I think the secret is "clearly better than anyone I've got".

If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing.

If I have one or two "maybes", and you introduce me to someone, it's easy for them to be clearly better than anyone I've got, and therefore clearly "the one", at least the one to pursue right now.

But if you give me one hundred, then there probably isn't one of them that is clearly better than all the others. Hence, analysis paralysis.

▲

kibwen 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing.

Not quite. No matter how badly you want a relationship, I guarantee there exist potential partners with whom a relationship would make your life worse, not better. And for most people, the set of absolutely disastrous potential partners is most people.

▲

DANmode 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The quoted section felt like a portrayal of the individual’s mentality from the example, more so than actual objective logic.

▲

Gooblebrai 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> And for most people, the set of absolutely disastrous potential partners is most people.

Care to expand on why?

	▲	kibwen 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Let's start simple and say that the average person isn't bisexual, so we need to exclude half of people from the get-go. But maybe you're taking that as a given. So then we also need to consider that less than half the population is within your optimal age range. Maybe you're also taking that as a given. (But note that at this point we're already excluding 85% of humans.) Now consider that you also probably want them to speak your language. Again, maybe another gimme, but you're still down to less than 2% of humans. Of that, pick any ordinary dealbreaker; opinions on having children, political opinions, religious preferences, personal habits, and so on. Find the intersection of these. And don't forget to consider that a not-insignificant proportion of the population are simply high-functioning maniacs who you're better off never coming into contact with. And now consider mutual attractiveness.

▲

Terr_ 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That makes me think of the Secretary Problem [0]... which apparently is also known as the Fussy Suitor problem, at that makes it extra apropos.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

	▲	Sol- 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I remember the book "Algorithms to Live By" actually also uses finding a life partner as a fun, if perhaps unrealistic, example of applying the secretary problem. As far as I remember, it jokingly assumes that one's active dating period might be ages 20-40 and then applying the optimal solution from the secretary problem means that you should calibrate your expectations until age 27 (assuming regular dating of course) and then immediately marry the next best person that exceeds this threshold.

▲

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are plenty of people you could be with that would be a strictly worse experience than being alone.

▲

DANmode 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Make the shortest list of requirements, and hard-no traits, possible.

It’s the only way.