As for the rest, potential apophenia on raw numbers of plausible candidates. being around more candidates makes you get less target focused, sure, but it also gives you many more lottery tickets on every other dimension whether legible, illegible, optimized or no.
That is a strong counter explanation for the one summer 2019 observation. So really there were three candidates on that hike, and maybe 8 others the rest of the summer.
The stronger evidence probs comes from when people lose interest (the timing). Basically, right after you double text people often stop responding. But hard to be mathematical about the timing. Hmmm.
This “but” is nonsensical. Try “My friend has childhood issues that cause her to only semi consciously prefer aloof and unavailable men.”
I agree the line is bad. What I mean is her explanation felt like a rationalization and a just-world explanation. Like “If I was healthy, then I would only want to date men I expect to treat me well”. A simpler explanation is that women prefer guys that are a bit unavailable at first. But this is a tangent.
I want to reject people’s rationalizations of their behavior. But doing so makes me a dick. Have not figured that one out yet.
Thank you for the criticisms. Helps me make better arguments.
But hard to be mathematical about the timing. Hmmm.
Couldn’t you try a handful of different delays and see what works best? Or, even better, look up what the common suggestions are, and then test them all.
I want to reject people’s rationalizations of their behavior. But doing so makes me a dick. Have not figured that one out yet.
Why can’t you avoid telling them? I find that avoiding any discussion of anything remotely rationality related makes interacting with normal people so much easier.
> right after you double text people often stop responding.
could be the upstream thing that caused you to double text is the cause, but that just means that the feeling of wanting to double text is an equally good indicator.
That is a strong counter explanation for the one summer 2019 observation. So really there were three candidates on that hike, and maybe 8 others the rest of the summer.
The stronger evidence probs comes from when people lose interest (the timing). Basically, right after you double text people often stop responding. But hard to be mathematical about the timing. Hmmm.
I agree the line is bad. What I mean is her explanation felt like a rationalization and a just-world explanation. Like “If I was healthy, then I would only want to date men I expect to treat me well”. A simpler explanation is that women prefer guys that are a bit unavailable at first. But this is a tangent.
I want to reject people’s rationalizations of their behavior. But doing so makes me a dick. Have not figured that one out yet.
Thank you for the criticisms. Helps me make better arguments.
Couldn’t you try a handful of different delays and see what works best? Or, even better, look up what the common suggestions are, and then test them all.
Why can’t you avoid telling them? I find that avoiding any discussion of anything remotely rationality related makes interacting with normal people so much easier.
> right after you double text people often stop responding.
could be the upstream thing that caused you to double text is the cause, but that just means that the feeling of wanting to double text is an equally good indicator.