's suggestion to a hyperbolic extreme.

uticus 4y ago

Seems there is some level of wisdom here. Of course you can't see inside a man's head by doing this, but some things are gonna be obvious. Besides, when it comes to judging, only God can see the heart - the rest of us mortals have to rely on what is exposed to us.

roughly 4y ago

I think “marry” is some old-school shorthand here, but there’s merit to paying attention to who someone keeps close.

rcarr 4y ago

Larry David takes the exact opposite stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViS2QEzPLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViS2QEzPLY

mc32 4y ago
They both overstate it for effect. In Larry's case he treats the subject's wife as unidimensional --as if she could not possibly have other characteristics that endear her to the subject. In the Moneyball, it's over the top attention to a single aspect. They're both preposterous.