I’ve also concluded that in-love epistemics are terrible from my own research. For instance, in this n=71 study where college students write about a time they’ve rejected a romantic confession and a time they were rejected: - suitors report that rejectors are mysterious, but rejectors do not report being mysterious - suitors severely overestimate probability of being liked back - suitors report that rejections are very unclear, and while suitors report the same, it is to a much lesser degree/frequency.
I’ve also been overconfident of compatibility and of mutual affection in my own life (n=1)
However, I think there’s something to be said for having something (someone?) to protect. Eliezer mentions in Inadequate Equillibria using extremely bright lights to solve his partner’s Seasonal Affective Disorder—which was not medical consensus, and only after Eliezer’s experiment are more “official” trials for this intervention being tested. Or in my case, I was so heartbroken over a bad ex that I researched romance science, learned about the similarity between limerance and OCD, and tried a supplement that cured my heartbreak. I wouldn’t normally try new drugs nor browse google scholar, but I was really motivated.
I don’t know anyone else that’s tried this. I’d only bet 55-65% that it works for any given person. But it’s available over the counter and quite safe. I should probably get around to setting up a more rigorous experiment one of these days...
“suitors severely underestimate probability of being liked back”
Is this supposed to say ‘overestimate’? Regardless, what info from the paper is the claim based on? Since they’re only sampling stories where people were rejected, the stories will have disproportionately large numbers of cases where the suitors are over-optimistic, so that seems like it’d make it hard to draw general conclusions.
(For the other two bullet points: I’d expect those effects, directionally, just from the normal illusion of transparency playing out in a context where there are social barriers to clear communication. But haven’t looked at the paper to see whether the effect is way stronger than I’d normally expect.)
That’s a really good point about having something to protect. However:
Or in my case, I was so heartbroken over a bad ex that I researched romance science, learned about the similarity between limerance and OCD, and tried a supplement that cured my heartbreak. I wouldn’t normally try new drugs nor browse google scholar, but I was really motivated.
I don’t think this excerpt is related to the “something to protect” point. The motivation here was to get rid of a really, intensely bad feeling you were having, whereas “something to protect” is about protecting someone else.
I’ve also concluded that in-love epistemics are terrible from my own research. For instance, in this n=71 study where college students write about a time they’ve rejected a romantic confession and a time they were rejected:
- suitors report that rejectors are mysterious, but rejectors do not report being mysterious
- suitors severely overestimate probability of being liked back
- suitors report that rejections are very unclear, and while suitors report the same, it is to a much lesser degree/frequency.
I’ve also been overconfident of compatibility and of mutual affection in my own life (n=1)
However, I think there’s something to be said for having something (someone?) to protect.
Eliezer mentions in Inadequate Equillibria using extremely bright lights to solve his partner’s Seasonal Affective Disorder—which was not medical consensus, and only after Eliezer’s experiment are more “official” trials for this intervention being tested.
Or in my case, I was so heartbroken over a bad ex that I researched romance science, learned about the similarity between limerance and OCD, and tried a supplement that cured my heartbreak. I wouldn’t normally try new drugs nor browse google scholar, but I was really motivated.
What was that supplement? Seems like a useful thing to have known if reproducible.
Inositol, I believe: https://www.facebook.com/100000020495165/posts/4855425464468089/?app=fbl
Inositol indeed.
I don’t know anyone else that’s tried this. I’d only bet 55-65% that it works for any given person. But it’s available over the counter and quite safe.
I should probably get around to setting up a more rigorous experiment one of these days...
“suitors severely underestimate probability of being liked back”
Is this supposed to say ‘overestimate’? Regardless, what info from the paper is the claim based on? Since they’re only sampling stories where people were rejected, the stories will have disproportionately large numbers of cases where the suitors are over-optimistic, so that seems like it’d make it hard to draw general conclusions.
(For the other two bullet points: I’d expect those effects, directionally, just from the normal illusion of transparency playing out in a context where there are social barriers to clear communication. But haven’t looked at the paper to see whether the effect is way stronger than I’d normally expect.)
Yes, corrected.
I don’t remember (I copied the points from my notes from months ago when I did the research).
You found the Cure for Love??
There’s nothing pure enough to be a cure for love. (Except poetry, which does quite well)
That’s a really good point about having something to protect. However:
I don’t think this excerpt is related to the “something to protect” point. The motivation here was to get rid of a really, intensely bad feeling you were having, whereas “something to protect” is about protecting someone else.