Hide table of contents

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

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

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

Any advice at all welcome.

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


4 Answers sorted by

Here are the concepts that were most helpful to me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DC
3
1
1

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

might be what your looking for :)

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

Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at
Thomas Kwa
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Epistemic status: highly certain, or something The Spending What We Must 💸11% pledge  In short: Members pledge to spend at least 11% of their income on effectively increasing their own productivity. This pledge is likely higher-impact for most people than the Giving What We Can 🔸10% Pledge, and we also think the name accurately reflects the non-supererogatory moral beliefs of many in the EA community. Example Charlie is a software engineer for the Centre for Effective Future Research. Since Charlie has taken the SWWM 💸11% pledge, rather than splurge on a vacation, they decide to buy an expensive noise-canceling headset before their next EAG, allowing them to get slightly more sleep and have 104 one-on-one meetings instead of just 101. In one of the extra three meetings, they chat with Diana, who is starting an AI-for-worrying-about-AI company, and decide to become a cofounder. The company becomes wildly successful, and Charlie's equity share allows them to further increase their productivity to the point of diminishing marginal returns, then donate $50 billion to SWWM. The 💸💸💸 Badge If you've taken the SWWM 💸11% Pledge, we'd appreciate if you could add three 💸💸💸 "stacks of money with wings" emoji to your social media profiles. We chose three emoji because we think the 💸11% Pledge will be about 3x more effective than the 🔸10% pledge (see FAQ), and EAs should be scope sensitive.  FAQ Is the pledge legally binding? We highly recommend signing the legal contract, as it will allow you to sue yourself in case of delinquency. What do you mean by effectively increasing productivity? Some interventions are especially good at transforming self-donations into productivity, and have a strong evidence base. In particular:  * Offloading non-work duties like dates and calling your mother to personal assistants * Running many emulated copies of oneself (likely available soon) * Amphetamines I'm an AI system. Can I take the 💸11% pledge? We encourage A
Recent opportunities in Community
47
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read