EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
anonymousdude2
2
0

Fair enough. I don't actually think it's a super high impact thing, I just needed an excuse to post it here. Otherwise would have seemed too random.

Come to think of it LessWrong would have been a better place to post.

Reply
See in context
by anonymousdude
1 min read4 answers -1

13

CommunityPersonal development
Personal Blog

I realise this is an abnormal topic area, but helping EAs find love / good romantic relationships seems potentially high impact to me. The search for love can be time-consuming and failure can mean loneliness which can mean lower productivity.

I'm a case in point. I spend a lot of time on dating apps to no avail and am generally a bit down about having always been single. It's constraining the impact I can have.

Has anyone ever taken a rational approach to finding love? If so, what was it? Was there a particularly helpful resource such as a self-help book? Even if you didn't intentionally take a rational approach to love, did you find that a particular approach worked very well?

Any advice at all welcome.

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


4 Answers sorted by
Top

Anja Boskovic

8
2
0

Here are the concepts that were most helpful to me:

  • Reduce attachment that finding a partner is going to solve your happiness and build a life others will be attracted to. Seriously. I had to accept a future of being forever alone before I could let go of the fixation and move on with my life. The misery of being single almost entirely revolves around this fixation. Focus on building a life that you would be excited to share with someone. I recommend You Are the One You Have Been Waiting For: https://tasshin.com/blog/you-are-the-one-youve-been-waiting-for/. Bonus of this: if you do not need a partner, then you will encounter less anxious attachment early on in courtship. This will help you navigate the courtship phase much more deftly. It is one of the tragedies of the world that the people who least need a romantic relationship are the ones who will have the easiest time finding one.
  • Once you have built a life that is attractive to others, then increase your probability of meeting people that are in your field of eligbles and actually ask them out. Helpful summaries about this are: https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/models-a-summary/ and https://colah.github.io/personal/micromarriages/. There are different strategies people have tried that basically amount to this. Date Me docs, being more strategic with OkCupid, going to parties and meetups. These are all about increasing the number of people in your proximity that are part of your field of eligibles. Video on the field of eligibles and proximity effect: 
  • If you are using a dating app, then the most impactful thing you can do is invest serious time in improving your profile. This means paying attention to photos and whatever other content is part of the profile. Get feedback from people you trust. Hire a professional photographer. Do tests and see which sorts of profiles get you more responses. 
  • This is controversial and more of a strong opinion I hold that others disagree with. I found that people are not actually very good at predicting what matters in a partner. I am not saying "lower your standards", but most of the things people have on their lists for desired partner feel to be missing the point. Having aligned views on the life you want to build matters quite a bit, but you might find yourself surprised by who end up being attracted to. My current nesting partner is not a nerd, adventurous, and a huge extrovert. These are traits I filtered against in the past. Focus on chemistry: are you attracted to them (sexual compatibility)? Can you understand each other (mental compatibility)? Are you aligned in the life you want to build (life compatibility)? Everything else matters a lot less (in my experience).
  • The skills needed to find people in your field of eligibles are different from courtship skills. Courtship skills are different from the skills that lead to longer lasting relationships. An example is that tension and mystery can matter quite a bit in the early stages, while being very good at Needs and Boundaries matters a lot more in the later stages. Meeting someone you like and beginning the courtship phase with them is only the very beginning of the journey of a life-long partner. All of the other skills involved are beyond the scope of this post.
sjsjsj1
0
0

Great advice! I recommend Lori Gottlieb's "Marry Him" for more on what standards are appropriate (it's aimed at hetero women but I found it useful as a hetero man), and Logan Ury's "How Not to Die Alone" for more on a number of these topics.

Reply

HemanthB

6
1
1

Dating for impact sounds like a parody of the EA community, and I’m rather not a fan of this degree of instrumentality nor “saving EA time [wasted on Tinder] is EA” takes.

Separately, on models of romantic love: Edward Glaeser used to teach his (partially joke) model of finding love in his Microeconomics class. If I remember correct, it had 2 parts—

  • Finding your partner in college or some other organization of diverse, similarly minded, and highly invested folks is likely optimal

  • Be very wary of second derivatives—don’t settle for a local minima.

anonymousdude2
2
0

Fair enough. I don't actually think it's a super high impact thing, I just needed an excuse to post it here. Otherwise would have seemed too random.

Come to think of it LessWrong would have been a better place to post.

Reply

Karthik Tadepalli

4
1
0

You might like this, which elaborates a really nice philosophy and applies it to dating.

I don't think it's central to your question, but I would discourage framing this as motivated by it being high impact. Any discomfort or life challenges whatsoever will reduce a person's productivity; that doesn't imply that all discomforts that EAs could face are top cause areas. Challenges in finding and maintaining relationships are a natural feature of life and not bugs that reduce our potential impact.

This kind of reasoning is also especially prone to motivated reasoning:

Justifying, in these cases, is also a way to get practice... in motivated reasoning. Why did you go to two parties last weekend? Maybe you just need two weekly parties to be happy enough to work. Why were you spending so much time trying to get an A in differential equations that you forgot to apply to that internship? Well, a top 5 PhD program requires a high GPA. These justifications could be true, but are they really why you did the thing?

DC3
1
1

I broadly disagree. If a large fraction of EAs are spending hours swiping, and there are tractable ways to reduce that, that could be really useful. This isn't just a random challenge, it's one of the largest productivity-draining ones we face. A lot of the challenges are features of our current environment. If you can scale a solution and create an innovative dating service then that has a good shot at being a billion-dollar company. If anything I think there is motivated reasoning against thinking about it too much because it can easily get controversial... (read more)

Reply
1
Lixiang
Some companies have started video chat speed dating.   Yash Kanoria has some interesting game theory analysis of such platforms. I think such models need to be more explicit about modeling gender differences, which academic papers are less likely to do since such things can sometimes be controversial / non-PC. 
anonymousdude2
0
0

Fair enough. I don't actually think it's a super high impact thing, I just needed an excuse to post it here. Otherwise would have seemed too random.

Come to think of it LessWrong would have been a better place to post.

Reply
Lixiang2
1
0

I would discourage framing this as motivated by it being high impact.

 

I'm mostly sympathetic to your view, but I don't think that sort of thing should always be discouraged/avoided categorically. I think a balance has to be found with that sort of thing. How to find that balance? I don't know. 

Reply

Ariel

3
1
0

I came across this some time ago through lesswrong - https://putanumonit.com/2016/02/03/015-dating_1/

might be what your looking for :)

Karthik Tadepalli3
0
0

Amazing that we both dropped an essay by Jacob Falkovich at the same time, lol. This one is definitely more relevant to the OP

Reply
Comments-1
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
At the last EAG Bay Area, I gave a workshop on navigating a difficult job market, which I repeated days ago at EAG London. A few people have asked for my notes and slides, so I’ve decided to share them here.  This is the slide deck I used.   Below is a low-effort loose transcript, minus the interactive bits (you can see these on the slides in the form of reflection and discussion prompts with a timer). In my opinion, some interactive elements were rushed because I stubbornly wanted to pack too much into the session. If you’re going to re-use them, I recommend you allow for more time than I did if you can (and if you can’t, I empathise with the struggle of making difficult trade-offs due to time constraints).  One of the benefits of written communication over spoken communication is that you can be very precise and comprehensive. I’m sorry that those benefits are wasted on this post. Ideally, I’d have turned my speaker notes from the session into a more nuanced written post that would include a hundred extra points that I wanted to make and caveats that I wanted to add. Unfortunately, I’m a busy person, and I’ve come to accept that such a post will never exist. So I’m sharing this instead as a MVP that I believe can still be valuable –certainly more valuable than nothing!  Introduction 80,000 Hours’ whole thing is asking: Have you considered using your career to have an impact? As an advisor, I now speak with lots of people who have indeed considered it and very much want it – they don't need persuading. What they need is help navigating a tough job market. I want to use this session to spread some messages I keep repeating in these calls and create common knowledge about the job landscape.  But first, a couple of caveats: 1. Oh my, I wonder if volunteering to run this session was a terrible idea. Giving advice to one person is difficult; giving advice to many people simultaneously is impossible. You all have different skill sets, are at different points in
 ·  · 47m read
 · 
Thank you to Arepo and Eli Lifland for looking over this article for errors.  I am sorry that this article is so long. Every time I thought I was done with it I ran into more issues with the model, and I wanted to be as thorough as I could. I’m not going to blame anyone for skimming parts of this article.  Note that the majority of this article was written before Eli’s updated model was released (the site was updated june 8th). His new model improves on some of my objections, but the majority still stand.   Introduction: AI 2027 is an article written by the “AI futures team”. The primary piece is a short story penned by Scott Alexander, depicting a month by month scenario of a near-future where AI becomes superintelligent in 2027,proceeding to automate the entire economy in only a year or two and then either kills us all or does not kill us all, depending on government policies.  What makes AI 2027 different from other similar short stories is that it is presented as a forecast based on rigorous modelling and data analysis from forecasting experts. It is accompanied by five appendices of “detailed research supporting these predictions” and a codebase for simulations. They state that “hundreds” of people reviewed the text, including AI expert Yoshua Bengio, although some of these reviewers only saw bits of it. The scenario in the short story is not the median forecast for any AI futures author, and none of the AI2027 authors actually believe that 2027 is the median year for a singularity to happen. But the argument they make is that 2027 is a plausible year, and they back it up with images of sophisticated looking modelling like the following: This combination of compelling short story and seemingly-rigorous research may have been the secret sauce that let the article to go viral and be treated as a serious project:To quote the authors themselves: It’s been a crazy few weeks here at the AI Futures Project. Almost a million people visited our webpage; 166,00
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Authors: Joel McGuire (analysis, drafts) and Lily Ottinger (editing)  Formosa: Fulcrum of the Future? An invasion of Taiwan is uncomfortably likely and potentially catastrophic. We should research better ways to avoid it.   TLDR: I forecast that an invasion of Taiwan increases all the anthropogenic risks by ~1.5% (percentage points) of a catastrophe killing 10% or more of the population by 2100 (nuclear risk by 0.9%, AI + Biorisk by 0.6%). This would imply it constitutes a sizable share of the total catastrophic risk burden expected over the rest of this century by skilled and knowledgeable forecasters (8% of the total risk of 20% according to domain experts and 17% of the total risk of 9% according to superforecasters). I think this means that we should research ways to cost-effectively decrease the likelihood that China invades Taiwan. This could mean exploring the prospect of advocating that Taiwan increase its deterrence by investing in cheap but lethal weapons platforms like mines, first-person view drones, or signaling that mobilized reserves would resist an invasion. Disclaimer I read about and forecast on topics related to conflict as a hobby (4th out of 3,909 on the Metaculus Ukraine conflict forecasting competition, 73 out of 42,326 in general on Metaculus), but I claim no expertise on the topic. I probably spent something like ~40 hours on this over the course of a few months. Some of the numbers I use may be slightly outdated, but this is one of those things that if I kept fiddling with it I'd never publish it.  Acknowledgements: I heartily thank Lily Ottinger, Jeremy Garrison, Maggie Moss and my sister for providing valuable feedback on previous drafts. Part 0: Background The Chinese Civil War (1927–1949) ended with the victorious communists establishing the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland. The defeated Kuomintang (KMT[1]) retreated to Taiwan in 1949 and formed the Republic of China (ROC). A dictatorship during the cold war, T
Recent opportunities in Community
106
What's your experience with elitism in EA? [Survey]
Q
Yi-Yang
· · 2m read
66
66
104
A UK residential retreat space for EAs
Kestrel🔸
· · 3m read
5
5
30
EAGxSãoPaulo 2025 [22-24 Aug] — Applications Open!
Luna Praun, Leo Arruda, Juana Maria Huisa 🔸+ 5 more
· · 6m read
2
2
View more