[HN Gopher] The game theory of seduction and marriage with Jane ...
___________________________________________________________________
The game theory of seduction and marriage with Jane Austen
Author : delichon
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-02-17 13:58 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.optimallyirrational.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.optimallyirrational.com)
| hinglenkle wrote:
| I was screamed down by an entire classroom in university for my
| interpretation of "pride and prejudice"; though I was one of only
| 5 of the 25 students who read it.
|
| Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom
| shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed.
|
| It is my opinion that P&P is Austen's way of saying "if these are
| the players and this is the game then I am uninterested in taking
| part".
|
| From this reading, instead of Mr Darcy being the perfect man he's
| the perfect example of why Jane chose to forgo participation in
| the marriage practice of the day.
|
| TFA's focus on finances, I feel, is just another example of one
| such reason provided by Austen to highlight the insincere
| process.
| kevinwang wrote:
| I like that analysis! What were your classmates' critiques?
| allturtles wrote:
| > Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character
| whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed.
|
| Doesn't Jane marry Charles Bingley at the end of the novel?
| hinglenkle wrote:
| You're completely right. I spoke incorrectly, but hold that
| Jane is a mouthpiece of the author who died unwed.
|
| Bingley and Jane do wed though in a way largely in contrast
| to the rest of novels depictions of "the game".
|
| In the eleventh hour of the novel and in a more impulsive
| ceremony as a sort of 'double marriage' with Elizabeth and mr
| Darcy.
|
| The bingley relationship is another example of the
| interpretation though because it appears the only one in the
| novel exhibiting "true love" and compatibility between both
| parties and is met with opposition from just about everyone
| else.
| joshspankit wrote:
| Is it possible the wedding was external pressure on Jane
| Austen?
|
| It's pretty commonplace now that traditional audiences,
| studio execs, editors, and even other creators push
| creators in to tropey "they got together in the end"
| endings. Is it possible that was true then as well?
| ysavir wrote:
| Do you have any examples to justify this interpretation? I've
| read the novel several times and I don't remember anything
| there to support this.
| lukas099 wrote:
| Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. It sounds
| like an interesting argument.
| snvzz wrote:
| >Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down.
|
| What's going on in classrooms these days? Facing such a
| reaction for expressing an interpretation shows deep issues.
| midasuni wrote:
| I see no evidence that the alleged screaming down wasn't 30
| years ago so "these days" is doing some interesting work
|
| I suspect that "screamed down" is also hyperbole
| rendaw wrote:
| Just a few weird things while reading this
|
| > Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a
| potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to
| commit to a relationship.
|
| Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking
| for a long term relationship?
|
| > Tinder data shows that men like 10 times more profiles than
| women do and that 1 in 50 of their likes leads to a match versus
| 2 out of 5 for women. Faced with many men happy to date them,
| women have to identify the ones who may be willing to invest in a
| long-term relationship.
|
| This seems to be saying that men send out lots of likes because
| they want to play around... but I thought men sent out lots of
| likes because if they didn't they wouldn't even get a single
| match, which doesn't say anything about interest in long term
| relationships.
| lazide wrote:
| Or.... Anyone on Tinder looking for a long term relationship
| (actually) is going to a casino to invest?
|
| It doesn't mean you can't end up rich (actually end up in a
| positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big
| payout), but that's the definition of a long tail outcome.
|
| Aka delusional or an idiot.
|
| Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term
| relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when
| someone discovers they're on it. Aka all women, and most men.
|
| Which, if you understand the circumstances is 'fine'.
| williamdclt wrote:
| > Aka all women, and most men.
|
| Projecting a lot here, it's definitely not true. Not a single
| woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it's for a long
| term relationship
| lazide wrote:
| Then they've either broken free from societal conditioning,
| or society has given up - or you're not someone they're
| worried is 'in charge'.
|
| Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-
| workers?
| williamdclt wrote:
| I wouldn't as so far as to say "broken free from societal
| conditioning" (don't think anyone can claim that), but
| that was sort of my point: society is not a uniform
| hivemind, there's many different overlapping subgroups
| and subcultures sharing different values and encouraging
| different behaviours. Not all of them shame not looking
| for long term relationships and it's not about "society
| giving up", it's different values (I'm not talking about
| a niche subculture here, this is really not uncommon, eg
| some coworkers)
|
| > Would they say the same to their parents
|
| I get your point, it's true people tend to get more
| conservative around parents (who don't necessarily share
| the same values as their kids), but even then: for _some_
| of these people, yes they do say the same to their
| parents.
|
| It's really nothing groundbreaking: people build social
| circles with other people sharing their values, so stigma
| related to these values is lesser within these circles
| lazide wrote:
| Society needs kids (replacement rate at a minimum, growth
| preferred!), workers to do jobs, education of its
| members, competitive economic activity (growth
| preferred!), etc.
|
| If done effectively, these are also opportunities to get
| significant dividends from society to offset our own
| needs and flaws.
|
| Shame is the emotion used to tell folks 'this will get
| you in trouble with the group around you that you need' -
| if done appropriately, it's protective of negative
| consequences.
|
| One of the biggest issues with growing up is figuring out
| which of the emotional responses we've been trained into
| (or experience) is helping us or not, or
| adaptive/maladaptive or not.
|
| Aka if you would not knock an old lady over and steal her
| purse, because you'd be ashamed to do it, that means you
| learned or were taught shame appropriately. And can feel
| it appropriately.
|
| Because, if society was doing its job, you'd end up in
| jail or beaten up if you did that, and would lose out on
| good jobs, good mates, income you need, etc. as a
| consequence.
|
| If you would not ask for help from someone who could
| provide it if you needed it for the same reason, then
| that is probably inappropriate and maladaptive. Or if you
| could not, say, get a job you needed for the same reason.
|
| For women, they have a limited window where they can
| reproduce without a lot of risk, pain, suffering, etc (or
| when it's just impossible). No one wants to think about
| it, but it absolutely exists and it sucks if it gets
| ignored - been there, done that, I can tell you many
| horror stories.
|
| If you've dated any women in their late 20's to mid 30's,
| it's nearly impossible to miss.
|
| If they are successful in doing so AND in raising a child
| well, that will pay large social dividends for them for
| the rest of their life. If they don't, society will
| marginalize them (even if they say they won't) and
| they'll end up in some very socially undesirable
| situations eventually.
|
| It isn't the end all be all of course.
|
| Similar to men and learning skills like building wealth,
| getting/being healthy and strong, being courageous,
| approaching women, etc.
|
| Also not the end all be all.
|
| But also important.
|
| A society which doesn't incentivize the behavior it needs
| for itself or its members has 'given up', same with
| parents. Or lost the plot.
|
| A social group which encourages its members to do things
| which don't help them, is enabling things which don't
| help them. Or doesn't know what would actually help them.
|
| Which, hey, nobody and nothing is perfect. And vices
| exist because they help prop something else up, and
| they're often necessary.
|
| But pretending a Casino is a bank is still BS, even if
| sometimes people walk out with more money then they
| walked in with.
|
| Being unashamed of going to the casino everyday is...
| indicative of having broken social conditioning, if
| society is functional, and probably not good for the
| individual either long term.
|
| And yes, none of this is groundbreaking at all. Quite
| unpopular though, to say it all near as I can tell.
| winter_blue wrote:
| They probably will freely admit to their close _non-
| judgemental_ female friends that they're only on Tinder
| for hooking up / having sex with hot guys (aka Chads).
|
| _> Would they say the same to their parents? A random
| cop? Co-workers?_
|
| Most women would not say this openly, since there's a lot
| of judgement about this.
|
| But their actual behavior paints a very different picture
| / story.
|
| Millions of modern educated women seem to be engaging in
| casual sex with a relatively small number of highly-
| attractive-looking hyper-sexual men (who probably sleep
| with someone every night "spinning plates" so to speak).
| Meanwhile, millions of other men are relegated to being
| involuntarily celibate. We're talking men who are
| software engineers in the Bay Area who are earning circa
| $300k with interesting passions and hobbies but can't
| find a single woman, due to monopolization of "sexually
| liberated" women by so-called Chad men (who have virtual
| harems as a result) and the consequent smaller dating
| pool of women.
| verall wrote:
| I can't tell if you're like an archeologist of incel
| culture or a card-carrying member.
|
| If someone makes $300k/yr and can't find a date they have
| other issues and/or need to move out of the bay.
| winter_blue wrote:
| First off, it's pretty easy to make $300k as a software
| engineer in the Bay Area. You just have to good. You
| don't have to be amazing or excellent. Even an L5 SWE at
| Google earns well above that.
|
| Second, yes, there certainly are many men who are
| struggling. I even know a CTO of a startup that has gone
| through YC, raised over a million in funding, who's in
| his mid 30s, and he still has his V card.
|
| Then there men who are pretty low income who do odd jobs
| like wait tables, but are good looking, and they pretty
| much get laid like it's raining women _(just for them, to
| be clear)_.
|
| I personally know a guy like that, and he's dating
| multiple women simultaneously, and these women literally
| pay for his dinners and other things. These include a
| woman who's a product manager making good money, a woman
| who's got a _bootstrapped_ startup with an ARR of over
| half a million USD a year, etc. He's not officially in a
| relationship with any of them, but in informal
| situationships (and they're not aware he's dating other
| women either), and he rotates between them through the
| course of the week.
|
| If you've ever seen a graph distribution of likes on
| dating apps, you'lll know what I'm talking about. About
| 80% of men get very little attention, whereas the top 20%
| and especially the top 5% live like one of the Sultans of
| the Ottoman Empire, with women ready to deliver
| themselves to their door for intimacy. It's some pretty
| insane, dark, and depressing stuff to think about.
|
| A lot of these men would make good fathers and good
| husbands. They also earn high incomes, so they would be
| able to provide an upper middle class life for their
| family if they had one as well. But the so-called "Chad
| cock carousel" has taken such a sheer number of women out
| of marriage and dating market, that millions of amazing
| men are left single, sexless, and unable to marry, and
| have children and start a family, etc.
|
| This stuff cuts across racial boundaries, although non-
| white seem to have it extremely hard. Not that white guys
| have it easy. I also know a white/WASPy software engineer
| who's a nerdy gamer guy (with his ancestors having moved
| to North America in the 1600s) and he struggled a lot
| with dating and women as well, but he eventually got
| married to a Chinese-American woman, and has had kids
| with them, and I can attest that he's a great father.
|
| These are the sorts of high quality men that many of
| these sexually-liberated women _claim they want_ , but
| then in the real dating market, we see a situation play
| out where where a small number of good-looking ("Chad")
| men (many who are low income or professionally-
| unsuccessful) end up having harems of 3 to 5 women, hence
| massively shrinking the number of women available. Why
| would women do this, rather that have a deep loving
| relationship with a man who can give her 100% of himself
| to her (and build a family with that guy)? I have no
| idea. It certainly isn't a good thing. We see the results
| manifest in a massive drop in the fertility rate, a
| massive increase in the number of men who are single,
| sexless celibate (but who would want to start a family
| and have a loving marriage with a woman, and who likely
| would like be good fathers as well).
|
| Many incels just want a wife. They don't want to sleep
| with double digit women or anything. Many of these men
| would be happy with 1 single woman who loves them to
| commit to living their life with, and building a family
| with them. But then you've got millions of these women
| who priories the dopamine or serotonin (or oxytocin or
| whatever) hit of sleeping with various Chads, and the end
| result is the breakdown of families, and the future of
| civil society.
|
| It's a sad state of affairs. That's all I can say.
| hilux wrote:
| [I'm a guy.] Super interesting comment, particularly your
| insight that these "Chads" are _removing women from the
| dating market_ for other guys.
|
| This assumes that the women are naively monogamous, which
| may be true for some women. I know it's not true for all
| women in the Bay Area.
|
| Is the overall situation "sad"? It is what it is. If, as
| you point out, men succeed based on their dating skills,
| rather than (only) the value of their RSUs, I think
| that's fair.
|
| As for the women, I've always liked the idea of revealed
| preference, i.e. learn what people want by observing
| their choices, rather than by what they _say_ they want.
| robocat wrote:
| I am not in the US market, but your comments reflect more
| on your identified biases than statistical reality.
|
| You appear to be obsessed with a very unhealthy
| subculture focused on Chads and sex: perhaps you need to
| avoid whatever cesspit that is infecting your mind.
| Avoiding subcultures that damage you is a general skill
| that requires effort and practice. My personal current
| danger is alcohol and pubs.
|
| Statistics show that men with lots of sexual partners are
| often having sex with women that have lots of partners. I
| suspect you would especially find that in self-selecting
| markets like Tinder.
|
| > hence massively shrinking the number of women
| available.
|
| That is just irrational thinking - even though popular
| with some subcultures. There are plenty of women out
| there - you must notice that even in your own experience
| - it is unavoidably obvious.
|
| If you are a nice guy that wants a family, then change
| your selection criteria until you find someone worthwhile
| living a long time with. My guess is you have
| unreasonable criteria - wanting 10s (similar to your
| projected accusations against women). Teaching oneself to
| be less judgemental is very very worthwhile.
|
| If you wished to catch Chad-chasers then it is achievable
| to become a Chad: there's lots of resources about that.
| Beware: it doesn't appear to be a very satisfying
| lifestyle for the people I know that are into it. I'm
| middle-aged so I also see some of the longer term
| outcomes. The men I know that have the most multiple
| sexual partners are ugly or average - their strategies
| depend on other factors than their looks. Not having
| Chadian good looks is just a pathetic excuse.
|
| Most importantly: having negative beliefs about women as
| a group is incredibly destructive. Every person is unique
| - treating women like stereotypes is unhealthy.
| Noticeably you are complaining about stereotypes of men.
|
| Anyone can find a partner. The first step is learning how
| to be a good partner. Teaching yourself positive traits
| is hard. Avoiding negative traits is harder. I do it by
| have having female friends and encouraging them to train
| me not to be a dick. Listening to criticism is hard, not
| attacking back is hard, then making the effort to change
| behaviour is a lifelong struggle. And it definitely isn't
| about being a nice doormat (although I admit I try to be
| too nice - making the world a better place is somewhat
| submissive - but mostly cooperative).
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Meanwhile, millions of other men are relegated to being
| involuntarily celibate."
|
| In my experience, this is mostly a problem in mismatched
| expectations vs self perception. There are plenty of
| lower tier (no offense meant) women that the "chads"
| wouldn't bother with to go with the lower tier men.
|
| Plus you're talking just about casual sex and nothing to
| do with 1-to-1 marriage, for which your mention of high-
| income incels should fair well due to their potential to
| support a family. Unless there are some serious other
| problems with behavior, personality, unrealistic
| expectations, etc.
| williamdclt wrote:
| As my comment is the grandparent to this one, for my own
| sense of integrity I have to make it clear that this is
| very far from what I'm talking about.
|
| And fwiw I believe this is a lot of BS, it's literally
| the incel narrative. I'm not going to go into "why are
| incels wrong", there's enough to read about that on the
| internet.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Nobody goes to a bar intending to find a spouse. Yet,
| millions have.
|
| People click, and the process of the clicking is
| irrational. My late wife and I met on Yahoo Personals, with
| the explicit intention of a short term thing. We were both
| planning to move. We were together for 23 years, married
| for 20.
|
| End of the day, you go where the people are.
| gryn wrote:
| 10 years ago would've agreed with you, these days I'm not so
| sure.
|
| Where do you think people looking for long term relationships
| are looking ?
| lazide wrote:
| In person.
| szundi wrote:
| Are you joking or thinking that Tinder is about staying
| online?
| lazide wrote:
| Are you joking, or do you think meeting people in person
| is about getting a quick hookup?
|
| It's about more information and context (and truth),
| before moving forward. Which is important when you've got
| something to lose.
|
| And it takes time. Which is a good thing, as it tends to
| weed out a lot of noise.
|
| Tinder does eventually go to in-person yes - but it puts
| the cart before the horse IMO by putting the pitch first,
| and doing selection based on that.
|
| It's a lot smarter, in my experience, seeing the
| 'reality' first, and then seeing what the pitch is.
|
| I've personally learned (and seen it from many others)
| that is far more important when looking for a long term
| relationship - and in my experience I'm not alone.
|
| But everyone is different, and it certainly can work out
| well otherwise.
|
| But you don't see anyone who has something to lose going
| to the casino when they have money to invest - at least
| not over and over again.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| In-person starting venues appear to be more scarce -- or
| have higher entry thresholds -- than in times past. I'm
| not so sure it's guaranteed to be better for everyone and
| everywhere.
| lazide wrote:
| That it's getting harder doesn't mean it isn't valuable -
| any more than being in a neighborhood full of fast food
| restaurants and no grocery stores means eating at home
| isn't valuable.
|
| It sure does say something about the neighborhood though,
| doesn't it?
| szundi wrote:
| My wife is from Tinder, worked out awesome.
| prepend wrote:
| Congrats. It does happen but it's the outlier.
|
| People also hookup on eharmony.
|
| But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time
| hookups. And that's perfectly ok. But doing studies about
| long term relationships on Tinder seems odd and poorly
| formed as there are better populations to study.
|
| That's why it's reasonable to ask why long term
| relationship seekers are even on tinder.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one
| time hookups
|
| You forget the part where everyone who is single looking
| for a short term relationship is also looking for a long
| term relationship with the right person, so it's a
| useless distinction.
|
| That's why it's not reasonable to ask why long term
| relationship seekers are even on tinder. The venn diagram
| is one circle.
|
| Literally all tinder like any dating app does is remove
| the "is it okay to ask him/her out" because being on the
| app is a signal it's okay. After that it is what you make
| of it.
| prepend wrote:
| > You forget the part where everyone who is single
| looking for a short term relationship is also looking for
| a long term relationship with the right person
|
| I disagree strongly with this statement. There are people
| looking for all sorts of things. And assuming this leads
| to much relationship mismatch and pain.
|
| The assumption that people who say they are looking for
| hookups or casual relationships are really just looking
| for the right person and I know better than them is not a
| good idea if I'm looking for a long term relationship.
|
| I think it's important that people trust what others say
| and don't try to project their own beliefs.
|
| Tinder is specifically made for hookups, per its own
| design. This is different from other sites that are
| specifically made for long term relationships (eg,
| eharmony, coffeemeetsbagel, etc).
|
| This doesn't mean one is better than the other. Or that
| one type of person is better than others. Just that there
| are different people. And we shouldn't assume they all
| people want the same things.
| lazide wrote:
| It was originally spawned from Grindr, if I remember
| correctly. Which yeah.... Hah!
| lazide wrote:
| I have met many, many single people who are really
| uninterested in anything but hookups for many reasons.
|
| One can argue they were 'waiting for the right one',
| but... good luck with that haha.
| snvzz wrote:
| ... so far.
|
| Statistics say your odds are no good. This also includes
| your odds in the divorce that will statistically likely
| happen.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Dating apps are places where you find people who are looking
| for a relationship, that's all.
|
| I don't know anyone who says Tinder or whatever app is "for"
| long term relationships. But I do know people who would say
| that not going for short relationships is a good way to never
| end up with a long one.
|
| Technically they are correct. Long term relationships
| _necessarily_ arise from short term relationships. It 's just
| how time works.
|
| Like the first step of long term investment in a stock is no
| different from short term gamble. If you say doing research
| is what distinguishes investing, first that's wrong, but also
| then let's just say some see sleeping with the person part of
| doing research
| giantg2 wrote:
| Casual encounters may play a bigger part in marriages and
| longterm relationships than you think.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-
| in...
| lazide wrote:
| Bwahaha. It does say something, but that fluff piece isn't
| saying what you think it's saying.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Care to contribute to the conversation?
| cvoss wrote:
| > Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's
| looking for a long term relationship?
|
| In trying to understand your question, I'm realizing it's
| possible you are taking "intimacy" to mean "sexual intimacy." I
| don't think the author meant to speak euphemistically in that
| way. I think it just means deep, vulnerable relational
| knowledge of the other.
|
| In which case, yes. When you get to know someone intimately,
| you acquire license to ask these kinds of more probing
| questions and you are justified in expecting honest answers to
| such questions. You also become more skilled at detecting
| facades and subterfuge from the other person.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "which doesn't say anything about interest in long term
| relationships."
|
| We're talking about Tinder. While longterm relationships do
| come out of that platform, it was intended and still used
| primarily as a hookup site. I'm not sure how the authors think
| Tinder is a good platform for longterm relationships.
|
| I would guess if you looked at the highly desirable men, the
| numbers would show they are also more selective. If you can be
| successful with the population of more desirable mates, why not
| be lazy and ignore the mid/lower tiers of mates? That's
| essentially what we see with most women.
| mettamage wrote:
| It actually depends on the country. The Amsterdam is more
| relationship oriented, Berlin is in-between, Valencia is hook
| ups, Koh Phangan is for hook ups (tourists, I didn't swipe
| Thai women).
|
| The US was awful. NYC perhaps wasn't awful. I didn't swipe
| enough there.
|
| This is just my experience.
| anamexis wrote:
| The last time I used Tinder (in San Francisco), I would guess
| it was about 90% people looking for long term relationships.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily
| towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when
| the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Do the platforms really control what the audience uses it
| for?
|
| I get the impression they tend to lose control as things
| scale up.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Nah, people don't think and get stuck in the funnel. Tinder is
| play to play.
|
| Pay for "gold" for one week, go incognito and swipe
| selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few
| weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I'm a mid 40s decent
| looking guy with a few headshots. Did it a couple of rounds and
| met someone awesome.
|
| They prioritize new upgraders for exposure, but it wears off
| quickly to make you buy boosts.
|
| Key tips:
|
| - Avoid profiles that are too good, especially pictures.
| Nothing worse than professional daters.
|
| - Look for undervalued assets! Sometimes modest or poorly shot
| pictures don't jump out.
|
| - Pretend you're speaking to a crowd with your profile. Keep it
| light and vague. The goal is a connection, so adding filter
| material only hurts you.
|
| - Keep the pictures of you and simple. No groups, kids, fish,
| flexing a Porsche that isn't yours, etc. Don't try to tell a
| pictorial story, few will get it.
|
| - On the flip avoid people dumping details. You won't beat a
| checklist.
|
| - Have a healthy hell no. It doesn't matter how hot she is. In
| jail, substance abuse, things that are issues for you are
| issues. If you can't deal with single parents, etc. Swipe left.
|
| - If you're not into or curious about ENM, kink, etc, and thats
| in the profile, swipe left.
|
| Dating sites are like smoking. They'll lure you into the little
| dopamine hits of swiping. The way to win that game is not to
| play. You want 1-2 matches while wasting as little time as
| possible.
|
| If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and
| everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you
| want, rinse, repeat.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > Pay for "gold" for one week, go incognito and swipe
| selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few
| weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match.
|
| I don't understand this. At what stage does anyone else see
| your profile? Can they see it while you're paused?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| When you are incognito, only people you swipe see you. Once
| you match, your matches can still see and communicate with
| you in app.
|
| Be strategic. Everything happens during that one week
| subscription.
|
| Once you match, pause and go figure out if they are a good
| person for you, if you don't, pause anyway and wait a bit.
| Checking tinder shouldn't be like checking email. Do it
| deliberately.
| phkahler wrote:
| I agree with everything in your first comment. But want
| to extra agree that "pause" is really important. It's
| impossible to manage a bunch of matches. Focus on one or
| two and move those along or cut them loose if they're not
| doing the same.
|
| Your comment about the "No" is probably the hardest of
| the obvious advice to follow. Casting a wide net just
| distracts from what you really want - it's hoping for
| _something_.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Gotcha, I thought you were getting matches after/during
| the pause. Makes sense. And IMO checking email should be
| deliberate, too.
| mettamage wrote:
| > If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and
| everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you
| want, rinse, repeat.
|
| I am a counter example. I liked about 1 in 20 chats. It took
| 300 matches. I took 100 hours to optimize my profile. I went
| from 5 matches per month to 150 matches per month. It took a
| long time to get good pictures that women found attractive. I
| went through 100s of different pictures and gathered a lot of
| feedback (there are websites).
|
| The problem isn't me since I am now in an amazing
| relationship. It's okay to be a bit picky, as long as you put
| in a lot of effort yourself.
|
| I agree with the rest.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Totally. You have to do you.
|
| I probably expressed that poorly. "Problem" was the wrong
| word! It's probably better to say you're not finding what
| you want... but do you know what that is?
| HaZeust wrote:
| Indeed. Especially when learning the lay of the dating apps
| land, and understanding the lowest-common denominators that
| the most amount of people would bite on.
|
| "Just to look and feel like this, it took a long time"
| verticalscaler wrote:
| > Tinder is play to play
|
| You said it man. And so are most people on it. Used to be a
| term for that sort of thing.
|
| > If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and
| everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you
| want, rinse, repeat.
|
| Or you know, you're using Tinder in earnest and it is the
| McDonalds-of-humans.
|
| Try to remember how people used to be before this app and
| instagram and the Kardashians. My healthy hell no is to
| simply not take people who participate in this culture
| seriously in the first place.
|
| There are still physically attractive women out there who
| read a good book occasionally and don't have any of this shit
| installed. Hard to find but they exist.
|
| All things being equal pretty obvious whom you would pick.
|
| I use Tinder occasionally just like I eat McDonalds or a
| Doner Kebab - it isn't real food fit for human consumption.
| Only if you are drunk or as an absolute last resort.
| atoav wrote:
| > If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and
| everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you
| want, rinse, repeat.
|
| Or you live in area, where everybody is indeed awful. I am in
| a happy 15 year relationship, but before that I lived in a
| remote shithole and yeah, _I_ was the issue, because I didn
| 't share a local culture with a niveau so low that hurts my
| brain when I even think about it. It is totally possible that
| the type of person you are into wouldn't touch online dating
| with a ten foot pole. And that case you would only find those
| who are not your type and you are better off just going to
| places where you might meet them (e.g. gallery openings,
| etc.)
|
| But yeah, if that isn't the case and the fault is constantly
| with others some introspection might be in order, e.g. some
| people tend to sabotage themselves. They are afraid to get
| hurt, so instead of trting and potentially failing they make
| up some reason why it is not a fit.
| breather wrote:
| This also sort of raises a red flag for the author--short term
| relationships weren't really a thing in the world of Austen,
| just prospective long-term relationships and essentially
| affairs.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| "Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a
| potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to
| commit to a relationship."
|
| This sentence caught my attention because it strikes me as false.
| People do commit in many ways, and rather quickly, and then they
| break up. A history of many break ups and similiar experiences is
| probably the chief difference between today and centuries past.
| IMHO all breakups and all experiences leave their mark.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| > Signalling too little interest might result in missed
| opportunities, but excessive eagerness could prematurely resolve
| uncertainty in situations where expectations about the prospect
| of a relationship are actually not aligned.
|
| There's something else with aloofness that I thought a lot about
| when dating. Being aloof, as in unconcerned with outcome, signals
| fitness, when done properly, because it signals a lack of need to
| invest in this particular interaction. This does not mean being
| unkind, just that when someone signals that they have lots of
| resources and other options, it can come off as being aloof. Not
| uncaring, just not desperate to escalate. So a "too quick"
| escalation signals desperation (I'm unfit and cannot attract
| others), lack of patience, or unconcern about the deeper person -
| "I've seen enough to charge". All red flags.
|
| I actually think this is a better reason to be cautious in social
| encounters, or at least patient, than the one presented in TFA,
| at least in modern times.
|
| Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is attractive
| all around.
| prepend wrote:
| > Being able to signal "I'm playing the long game" is
| attractive all around.
|
| I think it's also a valuable action, not just signal. As
| important decisions should take time to make.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Yeah serious relationships are not a 'game' and shouldn't be
| approached as such. Otherwise you bring very wrong incentives
| and mindset into interaction (relationship) that shouldn't be
| there if you actually seek high quality long term stable one.
| There are only few setups/recipes for such result, they all
| look very similar and this is not the way. Also if you find
| somebody with properly good heart and you are not pulling
| your weight between you both, they will eventually notice and
| act accordingly.
|
| I know it sounds trivial and automatic, but I've met
| surprisingly few such couples. And all those questions of
| 'what did I do wrong' have an answer, usually quite a few
| (and on both sides, but its never 50:50 guilt).
| jvanderbot wrote:
| "Game" here refers to "model of human interaction for
| outside parties" not "ignore your emotional connection and
| try to 'win' using these few tricks!".
|
| Game theory is not a suitable guide to finding a romantic
| partner. I'm applying it retrospectively, to attempt to
| explain some otherwise sensible dating advice, just like
| TFA did.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| As a man, when I was still in the dating pool, I found
| aloofness to be a huge turnoff. The thing is, when I show
| interest in someone, I'd like to see it reciprocated. I doubt
| I'm the only one who feels that way.
| arketyp wrote:
| As a man, I'm happy to even get a foot in the door. I doubt
| I'm the only one who feels that way.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Sure, everyone plays the game differently. Maybe I'm writing
| this as a good strategy from a man's perspective because I am
| one. As in "aloofness as a signal of fitness might work
| better for men"
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> Sure, everyone plays the game differently.
|
| No, that's the thing: not everyone treats it as a game. For
| a lot of people it feels more like work and is draining
| like no game is.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| It's tempting to over analyze the term game. The point of
| TFA, and my comment, was not to portray dating as a
| Machiavellian rule driven process. The point of TFA and
| this comment is that we can understand perfectly normal
| and beautiful and organic human messiness in
| interpersonal relationships with game like analogies.
| That's the point of the term Game Theory.
|
| In Game theory, one does not necessarily consciously act
| as though playing a game, it just so happens that their
| organic choices are often understood using game
| analogies. That's why the field is valuable. It wouldn't
| be a valuable model if everyone could wake up tomorrow
| and opt out.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| I would posit that it's people who apply game theory to
| dating are the ones over analyzing things.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| That's true, and supports my point that most don't
| "play". They just "are"
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| Dating being like work? Its really hard for me to wrap
| around that idea...
| sublinear wrote:
| I don't have much to back what I'm about to say, but I feel like
| these articles are written for and describe younger people.
|
| What's being described here are communication problems due to
| inexperience rather than the actual "game". This might as well be
| about chess.
|
| People on their second marriage or single people older than about
| 35 may not have these complications. They can just tell a few
| stories about themselves and recognize if they're a match right
| away without much disagreement. Older people don't "reject" as
| much as they maintain a varying range of distance with that other
| person over time. Things run their course and people don't get as
| heartbroken if at all.
|
| That this social maturity can occur regardless of romantic
| experience hints at something more complex going on than "love"
| or mere game theory.
| sdwr wrote:
| That maturity is the result of both experience and luxury that
| one's base needs are met.
|
| > What's being described here are communication problems due to
| inexperience rather than the actual "game".
|
| It's only a communication problem in the way that world hunger
| is a communication problem. For most intents + purposes, it's
| the actual game.
|
| I watched a video about a holiday event at a huge public-works
| soup kitchen (?) in India. They interviewed a guy who said:
|
| "Normally we get rice and daal, today we have paneer and
| (whatever) as well, by the grace of God!"
|
| His attention is on the first-order reality of the food going
| into his stomach. A more sophisticated/privileged person would
| abstract up, and say something like
|
| "It's nice to see everyone coming together on this special day"
|
| , trading in the physical reality for a social one.
|
| Sex is the same way, not as immediate as food but still life-
| or-death in its own way.
| maire wrote:
| > I feel like these articles are written for and describe
| younger people.
|
| I think the opposite is true. I first read Jane Austin as a
| teenager. I had no concept of the economic environment of the
| book. I thought meh.
|
| Now that I am retired and re-reading Austin, I view them more
| in terms of the economic environment. I didn't have this
| context when I was young, and the books are awesome. In several
| passages she give a critique of the economic system so
| sublimely that it passed over my head when I was young.
| notfed wrote:
| To me it sounds like you're backing up the post you're
| rebutting.
| notfed wrote:
| Agreed. The Tinder data is probably heavily skewed in a few
| ways, one of which being age. (Another being bots.)
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Another being sex workers. Part of my exit from dating apps
| was a frustrating number of matches asking for money in some
| form, some of them offering something in return. (some of
| them hoping their very existence was sufficient)
| notfed wrote:
| Maybe, but what you've described will be 95% scams.
| fergal_reid wrote:
| The Austin novels made a lot more sense to me when I started to
| think of them as closer to tales of corporate Mergers &
| Acquisitions, rather than love stories. The rich familes then
| were like large corporations are now, and a marriage was a very
| financial merger.
|
| I think I realised this when I first read Pride and Prejudice and
| the main character started talking about basically falling in
| love with the Pemberley estate.
|
| Thereafter, any time I visit an English country house with
| extensive gardens, the massive wealth expenditure to create them
| makes a lot more sense when you view them as M&A marketing
| budget.
|
| This is hopefully too cynical, and the truth is somewhere in
| between - but it's equally naive to read Austen as straight love
| stories with a modern perspective - there's a lot of clear focus
| on the incomes and social situations in the text.
| bill_joy_fanboy wrote:
| > This is hopefully too cynical...
|
| Nah, it's just how it is.
|
| A casual web search will show that women care about money in
| relationships and marriage... a lot.
| willismichael wrote:
| Meh, when we got married she had assets that were easily more
| than 10x what I owned. I wasn't even able to make any real
| money until two years later.
| ArchieMaclean wrote:
| I'd be willing to bet that the majority of results you find
| in that search will be _men_ talking about how much women
| care about money... of course some women do, but far far from
| all of them
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well its not about money per se, rather power, competence
| and whatever it translates to. This is almost a daily sight
| in any society if you know what to look for, and basis of
| who we were and who we are also today. I don't see any
| problems with it, there is good logic and history behind it
| and it explains a lot of behavior of various folks.
|
| Certain age usually brings this 'seeing' effortlessly and
| you actually become annoyed by additional layer of
| personalities that you see (since you can't escape it
| anymore facts that a lot of people of both sexes are just
| badly broken or simply not good people to the core), you
| just need to grind through enough people/stories around you
| like any other skill.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| Whatever your position on this, reducing things back to 21st
| century individualistic dating preferences and gender norms
| is ahistorical and shallow. The parent comment was spot on in
| the analogy -- this isn't about what individuals choose, it's
| _dynastic_. A family is "the firm" and marriage in one of the
| primary strategic tools to advance its interests. At the very
| top of the pile, the Austrian Habsburg family built a 500
| year imperial dynasty in Central Europe primarily from
| marriages. But it's similar further down: land, property,
| family reputation, strategic alliances, and _sometimes_ (but
| not always) individual preferences as well.
| thrway123 wrote:
| Lizzie was joking about falling in love with the Pemberley
| estates. She fell in love through seeing him through the eyes
| of the people who knew him best.
|
| However, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement back
| then. That is true.
| fergal_reid wrote:
| > Lizzie was joking
|
| Well, obviously we shouldn't get too hung up on what a
| fictional character thought - but I stand by my recollection.
|
| Just googling it, and finding this page: https://www.sparknot
| es.com/lit/pride/quotes/symbol/pemberley...
|
| I think you can say the last quote on that page is the
| character joking (although I'm not sure I read it that way);
| but the second last quote was the one I was referring to, and
| is in the narrator's voice.
|
| But, look, while reading _that_ did change my perspective on
| the story, I also don 't want to interpret things too
| cynically; I'm not saying the character of Elizabeth should
| be read as purely seeking advantage; just that they were
| clearly evaluating marriage on a combination of advantage,
| and 'love', with a lot of weight on the former; and all of
| Austen made a lot more sense when I realised that.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| For most of human civilization, marriages _were_ mergers and
| acquisitions. Over the course of your married life you
| developed love through mutual companionship. The idea of them
| being primarily driven by romance and love is a very recent
| artifact. In many ways it's also an incomplete and somewhat
| inimical development, because I've observed modern couples
| ignore aspects of duty, responsibility, service etc. that are
| central to building a life together, and obsess just singularly
| over love or attraction.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Marriage among the landed gentry were _both_ economic and
| emotional arrangement and the novels explore the tension
| between these aspects. If you focus on just one aspect you miss
| the conflict of the story. It is literally in the title of
| "Sense and Sensibility", where sense is the financial aspect
| and sensibility the emotional.
| jowea wrote:
| Don't forget the political alliance aspect.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| This is very timely for me as I spent last evening playing
| Obsession[1]- a board game based on courtship and prestige in
| (roughly) the era of Austen. They have a few specialized rule
| variations and one is named for Austen, in which the interest of
| the desired suitor is not revealed until the end of the season,
| mimicking the veiled intent of her characters. Definitely worth
| checking out if you have a long evening and a long attention
| span.
|
| 1: https://www.geeksundergrace.com/tabletop/review-obsession/
| solardev wrote:
| Do you need to be familiar with Jane Austen or Victorian
| England to enjoy the game?
|
| Never read her books or cared about that era, but I'm always
| interested in new tabletop mechanics & themes!
|
| Edit: Decent rating on BGG (8.2/10 score, 3.11/5 complexity):
| https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/231733/obsession
| drewzero1 wrote:
| Though the flavor text is heavily inspired by her works, the
| game doesn't reference any of them directly, and I think it
| stands pretty well on its own. It's not really specific to
| the Victorian era either, more of a general old-timey English
| aristocracy theme.
|
| At its core it's really about allocating scarce resources and
| timing actions over a limited number of turns to build your
| family's standing in society, and the courtship element is a
| strong means to that end.
|
| Personally I feel like the complexity score may be a bit low;
| I'm not really much of a tabletop gamer though. It's about as
| complicated a game as I think I could enjoy.
| metricspaces wrote:
| the thought occurs that Jane was obsessing over such matters as a
| disempowered member of her society. another thought is that
| romantic nonsense was a mind virus created by the elite to
| psychologically knee-cap the middle class.
| thfuran wrote:
| What a bizarre notion. Which elite exactly do you think are
| responsible? Love stories are arrested at least as far back as
| ancient Greece, so clearly romantic nonsense pre-dates any
| current elites.
| oz_science wrote:
| One thing the post could also have discussed is the signalling
| value of aloofness. People may want to look detached to suggest
| they have plenty of options.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-17 23:01 UTC)