Lowering Standards/Settling

[threebyfate]

always searching, no offense to the guys but they don't sound like people who've sincerely been in love with anyone, more concerned about self-protection, than anything else.

 

I'm also not talking about the romantic fantasies, of happily ever after. This is a combination of being in love and also, being pragmatic in your choices.

 

Settling tends to get you what you're willing to give. Not very much at all. In the long-term, it will probably get you cheating, whether yourself or your partner, from unmet needs.

[Vertex]

Another vote for let's see the math

 

I think I have a vague idea of what you are going to say...

 

Well, I mean it's not terribly difficult logic, and fairly intuitive. I'll use a classic dice example that makes the analogy that partners are like dice. If I roll a low number, I get a low quality. If I roll a high number, I get a higher quality. Of course, in the real world it's more accurate to build this model off a normal distribution based upon where you're searching for people, and then split it up into various subcomponents of character traits and factoring in costs of dating, but that requires a lot more math to basically say the same thing -- so I'm just going to keep it simple.

 

This is not meant to be taken super seriously, but it is an interesting thing to think about on a probabilistic, rationalized level.

 

If I roll a die, what is my expected value? 3.5. (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5. This means on average we can expect a "quality" of 3.5. This is like choosing one woman and sticking with her -- a randomly drawn woman can be expected to be average. What I mean is that if we repeated this experiment infinitely many times, the type of woman we'd draw on average is precisely average.

 

Now how about if I have two dice? If I roll one die and don't like what I get, I can reject it and take the second die and take what I get there. What can I rationally expect, here? Well, we know that if we're rolling the last die, we're taking what we can get with expected value 3.5. This means if we are able to beat 3.5 on our first roll, we stay (4, 5, or 6). Otherwise, roll again (if we roll a 1, 2, or 3). On expectation, given this rule, we expect a quality of (1/2)*((4+5+6)/3) + (1/2)*(3.5) = 4.25.

 

How about three dice? We know that if we reject the first roll, we can expect 4.25 from the latter two-die system. We beat 4.25 on the first roll if we roll a 5 or a 6. (2/6)*((5+6)/2) + (4/6)*(4.25) = 4.6666.

 

How about infinitely many dice? Well, we'd obviously keep re-rolling until we got a 6, because there's no point in settling for anything less.

 

The point of this is that, given a certain number of potential partners, we have the luxury of "rerolling" because, simply put, we increase our chances at getting something better. More opportunities are worth more than fewer opportunities.

 

What does this say about settling? If you're acting rational, it implies that it's not so much that older people settle, but rather our standards are high when we're young. To expect a high outcome with just a few rolls or to settle for a low outcome when you have multiple chances to roll is not very rational.

 

Applying to the real-world, though, humans are not rational beings. This logic only makes sense if you're risk-neutral, which means you do not factor in emotion, but rather make decisions based on probability alone. Humans are risk-averse. We are more sensitive to a $10 loss than a $10 gain. This means we tend to operate a bit on the conservative side to appease our inability to handle a potential loss, even if the probability says you can expect a higher average. The mere CHANCE of ending up with something low is something humans don't like.

 

What does this result in? Settling, ironically! We might hold onto something that is lesser than what we should go for (it would be like playing the two-dice game and keeping the first die if you rolled a 1, 2, or 3, when probabilistic logic would tell you to re-roll). Sometimes people have such a warped sense of self-introspection that they feel they're not very marketable, or don't know how to improve themselves, or feel as if they've already invested so much into their current settled relationship that it's better to stick with it than it is to pursue something new. On that note, it's irrational to consider sunk costs. So what if you've spent 6 years with your current subpar partner? You aren't getting those years back. Look on the margin -- to the future -- and don't continue digging yourself in a hole because you feel as if it'll render your past in vain.

 

In the real world, we have multiple opportunities to date and thus many opportunities to "re-roll," so does this mean we should settle for no less than perfection -- our 6's? If we're equating the roll of the dice to a roll of the more important factors we desire in a partner, then absolutely. If we were to extrapolate the model further, it would be like if we kept rolling dice for all the various traits in a human. Intellect, personality, body type, etc. As we start to run out of time -- out of rolls, we start to only roll the dice that matter to us because they give us the highest utility, so there is a convergence. In the real world, rolling these dice is not free, but carries the cost of time, money, and energy. Also, in a more truer model, all agents would be both the rollers AND the dice. In Mother Russia, the dice reject YOU.

 

The end conclusion of all this: We have countless opportunities to date and meet new people. If you absolutely need a man with a sense of humor, then don't settle for anything less than that. If you absolutely need an intelligent woman (which is what I personally want), don't settle for anything less. Keep searching until you find someone with the traits that matter to you.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Vertex

[spookie]

This is so stupid.

 

When you love someone, there's no such thing as "better".

 

When you don't, you should try not to create reasons to have to stay with them!

[Vertex]

This is so stupid.

 

When you love someone, there's no such thing as "better".

 

When you don't, you should try not to create reasons to have to stay with them!

 

I'd disagree with this. It's very possible to be in love with someone who, for instance, treats you poorly. If you're in love and truly happy though, then that's perfect.

[spookie]

I'd disagree with this. It's very possible to be in love with someone who, for instance, treats you poorly. If you're in love and truly happy though, then that's perfect.

 

Sure, but in that situation, you don't leave them to find someone "better", you leave them to find someone else you can love, who will treat you well.

[Sam Spade]

Actually...I was.

 

 

 

Well, in a sense, the materialization of the effects are immediate: at least, if we are considering effects of the soul to be materializable. Even in Dorian Grey, the effects materialized immediately in the painting, which was a representation of the soul, yes?

 

Anyway, I am glad to know you are a morally conscious person, even though you aren't religious. I don't, however, believe that morality is only concerning others--think about Aristotle who claims that by loving another we love ourselves. The whole reason to act virtuously is for our own happiness. So, by treating others well, we are actually benefiting ourselves more than the other. This is why morality also concerns those actions which are only in relation to ourselves--temperance, chastity, humility, etc.

 

Sure, I never claimed altruistic motives. It's a self-improvement project, that usually happens to have positive externalities.

 

 

Huh. I don't see your aviator. What is it, out of curiousity?

 

I meant only the name (I can't post a picture - so much concentrated hotness would break too many hearts .) Sam Spade is Dashiell Hammett's private eye character that usually does the right thing (typically at some cost to himself), but is so grumpy, direct, unimpressed, and cynical that there is no way he's self-righteous about it, and you're not even sure if you should like him. Beautifully portrayed by Bogie in the "Maltese Falcon" .

 

 

 

You know, though I think it's better to have a fantasy than to always act out desires, generally, if we don't place some restriction our minds' fantastical wanderings, I find that they become as much of a problem as acting out our desires. For example, people who are interested in pornography: it starts out as a fantasy--they just watch and fantasize about these women and, perhaps, masturbate. Though that can sometimes lead into acting out fantasies (because, let's face it, if I fantasize about eating pizza all day, I'm eventually just going to go out and eat a pizza), it's still a problem all it's own. There are people who become obsessed with pornography; people who cannot have relationships with other people, because they are focused on the women and scenarios in porn. What I'm getting at is that if your mind is constantly in "filthy places," eventually the consequences of that too will manifest itself.

Sure, anything can become an obsession, so the problem - if there i one - lays not in the fatasy, but the person. As long as you have a sense of humor about it, and recognise at what point you begin to cross the line, it's cool. (Not to mention that you can bet I'm direct enough to ask my gf to dress in a schoolgirl uniform, so my mind doesn't even need to wander that far.)

 

P.S. More generally, I'm surprised that more people don't realise what a blessing porn is. Studies have empirically established negative correlation between availability of porn and sexual crimes rate. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that its accessibility has prevented multiple affairs from happening (rather than causing them). This doesn't mean that pathological use doesn't exist, but that most use isn't pathological.

 

 

badabing.....

[Vertex]

Sure, but in that situation, you don't leave them to find someone "better", you leave them to find someone else you can love, who will treat you well.

 

Isn't someone who treats you well "better" than someone who treats you poorly? I mean, at this point it's debating semantics. The point is that we should never settle for something we know isn't right for us, deep down.

[Sam Spade]

pretty good analogy. If we assume variance in quality, one possible weak spot in the model is that it assumes that the probability of high quality rolls (numbers) and low quality rolls is the same (1/6th), which it is not. So the number of rolls needed to move into the next increment of quality increases exponentially, rather than linearly. Case in point: if a woman of similar educational/professional attainment was important to me, this criterion alone would have eliminated 97% of the population. And the probability of drawing someone desireable would drop pretty much to zero if you also include the attractiveness and good attitude variables. (or to 0.0075 in an exceedingly optimistic assessment - 0.03X0.5X0.5. That's assuming that 50% of the women are good looking (unlikely given that 60% are overweight or obese) and that 50% have half-decent attitude (possibly true). That eliminates other sorts of variables - % with kids, % with apparent emotional problems etc.).

 

That's how in my recent dating life I've realised that I've been pretty explicit about all these constraints: based on my assessments of the pool, the time and effort associated with dating, and paring the list of truly imortant qualities, I've concluded that I'm coming out on top. this doesn't guard against the possiblity of warped perceptions of self and others, but surely provides a lot more peace of mind than tossing and turning in bed and asking "Have I settled?" . So now I can focus on actually being in love and give my mind something else to chew on:bunny:

[Vertex]

pretty good analogy. If we assume variance in quality, one possible weak spot in the model is that it assumes that the probability of high quality rolls (numbers) and low quality rolls is the same (1/6th), which it is not. So the number of rolls needed to move into the next increment of quality increases exponentially, rather than linearly. Case in point: if a woman of similar educational/professional attainment was important to me, this criterion alone would have eliminated 97% of the population. And the probability of drawing someone desireable would drop pretty much to zero if you also include the attractiveness and good attitude variables. (or to 0.0075 in an exceedingly optimistic assessment - 0.03X0.5X0.5. That's assuming that 50% of the women are good looking (unlikely given that 60% are overweight or obese) and that 50% have half-decent attitude (possibly true). That eliminates other sorts of variables - % with kids, % with apparent emotional problems etc.).

 

That's how in my recent dating life I've realised that I've been pretty explicit about all these constraints: based on my assessments of the pool, the time and effort associated with dating, and paring the list of truly imortant qualities, I've concluded that I'm coming out on top. this doesn't guard against the possiblity of warped perceptions of self and others, but surely provides a lot more peace of mind than tossing and turning in bed and asking "Have I settled?" . So now I can focus on actually being in love and give my mind something else to chew on:bunny:

 

I would assume that traits are more or less normally distributed, yes (so instead of a linear dice roll, it's more like a normal random variable such that certain traits influence each other through correlation). I mentioned earlier that it does depend on where you look. If I am looking for someone that only fits 3% of the population, then I should search in areas where that 3% is locally greater. Certain types of people appear more frequently in certain areas. Sometimes the type of people we want happen to be rarer in occurrence because we all have different preferences when it comes to what we want out of a relationship. I am okay with the fact that I want a girl who may only be <5% of the population. I know what type of person I am and what I want out of a relationship.

 

In any case, I think it's harder for people to focus on what matters early on because they simply don't know what matters to them yet. Only through experience do I think we truly figure out what it is we want in a partner -- and I think it's vital that we keep that criteria in mind and not ignore it. My second girlfriend was someone who was quite bad for me, and I was "settling" out of fear of being alone. I learned the hard way that it's far better to be single than miserable in a relationship.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Vertex

[Sam Spade]

yep, yep, no argument.

What I wanted to emphasise that the decision rule for identifying settling should be explicitly recognised unhapiness (rather than vague sense of "maybe" something lacking, or fear that "maybe" I'm settling). the reason this is important is that 1) you never have complete information and 2) the imperfect information is confounded with the effect of feelings and emotions, which is actually an issue given that feelings can just as easily hurt, as they can help our ability to make a commitment decision. (feelings can make you commit to the wrong person, or not commit to the right person). I'm certainly not anti-emotion:love:. Just saying it's a lousy decision rule .

[mem11363]

Happiness = function(core attributes of partner, commitment level of partner to you)

 

My wife of 20 years is not the smartest person I ever dated - I dated a few 130-140 IQ women.

 

She is not the prettiest woman I ever dated. I dated a few 8's. She is not quite that.

 

She is by far the best woman I ever dated. She is smart enough to be really fun to be around. OK - she doesn't like discussing complex math - video compression algorithms - or physics. So what - I have a few friends I can do that with.

 

She has a great sense of humor, an adventurous spirit, has taken great care of herself over the years, is an olympic class lover and a rock solid honest, trustworthy person. She is strong willed and capricious in the most delightful and unpredictable fashion. She brings out the best in me.

 

Ultimately you throw away the checklist and ask yourself if you are relaxed and happy with your partner. If you look forward to spending today, this coming weekend and the rest of your life together. Do they love you the way you want to be loved. No one has ever loved me the way my wife loves me. No one. Not even close.

 

 

 

I would assume that traits are more or less normally distributed, yes (so instead of a linear dice roll, it's more like a normal random variable such that certain traits influence each other through correlation). I mentioned earlier that it does depend on where you look. If I am looking for someone that only fits 3% of the population, then I should search in areas where that 3% is locally greater. Certain types of people appear more frequently in certain areas. Sometimes the type of people we want happen to be rarer in occurrence because we all have different preferences when it comes to what we want out of a relationship. I am okay with the fact that I want a girl who may only be <5% of the population. I know what type of person I am and what I want out of a relationship.

 

In any case, I think it's harder for people to focus on what matters early on because they simply don't know what matters to them yet. Only through experience do I think we truly figure out what it is we want in a partner -- and I think it's vital that we keep that criteria in mind and not ignore it. My second girlfriend was someone who was quite bad for me, and I was "settling" out of fear of being alone. I learned the hard way that it's far better to be single than miserable in a relationship.

[terra]

Happiness = function(core attributes of partner, commitment level of partner to you)

 

My wife of 20 years is not the smartest person I ever dated - I dated a few 130-140 IQ women.

 

She is not the prettiest woman I ever dated. I dated a few 8's. She is not quite that.

 

She is by far the best woman I ever dated. She is smart enough to be really fun to be around. OK - she doesn't like discussing complex math - video compression algorithms - or physics. So what - I have a few friends I can do that with.

 

She has a great sense of humor, an adventurous spirit, has taken great care of herself over the years, is an olympic class lover and a rock solid honest, trustworthy person. She is strong willed and capricious in the most delightful and unpredictable fashion. She brings out the best in me.

 

Ultimately you throw away the checklist and ask yourself if you are relaxed and happy with your partner. If you look forward to spending today, this coming weekend and the rest of your life together. Do they love you the way you want to be loved. No one has ever loved me the way my wife loves me. No one. Not even close.

 

Yes I totally agree, this to me is ideal.

[tojaz]

 

Ultimately you throw away the checklist and ask yourself if you are relaxed and happy with your partner. If you look forward to spending today, this coming weekend and the rest of your life together. Do they love you the way you want to be loved. No one has ever loved me the way my wife loves me. No one. Not even close.

 

 

Always_Searching, great thread I'm glad you stumbled upon mine so I could find it.

 

I tend to agree with Mem. My story is one of polar opposites. My wife who is now my ex and I were polar opposites. She a college proffesor, published writer, studied Egyptian history as a hobby, Honor Roll and gifted classes in High School etc. To be honest, not the type of girl I was looking for. Me, the typical dirt under the fingernails grease monkey with a crude mouth and a pick-up truck. A date on a whim turned into 13 years! In that time, she learned to change her own oil, shoot a gun, and ride a motorcycle. Me I learned about higher learning and found myself holding my own amongst Deans, and professors even though the only time I ever stepped foot inside a university was to take her to lunch! All the while hiding those dirty fingernails and busted knuckles.

 

Point is, had we not come together, in our own lists of standards, we would have never even been a blip on each others screen. For the purpose of the thread I would say in the beginning we both changed our standards. In fact, while we could all draw or imagine our perfect mate, nobody among us really knows what that is until we find them, we know what we should want, what we think we want, but romantic love has no logic, you find it where you find it, and don't typically recognize it until it smacks you between the eyes. Thats why most of the greatest love stories of all time start with polar opposites and chance encounters.

TOJAZ