[benten10]

I found this one incredibly interesting, but for mostly tangential reason: relationships. I have mostly concentrated on trying to find reasonably likeable, kind, successful, and attractive partners. But because of that I have had a lot less variety of experience with different kinds of people. Perhaps a better strategy is to date a lot by uhh, focusing less on 'quality', so that 'relationship skills' are learned better?

What do you people think?

[devishard]

I read an article recently about a British statistician who used statistical strategies in her dating life (I can't remember her name, so having trouble Googling the article...). She recommended dating 30 people casually before even considering dating seriously. That way you get a feel for what kind of people are available in your dating pool. After dating 30 people, if you meet someone who is better than any of the first 30 then you know they're a close-to-optimal partner for you.

[joncrocks]

Sounds like an implementation of the standard 'solution' to the secretary problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

[mohsinr]

In that case one has to be lucky to meet 'after' the initial phase is complete so that they have chance to be selected.

[spdionis]

Or die trying...

[sverige]

The older I get, the more I believe that what makes a partner likeable, kind, successful, and attractive is the amount of effort you put into getting to know them and to support them.

When I first met my future wife 35 years ago, she was stunningly beautiful. She worked for a time as an underwear model in fact.

Now her appearance is what is sometimes called "matronly" but she's even more beautiful to me than she was when we were teenagers. And interestingly enough, I'm still learning things about her 35 years later. She is the most fascinating person I know.

Has it always been that way? Nope. Regrettably, there were stretches of years that I neglected to pay attention to her, and it took a toll on us both. In the past five or six years, I have redoubled my efforts to pay attention to the little things, and we're both better off for it, I think.

And to bring it back to the article, she rejected me for a good five years before I really got anywhere with her. Not that I stalked her, but we ran in overlapping social circles and periodically I would try again. I finally figured out a way to gain her trust and interest. (Again, she had no shortage of suitors, so it was kind of like trying to get the New Yorker or Atlantic to publish your piece.)

The rejection never deterred me from trying again when I saw an opening, but I did always change my approach. We ended up in the same college class - again, mere chance, no stalking - and that's when she finally opened up to me a little. Still, it was years later before we married, and we both had other relationships during those years.

Meanwhile, yes, I dated a lot, and was in a couple of "serious" relationships during that time, so there was some quantity over quality there.

I will say that as I've gotten older, were something to happen where I was suddenly single again, the idea of "quality" has changed tremendously from when I was younger. The same is true with my tastes in writing.

[gmarx]

When you redoubled your efforts was she also redoubling her efforts in parallel? I'm curious because the way I see these stories almost universally implies the relationship quality is down to the man's effort

[devishard]

Meh, some women like to be pursued. Some don't. Some guys like to do the pursuing. Some don't. Sure, societal perceptions are one way, but it's up to you whether you let that define how you date. Going with societal perceptions will probably make you marginally more successful, while going with how you feel will be more comfortable.

If you devote the rest of your life to changing societal perceptions on this issue, you might be able to do it, but you might not succeed until after you're dead. It's not going to help you date--it will probably be counterproductive to that goal. And you probably only will have time and energy to pursue one change of that scale in your lifetime. Is this the thing you want to change with your life?

Ultimately, sure, you're right. It's not inherently only the man's responsibility to make the relationship happen/work/whatever. But that's not a productive truth; there's no pragmatic action that comes out of that. Sure, complain about it on HN if that makes you feel better, but if you actually want to succeed at dating the best thing you can do is suck it up and work around it.

EDIT: To add to this: the basis for this is evolutionary, and it takes an immense amount of work to get societal pressures to override behaviors that are built into our DNA. It's not clear that this will even be possible to change, even if some people devote the rest of their lives to it.

[gmarx]

I wasn't complaining but I do consider this comment quite sad. Realistic but sad

[sverige]

Yes, she did, and I would say she worked at it much more than I did for quite a while. Both of us are what is called traditional, so I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that the man is the leader in the relationship. Not a popular view these days, but I don't care. The women I've observed in such traditional relationships generally do work very hard at it, so saying that is not at all meant to take anything away from them.

[percept]

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

[vijayr]

I dunno, wouldn't this amount to 'using' people? How would you feel if someone else did this to you so they could practice their relationship skills, in the hope of finding 'quality' people (as you mentioned) according to their definition of quality? It is true relationships come and go in our lives but deliberately using someone for relationship skills practice sounds kinda weird.

Interesting question though - thank you for bringing it up.

[devishard]

So, serious question, what kind of dating would you consider not using the other person? Isn't any sort of dating just an exchange where both parties hope to have their needs met? This just sounds like benten10 is just acknowledging that is current need is to gain experience dating. There are certainly lots of people out there with this need so I doubt benten10 will have trouble finding people whose needs are compatible with his.

Sure, there are people who don't want to go on "practice" dates, but there is literally no human characteristic that someone out there doesn't want. In the long run I want to have kids, so if I could somehow filter out all the people who won't want to have kids in 5-10 years, I'd do it, but it's not realistically possible to do that. Why is "I want practice dating" different from "I want to have kids"?

[vijayr]

There is a difference between

"I'm genuinely interested in this person, but it is a deal breaker if she doesn't want kids. I'm going on a date with her and I hope to find out soon" and

"I'm not interested in this person at all. But I'm going on a date with her anyway, just so I can gain some experience and courage to ask someone else out"

To me, the second one feels weird, as the other person's intentions might be serious.

Most people do some variation of the second one while looking for jobs, partners, friendships etc. I suppose it is just a personal thing.

[devishard]

Why is "Can I have kids with this person?" considered more interest in the person than "Can I get experience dating with this person?"

I think you're being pretty arbitrary in deciding that one of these is an attribute of the person and one isn't. I don't think that there's any basis for making that distinction.

What I'm seeing here looks a lot more like a visceral reaction that I see from a lot of people who come across some form of intentionality in seeking romance. There's an underlying idea that the only "correct" way to date is to just let nature take its course somehow. Any attempt to metacognate in that area is seen as dishonest, trying too hard, manipulative, etc. Here, you're characterizing the other person's intentions as "serious", implying that dating to get experience dating isn't serious. But for someone who finds their lack of dating experience crippling and yet, as a human, is to some extent unable to find happiness until they can find good relationships, getting dating experience is a very serious goal.

But in the end, dating is just about people meeting their goals. The initial stage is figuring out the other person's goals and seeing if they're compatible with your own. So I don't think we have any obligation to go into dating with any specific goals. As long as we're honest, open, and kind about our goals, there's no harm if our goals don't align with someone else's. Sure, maybe the other person is serious about forming a long-term relationship with you, but it's not your responsibility to meet that need; it's just your responsibility to be honest about your goals so you don't lead them on.

[klinskyc]

Well, as long as the actual relationship was fun and the mutual relationship expectations were in the same ball park, I don't think there's anything unethical.

I guess it'd be weird if the sole purpose was for relationship skills, but I think there's a large middle ground

[howeyc]

This is essentially what great "Pick up artists" do. They meet a lot of women, realizing massive amounts of rejection eventually leads to moments of success.

Basically, hit on as many women as possible, with the intention of dating them (not just getting a number to phone/text them), and refine your craft as you fail immensely.

[cheriot]

Presumably you don't mean dating someone for practice. Defying your rational side when it feels right is a legitimate strategy.