10^80 DIMENSIONAL EARTH BRAIN: Eliezer Yudkowsky is bad for the Worm fandom
> I was copy and pasting another Worm fan's particularly deranged comments into a markov chain generator
do tell!
How on earth did I miss your fic where taylor triggers with the power to turn into a glorious horde of soviet tanks?
thanks sneerclub for bringing this to my attention
OH MY GOD /u/maroon_sweater IS maroon_sweater
*cult of personality more*
[This is not Emma’s fault. Well, it obviously is, but it’s also more broadly the fault of neoliberal capitalism.](https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/tank-worm-altpowertaylor-au.700525/)
I also got to Worm through MoR and my life is complete now that we've come full circle.
Edit: in case it wasn't obvious, reading MoR was one of the more embarrassing things i've done in the days of my misspent youth.
Honestly, at first I thought it was someone who was gonna use a
real-life situation as a pretext to do a math exercise, but now that
I’ve read all of it, it feels like… kind of the reverse?
Already got linked further up by snugglerific, behold: [Lukeprog](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x8Fp9NMgDWbuMpizA/rationality-lessons-learned-from-irrational-adventures-in)
> So I broke up with Alice over a long conversation that included an hour-long primer on evolutionary psychology in which I explained how natural selection had built me to be attracted to certain features that she lacked. I thought she would appreciate this because she had previously expressed admiration for detailed honesty. Now I realize that there's hardly a *more* damaging way to break up with someone. She asked that I kindly never speak to her again, and I can't blame her.
I already hate the OG secretary hiring algorithm because if you’re
interviewing people for job with zero intention of hiring them (you
know, because jobs are a thing many people need in this fucked up
society in order not to end up on the street) you’re already an
unprofessional asshole who likes jerking people around and wasting their
time that they could use much better if you weren’t lying about your
intentions.
But using it for dating, with or without the smokescreen of “oh I’m
only reducing these people to a single number in my own personal scale
blah blah blah” you’re also a fake-ass motherfucker in your personal
life and deserve everything you get when they find out, which I dearly
hope includes some industrial grade pepperspray.
I’m not a huge fan of this, but mostly only because it dorkily
mathematizes common dating advice that I’ve always held to be
ridiculous; i.e. that you should date a lot of people without even
thinking about “settling down” with one in order to make a better
decision about who you should marry later in life. Whether you arrive at
this conclusion because you “need time to find yourself” or because you
precommitted to rejecting the first n/e people of the n people you think
you could date in order to use optimal stopping theory as a lifehack, it
seems at odds to me with any of the basic motivations I have for getting
to know someone romantically or otherwise.
His model is more lenient than the secretary algorithm but still relies on the (imo illegitimate) assumption that dating exists as a problem in using past dating experience to evaluate one’s prospects and measure their potential partner against an imagined pool of other partners on some very poorly conceived metric. He doesn’t seriously scrutinize the assumptions behind the secretary problem, he just modifies it a bit to be less strict.
Not sure why you think his metric is "very poorly conceived". Why shouldn't past dating experience be a factor in determining one's prospects?
The model is obviously not accurate, all models are simplified. But it's not obviously majorly wrong. The advice that comes out of it is "if you're dating people that are similar to people you've dated before that you rejected, continue to reject them, but if someone truly impressive comes along then go with them, but if you have a large number of such similar people then lower your standards", which seems reasonable? Like it's basically a math justification for what's pretty reasonable advice anyway as far as I can tell.
I think we disagree very much about what dating advice we consider “reasonable” (I don’t think the advice you’re articulating is wrong per se but I believe it’s largely missing the point) and whether oversimplified models are to be dismissed if there is not a strong justification for the model to be formally articulating the relevant facets of some actually-existing structure. In most cases when you believe something is true you can go and invent a mathematical model which supports your conclusion, and I think this is more dangerous than helpful.
Lol, unless we understand “nerdiness” very differently I’d say that you’re definitely starting on a back foot as soon as you say the words “human pairbonding strategy.”
It’s not lost on me this blog post seems super weird and cringe-y on
it’s face, but I’m not sure I understand the substance of the
criticism.
(Or maybe I’m missing the point of the sub?)
I’d say a lot of people have woefully bad methods and models for
dating as a mechanism to find a lifelong partner (which is what many of
these people are sincerely looking for). And because of that, blog posts
explaining the math behind why those methods and models are
so bad–especially to an audience who really
understands math–is really useful.
I remember my Dad’s advice when I first started dating, and was way
too infatuated with one of the first girls who paid any attention to
me…
He said, “You should be dating lots of girls right now.”
Which was his way of saying, “It’s extremely statistically unlikely
you’ve found an optimal life mate from your high school friend group at
17 years old. Instead of dating this girl exclusively for the next 6
years, you’ll want to get to know and understand many different
types of people in a romantic sense. That way, when you’re more mature
and ready to make a lifelong commitment, you’ll have better data and can
make a better decision. So cool your jets a bit with this girl.”
This blog post is just a really nerdy way of someone giving dating
advice. They’re trying to help people understand the math behind
traditional fatherly heuristics.
It’s just another way to look at the situation; to try and understand
it and to make sense of it in a way that leads to a better outcome.
Based on my previous experiences with parents and dating, "you should be dating *lots* of girls right now" was probably your Dad's way of saying "I actively dislike the girl you're currently dating and wish you'd break up with her for your own sake, but you'd cling to her harder if I actually said that."
I acknowledge it can *feel weird* to talk about otherwise esoteric stuff in more concrete terms, though I'm not sure I understand what the "good reason" is people get creeped out by it. Is it really that "creepy" to want to understand the steps for how to increase the probability you are happy in a relationship?
It's often really enlightening to look at the mechanisms under the superficial level. It can offer useful insights into how the social world actually works.
[Here](https://ncase.me/trust/) is an example I assume most users here will be familiar with.
Again, it's not lost on me that it *looks weird* to make dating into a math problem... but the math is there, working for or against each person, whether we acknowledge it (and talk about it, and try to understand it in a way that helps us) or not.
>the math is there, working for or against each person,
Is it though? Do you really think you can math out dating strategies for non-math (i.e., not "how many women have I manipulated into having sex with me") personal goals?
> It's extremely statistically unlikely you've found an optimal life mate from your high school friend group at 17 years old. Instead of dating this girl exclusively for the next 6 years, you'll want to get to know and understand many different types of people in a romantic sense.
No one expects the person you date at 17 to be your life partner. That doesn't mean a monogamous, committed relationship with a person at this age isn't valuable interpersonal experience for future relationships.
> Is it though? Do you really think you can math out dating strategies for non-math (i.e., not "how many women have I manipulated into having sex with me") personal goals?
Of course you can. Though I wouldn't view it in the terms you do (i.e. manipulating women into sex), and I've no idea why you'd be that cynical.
I'd say the components to success at relationships are not that different than the components to success at anything in life. It takes planning and execution. You have to be intentional about your goals, and active in their pursuit.
This doesn't mean you have to manipulate women into sleeping with you. But it's good to have a plan to provide a framework for reaching your goal of meeting someone and being in a healthy relationship.
It is typically good, for example, to have some means for meeting new people--social clubs, bars, friend groups, etc. If you don't have ways to meet girls, it's hard to expect to meet a romantic life partner.
And, once you meet someone new, it's good to have some basic script for how you want a first date to go: things you could say, questions you could ask, stories you could tell, activities you could suggest.
If you wanted to break this down into really simple math, it might look something like...
- I'm going to go to two social events every week
- I'm going to try and go on two dates per month
Not having *any* plan makes failure (not finding a healthy relationship) much more likely. Just like all the people who say, "I wanna lose weight!" or "I wanna get a better job!" but have no plan in place for how that's going to happen.
> No one expects the person you date at 17 to be your life partner. That doesn't mean a monogamous, committed relationship with a person at this age isn't valuable interpersonal experience for future relationships.
I agree.
Looking back, I do think my Dad's advice was very wise, however. While you are right it can a be great and healthy experience, I think plenty of 17 year olds get a bit too caught up in relationships, they take it too seriously given their age, and it negatively affects them. I think his point--cool your jets regarding this one girl, Romeo...and meet some other girls too--was spot on.
theres nothing wrong with a plan. There is a problem with reducing every woman you date down to a number, down to *one decimal point*. Dating is a situation that requires being emotionally open, which is kinda inhibited when you spend every date trying to figure out whether someone is a 6.7 or a 7.1. People can't be reduced to numbers, and if they find out you are doing so they will most likely not be happy.
Improvement: use multidimensional model, keep multidimensional data, adjust weighting of said dimensions based on experience.
[Edit:] I said nothing about whether it would worth the effort put in.
You're conflating setting (quantified) goals for oneself with the idea that you can get optimized life experiences through appeals to math and statistics. "I want to do X social things a month" is great. "I won't commit to this person romantically because it's statistically unlikely that we'll be life partners" is no honest person's sole, sufficient reason for dating/not dating someone. "I won't commit to anyone because I want to maximize my Romance Point gain to get my Lifelong Partnership Limit Break sooner" fundamentally misunderstands how life experience works.
I'm not saying you can't have good reasons for not committing to a relationship at any point in your life. But appeals to math or statistics are never among them.
Plans are good. The only common failure mode I can think of is overastimating the model's power and blaming reality instead of updating. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't hate stuff, but be smart about it.
> Dating isn't esoteric.
"Love" is, though I think it can be demystified a bit.
> If a dude did this in front of you, you'd walk the fuck out on him. If you found out he did it after he'd been dating you for a while, you'd feel grossed out and walk the fuck out on him. If you want to do creepy fake math about getting your dick wet and get your dick wet, you have to hide the creepy fake math.
Everyone is doing *some* math, if only intuitively and without recognizing the calculations. Of those who have some awareness of the calculations, they vary in terms of how aware they are of it, and how honest they are about it.
I used to think a bit like this but I've shifted away from it more recently, so maybe I can try to explain.
I think your view is that a simple mathematical model can help understand something complex. And you don't see how that's any creepier than people trying to understand the complex thing without math.
Here's another example: economist Gary Becker [once referred to babies](http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/research/Doepke_Becker_QQ_1114.pdf) as consumer durables, like cars or houses. Some people would probably see this as a creepy or disturbing way to talk about babies. Given that babies are in some ways like consumer durables (expensive, last a long time), you might say what's the problem with this?
I think the problem with this is it reduces a decision that involves a complex and personal set of values (like who to date or whether to have a baby) down to one, quite transactional way of making the decision. Even if this model of the decision captures a lot of what's going on, it threatens to reduce the decision just to one simple proceedure or metric. And simple, mathematical decisionmaking procedures have a way of becoming more widely-used than their value justifies. It's analogous to how bureaucracies condense a complex decision down to a rigid process, which then fucks over anyone who doesn't quite fit into the bureaucracy's model of how things are done. By relying heavily on mathematical models for the complex, personal, value-dependant decisions you kind of turn your self into a bureaucracy or a stupid AI, ignoring important aspects of the decision that don't fit your model.
I don't think it has to be that way - you could just take some broad insights from the model (e.g. the secretary problem suggests you should explore more earlier on in the process) but not apply them rigidly. But these things probably set off people's creep alarms because these kinds of simple models have been used too often to justify bad decisions, ignore important values, etc.
To link this back to the purpose of the sub. There is this bizarre effect in rationalism, where they talk a lot about the dangers of an AI that optimises on a simple metric without taking account of the richness of human values. But then they personally act like they are optimising on simple metrics without taking account of other values. In life, they act like the dangerous AI.
Edit: The other reply to you gave a good example of an alternative. Someone saying: "I'm getting old enough I'm worrying about if I should settle or not, and I wonder how to figure that out." A person who says this is not trying to force their very personal decision into a mathematical model, they are leaving it open to a variety of ways of thinking about that decision. I think rationalists often try to translate everything into one of the favoured rationalist frameworks (game theory, bayes rule, etc) regardless of what they lose by forcing something into one of these frameworks.
Edit 2: Another thing I thought of. Why would this style of thinking be creepy rather than just bad? I suspect it's because people who think in this way seem likely to ignore some important value for other people. If you date someone who tries to quantify everything in your relationship, they might end up ignoring something that's very important to you, because it doesn't fit into their models.
The other massive fucking problem is the extensive documentation we've had posted to /r/sneerclub in the past few months of how rationalists really do treat other people like not-really-human dick decorations *in practice*, which is what makes the apparently-creepy thing super-creepy in practice.
It seems like a lot of the "logic and reason" crowd like to take descriptive information like statistics and try to apply them prescriptively. To paraphrase professional YouTube skull Shaun in his response to a Lauren Southern video, there may be some statistic regarding correlation of number of first dates vs. eventual long-term relationship satisfaction, but living your life by that statistic and saying "I'm dating someone and they seem really great, but I don't think I can settle down with them because if I date 3 more people and then settle down with the next person I like more than all the previous people I've dated after that, it'll maximize my potential dating-partner-satisfaction, assuming a total life dating partner pool of 100" is absolute madness.
>I think the problem with this is it reduces a decision that involves a complex and personal set of values (like who to date or whether to have a baby) down to one, quite transactional way of making the decision. Even if this model of the decision captures a lot of what's going on, it threatens to reduce the decision just to one simple proceedure or metric. And simple, mathematical decisionmaking procedures have a way of becoming more widely-used than their value justifies. It's analogous to how bureaucracies condense a complex decision down to a rigid process, which then fucks over anyone who doesn't quite fit into the bureaucracy's model of how things are done. By relying heavily on mathematical models for the complex, personal, value-dependant decisions you kind of turn your self into a bureaucracy or a stupid AI, ignoring important aspects of the decision that don't fit your model.
That also assumes the metric is valuable or valid in the first place. Sometimes it's just an intellectualized way of rationalizing something you wanted to do anyway, like the time [lukeprog broke up with someone](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x8Fp9NMgDWbuMpizA/rationality-lessons-learned-from-irrational-adventures-in) because he wanted a big tiddy gf and tried to evo psych his way out of it.
[the first bitcoin wedding](https://web.archive.org/web/20160414131842/https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/first-blockchain-wedding-2-1412544247)
[and video](https://youtu.be/ZFfteTt7DUg)
this is *not* the couple who [got married with a copy of Atlas Shrugged](https://imgur.com/AsHAWox)
Gosh I wonder what happens if they lose their private key or something? Is the marriage invalid? Is it forever semi-valid, in a not-quite-married, but-cannot-get-divorced sense? What happens if I steal their key and marry them off to a Russian gangster or something?
The mind, she boggles.
Do you realize that women are people, and relationships with people *should not* be quantified this way?
It doesn't work because it's dehumanizing.
Analogy time: imagine sitting down with a wealthy, good looking, successful narcissist, and then trying to explain to them why narcissism is bad?
You cannot. They cannot see.
Can you see why reducing human connection down to a single real number 1-10 is *bad*?
"Use multidimensional analysis!"
No! Still bad. Same reason.
Look in their eyes. Sing songs together. Dance.
Do you feel the connection or do you not? Does the relationship work or does it not? What do you want?
You're brain is built to do this. Reducing it to math reduces *them* to math.
If they sense this in you, they will run. They should run. It's inhuman.
> You're brain is built to do this. Reducing it to math reduces them to math.
There *is* math going on with human relationships.
You seem to be saying that it's bad to do a good job at identifying and understanding that math; that it's better left un-talked-about, let alone that effort should be made to work the calculations.
I can respect, and empathize with, that sentiment. I get that it *feels weird*.
One of the core tents of rationalism (as I understand it) is that human brains have evolved to be really (really, really) bad at intuiting the math regarding certain human interactions. There are biases and other failure modes at play that keep us from making good decisions in regard to our values.
At very least, it's useful to understand the brain's weakness.
> Do you feel the connection or do you not?
This is a great example that I've seen cause many people years, or even decades, of unhappiness.
Misunderstanding and overvaluing "connection" leads people down bad and irrational paths.
Oh good grief.
Yes, math is "involved", in the sense that the cosmos is constantly crunching out a huge mass of second order differential equations. Fine. But what we're discussing here is different. Furthermore, it "feels weird" *for a good reason*, because we can sense "puzzle box" people.
We don't sense them perfectly, inasmuch as "charming sociopaths" exist, thus the *Gift of Fear* was an important book, to teach us to trust these insights.
It is this: people who approach relationship as an optimization algorithm are missing something important, some kind of inner light. I'm not saying they *fully* lack this capacity. They might or they might not. Perhaps they have chosen to suppress it. They are, in short, emotionally stunted.
I cannot explain to such a person what they are missing, in the same way I cannot explain color to someone who is colorblind.
>One of the core tents of rationalism...
Ha!
Whether it's a matter of nature or nurture, the average person feels empathy. That's just math in terms of it's effects on behavior.
A sociopath who feels no empathy? That's math, too. The reason that person is dangerous is because they are not subject to to the algorithms that govern the average person.
The charming sociopath has simply learned to mimic the "normal person" algorithms convincingly.
> "puzzle box" people
Part of solving the puzzle, I think, is realizing that "optimization" is trickier than it seems. And that happiness and fulfillment in relationships can require acts that seem to run contrary to what is rational. I get this.
On another topic I see as related (and perhaps shows in which ways we might agree)...
Most rationalists would accuse me of deathism, because I'm not convinced perpetual life extension would be better than just living a regular ole' 70-100 year span.
I can see how it might be possible to essentially wirehead a conscious brain into a state of perfect bliss for all eternity. The math says this is optimal.
And yet I'm uncomfortable with that; I don't *want* that. I'm more comfortable, as uncomfortable as it is, with the idea of slowly decaying through old age and dying at 85 like everyone else.
What is it that makes me *want* to die naturally and not live with the option of eternal bliss?
I don't know. I'm open to the idea it's something in my evolutionary bad brain that is not allowing me to be able to *feel* how much better the possibility of eternal life would be.
I'm also open to the idea—the idea you seem to be expressing in regard to love—that there is a quality to life that defies the regular math of optimization.
hey I’m all for sneering at the linked post but can we not employ such vitriolic rhetoric against “puzzle box” people for the reason that it is obviously ableist and demeaning toward people on the autism spectrum? If you want to dehumanize that whole group of people then you’re free to post on /r/4chan
You are seriously incapable of seeing how statements to the effect of “people trying to navigate social interactions they find counterintuitive by developing unusual systematics are lacking something human the rest of us have and should instead just be normal and dance,” and even describing these people as “puzzlebox people” when puzzles are literally a recognized symbol of the autism community is damaging?
Right, so apparently since you are incapable of seeing how this is damaging it would probably be best if you just refrained from psychologizing a group of people based on their ability to navigate social interactions in a way that you deem acceptable and concluding that they are missing some fundamental human capacity. Thanks.
Again, this has nothing to do with their capacity to navigate social interactions. A person might suck at reading body language. They maybe struggle with subtext and conversational clues. That said, they can still realize that game theory is a terrible way to approach dating.
These are different things.
Great, if you want to present a criticism such as “these people have come to a bizarre conclusion” go ahead. That’s very different from “these people are lacking some kind of an inner light which is a facet of what makes someone human.” This sub has rules against dehumanization.
you are *literally* making the same excuse the rationalists made for [the guy sending dick pics](https://reddragdiva.tumblr.com/post/146163833063/punching-down-in-a-curved-social-spacetime)
and this is the same one the rationalists make routinely:
"you are behaving like a super creepy and horrible misogynist asshole who treats his targets as not even human"
"YOU'RE JUST A NEUROTYPICAL FEEEEMALE"
you may wish to consider not doing that
The guy sending dick pics probably doesn’t lack some kind of “inner light” that makes people human, even though he sends dick pics. Go ahead and criticize his behavior; it is literally against the rules to call into question his humanity.
Also where did I accuse anyone of not understanding someone’s behavior because of some presumption of their identity? That’s not what I was taking issue with, so go ahead and fuck off.
People be like: (subconscious) 'wow, a potentiall advantage, but it would be too much thinks, we cans not hadles that much, so we better make sure noone uses it'; (conscious) 'Boo, fucking degenerate nerds!'
Don't typical mind.
My unconscious response is simply: this is gross and dehumanizing and people who do this are narcissistic monsters. Ultimately, women will not be safe around them because they cannot properly *feel*.
You are lacking something that matters.
Fair point. Does this assume that lack of such degeneration (value neutrally) makes social interaction a fuck ton easier, to the degree of making these kinds structured apporaches useless? And probably there are much more useful things to do for them too. In short, 'tis a silly thig to do?
Being a narcissistic monster is no fun either.
This is a "you're not even wrong" kind of conversation. It's such a wholly blinkered view of relationships -- as an analogy, imagine discussing the value of repulsive body odor in attracting a partner. It doesn't even compute.
*Of course* this is a terrible way to approach a relationship. It's not a terrible way because of *result X*. This is not a utilitarian argument. It's bad first-order, in its immediate sense, because it is creepy and dehumanizing. People want to have relationships with other *people*, on human terms. I'm not a number. Love does not fall out from numerical optimization.
I'll add, I suspect these attitudes are a red flag for abuse, in a way that body odor would not be. I think they do point to a kind of selfishness, which perhaps could be called narcissism or solipsism. But my point is, even if there is no abuse, it is still creepy and dehumanizing.
\#####
Let me add, suppose someone (in this scenario a man) has the hyper-analytical relationship approaches. Furthermore, let's suppose they are totally open about them. There is no deception. Now let's assume some woman is attracted to that. To her, this is indeed the rational way to meet and date people. Let's further stipulate that both partners have a pretty solid ethical framework, even if it seems weird to others. It is, for both of them, fully informed and consensual. They're grown up and understand boundaries. Neither partner carries unresolved resentments, etc.
Is that okay?
Yes, that is okay, provided all the terms line up.
It's still creepy, however. I wouldn't want to be that woman. Few would.
Agreed. I was just trying to take into account that there are people who are legit struggling with not being able to fully and reliably compute others people in social interactions.
Do I think Big Yud and similar people are emotionally damaged and dangerous to themselves and their environment? Hell yess! Do I think they'd be much better off with mdma/psychaedelics assisted trauma processing and experiencing social bonding in a controlled setting? Hell yess!
I know my biases that come from anxiety and not having appropriate social settings in critical developmental periods, and that most often when I'm angsting about my relation to others, the most useful thing I could do is taking my head out of my ass and trying to act like a might be worthwhile human being (I'm still mostly too lazy, unfortunately).
I do like hearing about other's experiences/viewpoints, so thanks!
Protip, when you say things like this...
> People be like: (subconscious) 'wow, a potentiall advantage, but it would be too much thinks, we cans not hadles that much, so we better make sure noone uses it'; (conscious) 'Boo, fucking degenerate nerds!'
... eg, shouting "HEY I THINK EVERYONE OUTSIDE MY CLIQUE IS A BRAINLESS SHEEP", that very strongly encourages people to not share their viewpoints with you! Frankly, veronicastraszh had the patience of a saint engaging with you at all after that.
“You’re at a 7.9 right now. Can you think of anything else you want to tell me that might bump you up to an 8.2 and seal the deal?”
[deleted]
Honestly, at first I thought it was someone who was gonna use a real-life situation as a pretext to do a math exercise, but now that I’ve read all of it, it feels like… kind of the reverse?
Broke: Attractiveness is universal, and I rate everyone on a 10-point scale.
Woke: Attractiveness is subjective and individual, and rating people is reductionist and dehumanizing.
Bespoke: Attractiveness is subjective and individual, and I rate everyone on my own personal 10-point scale.
Someone post that lesswrong post where the guy breaks up with his girlfriend using a lecture about evolutionary psychology, I think it’s pertinent.
I already hate the OG secretary hiring algorithm because if you’re interviewing people for job with zero intention of hiring them (you know, because jobs are a thing many people need in this fucked up society in order not to end up on the street) you’re already an unprofessional asshole who likes jerking people around and wasting their time that they could use much better if you weren’t lying about your intentions.
But using it for dating, with or without the smokescreen of “oh I’m only reducing these people to a single number in my own personal scale blah blah blah” you’re also a fake-ass motherfucker in your personal life and deserve everything you get when they find out, which I dearly hope includes some industrial grade pepperspray.
I’m not a huge fan of this, but mostly only because it dorkily mathematizes common dating advice that I’ve always held to be ridiculous; i.e. that you should date a lot of people without even thinking about “settling down” with one in order to make a better decision about who you should marry later in life. Whether you arrive at this conclusion because you “need time to find yourself” or because you precommitted to rejecting the first n/e people of the n people you think you could date in order to use optimal stopping theory as a lifehack, it seems at odds to me with any of the basic motivations I have for getting to know someone romantically or otherwise.
It’s not lost on me this blog post seems super weird and cringe-y on it’s face, but I’m not sure I understand the substance of the criticism.
(Or maybe I’m missing the point of the sub?)
I’d say a lot of people have woefully bad methods and models for dating as a mechanism to find a lifelong partner (which is what many of these people are sincerely looking for). And because of that, blog posts explaining the math behind why those methods and models are so bad–especially to an audience who really understands math–is really useful.
I remember my Dad’s advice when I first started dating, and was way too infatuated with one of the first girls who paid any attention to me…
He said, “You should be dating lots of girls right now.”
Which was his way of saying, “It’s extremely statistically unlikely you’ve found an optimal life mate from your high school friend group at 17 years old. Instead of dating this girl exclusively for the next 6 years, you’ll want to get to know and understand many different types of people in a romantic sense. That way, when you’re more mature and ready to make a lifelong commitment, you’ll have better data and can make a better decision. So cool your jets a bit with this girl.”
This blog post is just a really nerdy way of someone giving dating advice. They’re trying to help people understand the math behind traditional fatherly heuristics.
It’s just another way to look at the situation; to try and understand it and to make sense of it in a way that leads to a better outcome.