It often seems that the very concept of making rational decisions relating to relationships is opposed by a gigantic cluster of memes designed to sacralize the concept of love as an arbitrary and unquestionable whim of narrative fiat.
For example, among rationalists, it’s probably trivial to say that any given partner is very unlikely to be the best possible. That’s really simple statistical inference. But to say that in other contexts signals that you are at best, a misanthrope, and at worst, Pure Evil.
How do we win against what seem to be cultural universals, assuming that we are constrained by currently available methods? I suppose with the above example, limiting ourselves to endogamy is probably the most feasible conclusion, which gives us the major downside of a small and widely dispersed pool of candidates, which trickles down into pure mediocrity to those in suburban and rural environments.
For example, among rationalists, it’s probably trivial to say that any given partner is very unlikely to be the best possible. That’s really simple statistical inference. But to say that in other contexts signals that you are at best, a misanthrope, and at worst, Pure Evil.
Consider the secretary problem. One can argue that someone good enough that got selected is essentially best possible.
Consider the secretary problem. One can argue that someone good enough that got selected is essentially best possible.
One could even more correctly say that was the best possible selection of a secretary. They wouldn’t even need to be equivocating on ‘best possible’ if they said it as a reply to Dallas in that case.
It often seems that the very concept of making rational decisions relating to relationships is opposed by a gigantic cluster of memes designed to sacralize the concept of love as an arbitrary and unquestionable whim of narrative fiat.
For example, among rationalists, it’s probably trivial to say that any given partner is very unlikely to be the best possible. That’s really simple statistical inference. But to say that in other contexts signals that you are at best, a misanthrope, and at worst, Pure Evil.
How do we win against what seem to be cultural universals, assuming that we are constrained by currently available methods? I suppose with the above example, limiting ourselves to endogamy is probably the most feasible conclusion, which gives us the major downside of a small and widely dispersed pool of candidates, which trickles down into pure mediocrity to those in suburban and rural environments.
Consider the secretary problem. One can argue that someone good enough that got selected is essentially best possible.
One could even more correctly say that was the best possible selection of a secretary. They wouldn’t even need to be equivocating on ‘best possible’ if they said it as a reply to Dallas in that case.
That is a good way to word it.
After being employed for a while, the secretary might become the best secretary possible by being familiar with the employer’s habits and such.