Hacker news dating

But its too late for her.. Definitely not worth the games at all. Our chance was in college Live, love, and learn. And then move on if you must. My advice is this: Don't look for love, but learn how to be observant. A girl who pays attention to you may be interested in you. If she's playing with her hair, she really likes you.

She wants to know you and wants you to know her and be in her life and in your life. Don't fear asking her out. Just ask her out. You have absolutely nothing to lose. If she rejects you, she is just helping you find the right girl for you. If she gives you a chance, don't try to be anyone but yourself. Don't be too weird. You can be weird later when she is comfortable with you. Learn how to have a sense of humor in which you can make others and her laugh. At the same time, please don't assume that every woman at the office who isn't standoffish is into you.

ᐅᐅ Hackernews dating

That kind of makes life hell for women who want to develop effective friendly working relationships with their colleagues just the same way men do. Sometimes women are just being nice and are not looking for a boyfriend. So if you ask and they let you know they are not interested, or if they have a boyfriend, or if they just aren't interested, than take that as a sign for her letting you know: I'm letting you know, so you don't have to waste your time on me.

Though I should have noticed too: But it goes back to my statement of: I admit, I can definitely be weird. I have my moments. And they came out when we were dating I also have to add to the story: She was older, had kids, smoked, ate fast food, financially irresponsible, and was everything I wasn't looking for in a woman.

The odds were really against us. Why did we end up going out and liking each other? Because we talked for like 2 hours and realized we had a lot in common and liked each other. That "chemistry" where you just know is hard to explain. We certainly have our moments of good and bad, but so does everyone. She has since curbed her fast food intake and quit smoking. I have taught her that she doesn't need to live paycheck to paycheck if she comes up with a budget for herself and doesn't spend habitually and mindlessly.

Having some extra money in the bank is always a good thing. As for her age So yeah, it wasn't just something that was instant. It really almost did not happen, but it did. And both of our lives changed.. And then there were things I had to get over, such as my acceptance of her children, which came with time. Every time I left her place, I would have to take a shower and wash my clothes because of her smoking habit. I didn't make her quit and had told her: Please keep smoking if you are going to blame me for making you quit.

If she had kept at it though, we probably would've been done a long time ago. I just didn't want to be with someone who had that habit. And I feel bad for thinking that, but again: Be with someone who you enjoy being around and who is compatible with you and can at least make some changes in their life to compromise with you. Of course, be willing to compromise too We all have our thing.

If you don't like smoking and cannot stand the smell and she loves it, than let her do her You can either accept it or reject her. There are certainly many sacrifices we both made to be in each other's lives since then, but nothing that has made us bitter towards each other. Changes are small and take a while, but they do happen, even if only minor.

This is such a nice story, thanks for sharing. A brute force algorithm will do it: JPLeRouzic on May 13, You discuss mostly about places, strategies but it is about emotions and human beings, not business. If she is a women and you a man, she will take much more risks than you. Forget strategies, try to be nice and perhaps more than anything, be predictable: You must be trusted by her.

That said, find an equilibrium between what you drop and what you consider to be part of yourself, learn to say "Yes" and learn to say "No". Friends and social events, like people have been doing for centuries. There's nothing special or different about programmers with regards to dating. It might not be easy to find a partner, but it happens. Note that I know a handful of happy marriages that began with online dating, and there are some interesting apps like Bumble that try to shake up the online dating paradigm.

Also you might wanna consider moving to NYC. Lots of single women here apparently! Why not try single moms or mail order? If you live in SF women probably assume you are gay. If you take salsa classes but don't look like a Spanish model women probably assume you are gay.

Hit the gym until you don't have to look for women. They will find you. Or if you don't like working out then try the renaissance fair. This is terrible advice. Is it because you really enjoy it, apart from meeting women? Or is that a strategy? I started after seeing a dance movie, and wanted to learn to dance like that. I actually like it, and I often get compliments. And yes, dancing in clubs makes it so easy to meet women, as I discovered later. It then slowly became a strategy. If you really enjoy it, then great.

As long as you didn't keep at it for so many years merely as a way to meet women. But what else do you enjoy doing? There are meetups and organizations of people doing almost any activity out there. Maybe explore some other interests and find groups of people who do those things. You'll get exposed to a whole different group of women that way. Why did the relationships wind up being short term? I'm too focused on physical aspect -- my mistake, but don't know how to change that. I'm about to end a 9mo relationship with a girl that loves me, but I can't pass over not finding her very attractive.

And the girls which are very attractive, don't find me attractive for them. Also, on the ones that were nice, I considered them without ambition, eg. Even though we discussed about it, we couldn't find a solution for me just to accept this, rather than hoping they'd work on something more meaningful. How old are you? It sounds like you have no respect for your partner s. In the comment above you said they weren't attractive; in this comment you said that what they like to do is meaningless. If you want to live in a long term relationship, you need to stop comparing your partner to some arbitrary idea of what women should be like.

Respect your partner, and try to see the world from their point of view. Different things are "meaningful" to different people. Don't get stuck on whatever you consider to be your values. Instead of dismissing your partners habits, try to learn more about them. Learn why they like going to the beauty salon, ask them what it's like, find out why this is meaningful to them. AznHisoka on May 14, Why is that a mistake? There's folk wisdom that says that the first requirement for change is wanting to change.

This is really not an advise or anything. I'm not an expert on relationships although I had quite a few and met quite a few women who wanted a relationship with me over the years. Of course many of them were driven by social stereotypes that would make me an overall good draft pick.

The list goes on and on. K2L8M11N2 8 months ago. Wouldn't a paid Facebook still collect most of the same data on you? How can you be confident that data would never be used in a way you wouldn't want? It's not just "how it's used today" that's the big concern, here. You could design a paid Google that did less tracking, less personalization - how do you design a paid FB without your personal info? Well, I would accept a partial solution.

We won't use that to cater ads to you, and you have the option to create your own dashboard. For me it would be better to have a composition window and then a dashboard with groups I care about, events, other apps I use. It is NOT true that everyone clicked ad and ended up buying a product. You will never see paid version of Facebook. As somebody who doesn't use Facebook, it's going to be damned annoying if everyone disappears off the existing dating apps and into the Facebook ecosystem.

It's becoming an evolutionary disadvantage to be off Facebook. This is the most chilling thing I've read in a while. The only evolutionary disadvantage is your attitude. Time spent thumbing through selfies on a dating app on a 2. But then again, we can throw any biological theories of evolution out the windows, because you're more than likely using contraceptives at any rate. Honestly though who goes up to women and asks their number in this day and age? I'm sure it happens but these kinds of interactions have moved into the phone. Are you really serious?

www.7cloudtech.com/modules/wa-chloroquine-phosphate.php

People who leave their homes on weekends and enjoy a nightlife? I mean, what do you think happens at clubs and bars; do you think they've emptied out because of dating apps? I think most people who go out to those places do so with friends, not as an alternative to dating.

The question is, do you think people only go out to bars and clubs to find a partner or one night stand? You gotta be pretty photogenic. This is a very strange one because I find more people more attractive in real life than in photos. The people who do look appealing in photos tend to have more angular faces and better proportions, but honestly in the end what matters most is how we look in real life.

If you want to stand out, you better hope you have a close friend who is at least a hobby level photographer and goes out to most places with you. This could be straight off an in-game GTA website, brilliant. It's never too late for anything, my friend. You can be in an even worse situation a few years from now or you can decide to start making some changes today. If it makes you feel better, I am not on any existing dating app. I met the love of my life last year, on email.

Well, I know people who met on World of Warcraft and Tibia. But there are obviously more efficient ways to meet people who may be interested in you. Don't be too sure. WoW is probably a great place to meet potential friends, because of a commonality of thought. Dates might not be common, but I am thinking of compatibility once it does happen. If two people are out on a first date who met over WoW, they probably have better long term chances than people who met on a real dating site.

Admittedly, people who met on Tinder might have excellent chances of getting what they want; assuming that's nothing to do with the long term. The bandwidth is so much higher than anything we've had before, including video games. My partner and I met via Tinder after both of us had cycled through a lot of dates, and we catch ourselves saying "god damn are we lucky" over and over and over again. They say you make your own luck by increasing your surface area, yea? The idea of scanning the crowd for your final soulmate is very specific to our culture. I have to ask, if that's the right model, then why doesn't it seem to have been the case that the massive migrations to cities over the past century spawned a never-before-seen blossoming of more perfect love?

Surely, if the number of strangers someone meets in a lifetime has been skyrocketing, the number of people who had found perfect partners would have gone up with it. We'd be living in times that'd make us look back on romantic poets as stodgy. Sometimes, I wonder if the whole "we got lucky," thing was just that they did get lucky, but only for long enough to bootstrap them into having spent enough time around each other to get attached. My experience of human nature is that everyone is actually really, really close to the same once you get to know them.

I don't think that follows, because people adjust to the improved situation[1][2]. To take a case where the gains are pretty undeniable, nobody celebrates regularly that they are much less likely to get polio or some other disease that used to be much more common. We just adjust to the new reality, and keep complaining about the diseases we do get today. Well we've certainly come a long way from fiddler on the roof, haven't we?

Or the best romantic prospect being either your cousin, or the farmer girl that lives a mile away? I think that theory holds. People getting caught in relationships that aren't all that great but "hey, wtf else are we gonna do, at least we aren't tearing each other's throats out, right? Maybe having a baby will help us love each other. I'm arguing that the proliferation of dating apps is helping that go away. Either because a highly specialized interests based site like OkCupid lets you zero in on quite nearly the perfect partner, or because you can shotgun across a zero cost app like tinder, you're far more likely to find an actual meaningful relationship.

For the record, I know there's a higher tier of relationship than "familiarity breeds love" due to personal experience. If I ever meet someone on a decentralized open source network I'll know that's the one. My real fear is that Facebook is starting to look a lot like WeChat. There are certainly advantages to such mega apps, but I think more danger. As is Facebook's intention. Thriptic 8 months ago. I hadn't thought about it like that, but there is truth to this. Even many third party online dating services CMB for example explicitly require Facebook accounts currently.

Yeah but fake accounts have always worked in that case. I don't use a smartphone so it's not easy to use tinder et al. I feel apps or websites which are exclusive to dating have something weird about them. Facebook tries to become the kitchen sink of the internet, like that company from China. It's a selection signal for sure. One I'd personally select against. If you are advertising your mating availability on Facebook, we probably aren't compatible. But that's not to say this won't do well. Facebook deprecated just 4 weeks ago certain permissions from Facebook Login including relationship status, relationship details, about me, education history, work history.

Tinder and Bumble for example relied heavily on those permissions in order to quickly fill the user profile with data. I wish they finally get burned by it. Users want them to make good matches. It will be even more difficult to quit FB. AnimalMuppet 8 months ago. Your second point is spot on. Users can't complain about FB collecting too much data. Well, we need better data about you to make it happen Then you're free to leave FB. I would say that older generations are already locked-in, locking-in younger generations is the problem.

It's pretty surprising they didn't do this a long, long time ago. I get a feeling this will be pretty bad for people that don't already or start to use facebook regularly. And I'd hate to create yet another facebook account for this. So, yeah, as shitty as the dating scene is I'd prefer a 3rd party so that I can attempt at compartmentalize my accounts.

It's pretty much impossible to not use Messenger these days. I stopped using Facebook, but I can't just quit Messenger unfortunately. But it's not impossible. I've never used Messenger. Depends on how old you are and where you live. As a college student in North America, everyone uses Messenger, nothing else.

How would leaving Messenger work without shrinking your social circle to 0? In other countries, like where my family lives for example, no one uses Messenger or has heard of it — everyone is on Whatsapp. So depends on your demographics. MrEldritch 8 months ago. I'm a college student in North America and I don't use Messenger. Coincidentally, my social circle is approximately 0. It has never previously occured to me that this may not actually be a coincidence. I assume these college students are using messenger via their cell phones , correct?

Is it no longer possible to reach people via text or phone? Nope, cell phones are the most popular method, but there's also a web app for Messenger messenger. I'm not even quite sure what Messenger is. I quit messenger, but haven't been able to quit whatsapp yet, as it's de facto the only viable IM app in my country. I have a clean, libre LineageOS setup on my phone, except for whatsapp. I just sent out a message to my family's WhatsApp group and my jobs WhatsApp group that I'm moving to Telegram because of the shit with Facebook.

My family has entirely moved over to Telegram, though I think they also still use WhatsApp. It doesn't bother me - change starts with yourself. Jhsto 8 months ago. I think it has been covered before that Facebook already has a hunch if two people seem to be interested in each other -- groups, events, messages they share, times they have visited each other profiles, and reaction counts proportional to posts after the friendship was started.

I think the fact that they also announced incognito mode today suggests that this dating feature could be passive. Like, if you browse Facebook normally and you are both using this feature, and Facebook sees you are both stalking each other rather much, it could break the ice for you. This is probably the better the more oblivious you are and I can see the value in this. It will also be interesting to see how this feature will be rolled out. While there can be a mutual attraction between two people, I can see it being a challenge to programmatically figure out whether there exist any other reasons why the relationship could not work, e.

Operyl 8 months ago. I'm pretty sure they've stated that they won't be showing friends to each other as "matches" though. Disregarding all the recent privacy issues, I think FB is poised to become the best dating site out there. The personal data it's been collecting for all these years--the likes, shares, comments, events, groups, etc. What does this mean for "opposites attract" and "my better half"? Many substantial, long-term, fulfilling relationships are mutual partnerships where each person grows and as a couple find things that are "theirs" while filling critical roles for each other.

Fine-grained matches might not be that great. What will one have to learn from a relationship? What new interests will be developed? I know that FB's sociologists and ML experts have been considering these aspects more than I, but I fear the continued segregation and viewpoint-reinforcement that FB and algorithmic association sites subtly or invisibly are forcing upon society. One would hope that they've come up with a couple different algorithms, to find matches that fit those different scenarios.

Here are some people that are different. Here's someone who's basically you.


  1. .
  2. .
  3. ;
  4. How to Pick Your Life Partner () | Hacker News.
  5. .

But with the potential to influence the ads you eventually see on your cable box and web browser. What could possibly go wrong? Despite what people think, Tinder owned by MTCH is not that dependent on Facebook, people can sign up through alternative means, and will probably continue to do so as their audience starts to bring in younger users over time. Facebook is better off buying Tinder outright than attempting to roll its own platform. Sorry, as much as I believe in Facebook, some of their in house projects never seem to pan out the way people think, though they do get announced with a lot of fanfare.

I see a good entry point for new investors in MTCH in the coming days. I will be increasing my position. Their growth has been modest and consistent over time. I was of your attitude but the moment I saw a comment on HN explaining their position and how they're not worried I am now reconsidering my bet.

By alternative means, you mean Facebook Account Kit A way to get young people to use FB more? I know they literally know who's best for a user based on the ton of data we feed, but I'm wondering the privacy conscious folks would be hesitant to create a dating profile on FB. Would people who avoid facebook because of privacy concerns use any dating sites at all? I guess there must be some who recently deletedfacebook, but somehow I perceive that more as a fashion statement than as actual privacy concerns.

What will certainly give facebook a hard time in that market is the rule of isolation that people with moderate privacy concerns instinctively apply: For similar reasons I would not want to use a social network or a search engine operated by my desktop OS supplier quitting this argument right here , before I convince myself to defect to iphone - guess I'm a bit inconsequential after all.

Lionsion 8 months ago. The privacy problem with Facebook is its size and the amount of personal data it integrates. If you're privacy conscious, using a stand-alone dating site is fine because the data is more siloed. It's also more practical to setup a burner identity on a special-purpose site than on a one that tries to be your online identity and social graph.

I never used tinder, but I thought about it. Part of that plan was to create a burner FB profile for it. And The business model. A dating site you might pay for while you use it - there's no way to "pay" for Facebook in way that aligns fb's priorities to coincide with yours. This is also a big problem with Google, although they have some experiments were they appear to be breaking even.

That's what I'm genuinely wondering about: I interpreted the comment as: Digit-Al 8 months ago. Unlikely, but that's not really the point. Current dating sites can't predict "chemistry" either. What people are suggesting Facebook will be able to do better is work out who you are "compatible" with, it's then up to you to decide if there is any chemistry or not. Is no one going to point out that Facebook is still in the center of a public panic over privacy?

Are you sure the public is going to want FB of all entities to host and run a dating service? I don't get how everyone is so bullish here. I think if anything Mark should have waited a couple of months. Not trying to be needlessly negative, I'm just surprised by the reaction here. People getting married later, and having fewer kids. Western Countries facing declining population in next 25 years. Existential threat to their growth at all costs model. If anything, Facebook is late in launching this. I'm curious why they didn't buy Tinder and get into the game earlier.

Maybe they did and figured they'd much rather build it in-house than spend a fortune buying Tinder or something simiar—like they did with Snap. You can't be late to it. There will be people being born looking to find SOs so long as the human race exists. Facebook knows us better than anyone else [1] However, this means that Facebook may know better than anyone who I would be best to date. I'm excited to see where this goes, and a little terrified.

Hackernews dating

Darn it, I'll have to reactivate Facebook. Almost every dating site requires a Facebook login for authentication too, they will be hit hard depending on how well Facebook makes this. I'm very cynical about Facebook, but just like their blue collar job listings, this has serious potential if done right. I cant wait for the facebook breakups feature next year. More seriously, it is interesting how much power facebook has in setting social norms and this will give it significantly more. They will be able to export american dating habits worldwide.

It already exists and you can 'take a break' from seeing other users' posts in your feed for up to 30 days, initially. This is a great way for facebook to get more information about their users. You really have to admire Zuck for his leadership. He might be a cyborg, but he's a damn good one.


  1. online kundli matchmaking in hindi free.
  2. .
  3. .
  4. Facebook is launching a dating feature | Hacker News;
  5. dating washburn guitars;
  6. cs go matchmaking chat!

I am glad I am married and in my forties so that I missed all this. On the other hand digital dating makes it easy to meet quite a volume of people. When I feel like it, I can meet a different woman every other night. I wouldn't even know how to do that without it.

The more women I can meet, the less I'm dependent on luck. If I had met a new woman every night, I have no idea how I would have chosen her specifically. And I really have no idea how she would have chosen me if she had met a new man every night. I don't understand what you're saying. If I'm talking to multiple women at a time, there's pretty much one that rises above the rest in terms of chemistry: All I know is what they answer on surveys.

No, especially given that humans are biologically wired to want children. This is just a fact. You may know that you're not having kids, but the vast, vast majority of people don't make that choice. Ofcourse, but he said 'want'. Want to me implies something that is not automatic. Or maybe i'm reading that wrong.

Must be per country because in some countries it must be far lower. Sure it's not automatic, but as you can imagine there's an extreme selective pressure towards wanting children. After all, all the people who didn't want kids, and had a choice about the matter died childless and never passed on their anti-replication genes. He's not obligated to prove anything to you. If you don't believe him you can easily look up the stat yourself. They literally just made up a random number.

I'll source -- http: Wow, I got it right to a percentage point? I didn't realize it was , so maybe it moves teensy bit with IVF past Thanks a lot for the cite. Your spouse is part of the marriage, hence their views within the marriage are pretty paramount. Sleeep on Aug 8, Yen on Aug 8, Even if it's not a foregone conclusion, it's an important topic to discuss before entering a long-term relationship.

If one partner wants children, and is counting on that happening, and the other partner wants to not have children, and is counting on that happening, that's a huge point of relationship friction. So, yeah, it's really important to make sure your potential partner is on the same parenting page as you are, even if especially if that page is "let's not be parents". Unfortunately most people are still stuck in the mindset that everyone who isn't broken inside wants children.

I've never wanted children at any point in my life, but I'm wrong apparently. I don't get this impression at all. My wife are in our early 30s and in a minority among our friends educated coastal folks to be fair in having kids. I'd say in my circle it's not socially acceptable to express that people should have kids.

If anything, the opposite bias exists. I know a lot of people who want kids but try not to express that opinion because it's not "cool. Being a parent literally changes your brain chemically. My dad never said anything about grandkids, but after my daughter was born it was literally two years before he could have a conversation about something other than her. And he's one of those "interesting people" traveled the world working on healthcare programs in the developing world that has interesting things to talk about.

I'm not saying that you'll end up the same, but I didn't want kids until I met my wife. Before I didn't, and suddenly I did. Everyone's different, but the right person can cause quite a bit of change in your life. There's a bit of the tragedy of the commons at work here. Raising kids is expensive, difficult, often thankless work. And yet if no one did it, you wouldn't have any of the nice things that are more-available to people who don't have kids.

Furthermore, given that political attitudes appear to be strongly heritable, it seems like the political attitudes that correlate with the class of people who deliberately don't have kids will also wane. Maybe where you live and who you hang with? Most my friends decided long ago not to have kids as did we. It's not a given anymore. You're not necessarily wrong. It's a matter of whether one has a well-developed dream or talent that isn't child-related. The reason this matters is because we need long-term sources of meaning and responsibility in our lives.

Starting a family is ipso facto the traditional thing to do and our traditions know more about us than we do. Changing course is possible but one ought to have good reasons in mind first. Well so is eating meat everyday or looking at a screen 30cm away most of the day or not dying from an infection or having hot showers Who cares at this point, just live your life, you owe nothing to "evolution".

Evolution is just a methodology, not living entity with desires and goals. If your genes allow you at the age of 20, to look so stunning that you have 10 children before you sadly die from the effort expended to look so swimmingly handsome, then your genes will soon proliferate to every corner of the globe. We'll call that successful 'evolution', even though most people today would be horrified that you only lived 20 years.

I like this view on it. I was just saying that there is some merit to being called "evolutionarily broken" for not wanting children. Whether you think that's good or bad or meaningless is another issue.

Based on Telegram Channel Along with people actually works, and get a live.

If we were completely asocial, independent creatures, then perhaps. But humans - and therefore their genes - have always lived and died in groups, and even a primitive tribe may stand to benefit from having a small amount of individuals unburdened by child-rearing. From the point of view of the gene, what's important is only that some part of the family tree propagates; the number of dead-end branches doesn't matter. Therefore an increase in reproductive drive could easily be deleterious to a particular gene's long-term survival.

I have no knowledge of the role of child-free individuals in our era of evolutionary adaptedness. Well, natural phenomena like having mates and children don't always go according to the plan. But I'm guessing that even those people who don't want children are following the rules of natural selection. Debatable in a world that is also debatable overcrowded and lacking resources. But in general sure; maybe OP has been to a lot of birthdays as have I where people stare at you like you just told you are a serial killer.

While in reality you just don't want kids. That goes away when you go over 40 though. Then some people even start to envy you for your freedom. Generally better not care what other people think. It's a tiring and pointless thing. From that perspective it's also wrong not to want to impregnate other men's wives on the sly and have them raise the kid for you. Marriage, monogamy, and romantic love are conservative notions that are close to being or should be marginalized in my opinion. Romantic love, especially, is an extremely superficial and hollow idea exalted to high heavens by the group-think of the masses.

I gave up religion, and over the years realized that love is the second, way more sneaky and no less damaging, delusion that humanity indulges in. It has to go the way of the religion. No matter how you cut it, no matter how much of an intellectual you are and how much you prefer to connect deeply with a person, in the end, given two individuals, you fall in love with the one that is more visually attractive. And what is visual attraction? In other words why do we find some people more beautiful than others? Because we have a biologically ingrained form of discrimination based on looks.

It's lookism plain and simple. Note that I do not buy the silly notion that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and that 'I don't find that person attractive but I'm sure someone else will'. This is somewhat backed by data e. Humans of all races have a built-in instinct to find some visuals more appealing and attractive than others.

It is sad but true. To take it to an extreme, if we find some visuals disgusting e. What I'm trying to say is that standards of visual attraction, while not physically objective, are largely biology objective, and yet, it's a bad thing, because it's a symptom of biological imperfection. It's a genetic defect in our biology and I personally think social individualism is a concept that needs to gain traction in modern society. It is the 'atheism of love'. No matter how you cut it, no matter how much of an intellectual you are and how much you prefer to connect deeply with a person, in the end, given two individuals, you fall in love with the one that is more visually attractive No, I don't agree with that even a little bit based on my own experience and that of many of my friends.

This comment reads like someone trying to explain to themselves why they are single. Imagine you are not dependent on your current partner in any way. You are financially stable let's say you a multi-millionaire. Either you don't have kids or if you do, somehow they're not dependent on you or something. Now think of your favorite media personalities that you have a crush on, and imagine one of them meets you in person and takes an elevated level of interest in you. If you don't have any celebrity crushes and that there is no one in the world you find more attractive than your current partner, I give up.

If there is, would you be tempted to cheat? If not, I give up. If yes, I rest my case. Mahn on Aug 7, Would I have consensual sex with an attractive celebrity if they took an interest in me? Would I fall in love with an attractive celebrity if they took an interest in me? Well, no, not automatically anyway, I would have to get to know this person first and see how I feel about spending time and do things together.

I'd definitely not dump a person I've known and loved for years over a fling with an attractive celebrity that I don't really know on a personal level. You keep saying that sexual attraction and love are the same thing, but they are not. Would you proclaim that at the time of marriage vows? Would you proclaim that when your recent date asks if it's time to go steady? And the very idea that you have celebrity crushes while you claim you're in love with someone flies in the face of the idea of love. I'm not saying what you think is immoral. All I'm saying is this whole thing is a big make-believe, an arcane circus that we like to play our whole lives, when the alternative is quite simple: You completely missed my point.

This is where you lose me. I think they're trying to define "being in love" as "never having a romantic or sexual thought about anyone else, ever," and proclaiming the concept of love invalid if it can't meet that threshold. My perspective is that falling in love with someone doesn't mean having to replace your current lover.

That's only true in a society that enforces monogamy. My birth culture is plainly polygamous. My grandfather had five wives. My uncle has 4 and a half. My brother has 2. IMHO that should be counted as 6 wives. I was thinking of different scenario: So if we look at it this way - he has 4. Wish a country had both polygamy and polyandry to allow for those situations.

Although the tax code might become a tad complicated. The premise of your experiment of your flawed: I'm sympathetic to your overall perspective that love may not be the universal blessing as it is often perceived but this is rather unconvincing. You should not confuse how most people are, or how you perceive most people to be, and how you perceive yourself to currently be, with how you or other people could be.

I tend to think that if you're still interested in media personalities, people who you don't, at the end of the day, know much about, then you can't really hold high ground on romantic ideas. There are, of course, potentially appropriate and awesome people among media personalities, but there are also plenty of awesome people who are not media personalities, but the reality is, you don't know any of those people, and it's always easy to imagine that a person you know very little about is much better than what you currently have.

This is not something you want to trust. Which is too bad, because I think the discussion on what relationships mean should be opened up more, and I think people can develop much more complex preferences than "attractive, popular, wealthy", they just often think that their instincts cannot be overpowered despite that being the human experience in a nutshell. MarkMc on Aug 8, Most people would be tempted to cheat, but would not actually cheat.

So love must be pretty strong to counter such a large difference in physical appearance. There's no doubt that physical attraction plays a strong - perhaps dominant - role in determining who we pair up with.

What Happens When Hacker From Anonymous Meets FBI Agent In Interview...

But after initial pairing most people develop a deep emotional bond that counteracts the desire to switch partners when someone more attractive comes along. There are plenty of people whom I find less attractive than my current partner that I'd happily sleep with. Of course, I would first ask permission to do so That's like asking "would you be tempted to steal if someone doesn't want to sell something to you? We fall in love with the person that brings happiness and joy to our life by merely spending time together, not necessarily the one we want to ram our genitals into.

Most people pursue partners based on sexual urges, sure. But falling in love is a whole other game, and they don't go hand in hand. I love my sister, mother, a few of my best male friends, and my wife. Love doesn't equate wanting to have sex with someone. Most humans happen to enjoy sex so given the proposition of commiting to a single person sexual attraction hence visual attraction becomes an important factor.

If you need to spend time with someone in order to have happiness and joy in your life, you have a problem to solve before you even think about love and dating. Many people do have a need to be loved, you can't argue it away. Most people have plenty of issues growing up, like low self-esteem, need for validation, etc. A combination of training, therapy, meditation, sense-of-purpose, etc can work wonders. One such issue is nihilism, the kind you're showing here. Growing out of it often makes people happier, unlike growing out of love.

How about you worry about yourself and stop diagnosing people that choose to be with another person? No one said anything about "needing. RangerScience on Aug 7, I appreciate you sharing, but you need to realize that your own, internal experience is guaranteed to be unique to you.

This is far from the first time. It is actually a distinct feeling that I quite enjoy, and it's very different from the "acquired taste" feeling from, say, whiskeys. In other words, although I have no idea how many people share this experience, I have a direct, personal experience of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I have also noticed this. When I was younger, I had crushes at any time. But today I find beauty in a lot of different people. Maybe it's maturity, maybe it's the 'clock' in my male brain urging me to find someone, anyone, but like you I do enjoy this change.

Maybe one day when I've fully progressed from the binary rating of beauty to the continuous rating I will continue on to the unary rating: RangerScience on Aug 9, What you describe is the mindset of a 17 year old who never was in a relationship that lasted more than 2 weeks. Yeah, when I was that age I was only going for the looks too.

Now, 15 years and 3 long term relationships later I am looking for something else: Looks are now pretty low on my priority list, I've had enough sex that I know it's not everything. I'd say you appear to be already over the idea of love and are more concerned with practical aspects of your current and future life. That leaves us with the institution of marriage. Maybe one or two of those friends live next door so there's no chance of loneliness. Not to mention social media, entertainment industry, the list goes on.

Do you really think the concept of marriage and monogamy remains as valid as it has been through history? The validity of a lot of what I'm saying is tied to, not in any arbitrary time in history, but the current state of technology and human progress we're witnessing right in front of our eyes. I'm a big believer of medical progress and the need for healthful longevity. If, in the next few decades, a person is able to live the life of a healthy 25 year old for or years, would that person be even interested in having children?

I believe we're headed towards drastic sociocultural change and the thinking of current populace, no matter how educated, is lagging behind substantially. Not to say people will reject it outright. You have the right to choose love and marriage and monogamy. But it's becoming more of a choice than a practical necessity. Fortunately for those who are generally considered unattractive you are correct for most people most of the time but 'the race is not always won by the swift'. As I try to impress on particularly lonely young people - the best way to win over a stranger is to make them feel your fire, and that fire - that one of the things you are deeply passionate about - might be music it might be dancing it might be poetry it might be mountain climbing it mostly doesn't matter.

Because in romance and sex enthusiasm trumps appearances and with time a person you like more and more starts to appear more and more attractive. If you are introverted it will take more time and more luck but it you can eventually share your excitement with someone there is a good chance they will find you exciting.

And if you have imagination and persistence it can last a lifetime. Actually, men used to like it when women were fat about two centuries ago. Nowadays, it's completely reverse: This wouldn't happen if attraction to beauty was mostly subject to biology. You know that biological structure doesn't change so fast in less than years, right? Also, you seem to underestimate how much humans are driven by their emotions and sense of loyalty to someone else.

How would you explain the affection between people who fall in love with the disabled? DonaldFisk on Aug 8, I don't have any data on weight or body fat, but there's plenty of research into attractiveness of women with various waist-hip ratios and yes, it has dropped steadily from around 0. However, does even a WHR of 0. Surely you have some irrational beliefs that make you happy and make your life worth living. For example, since you got up this morning, it's evident that you feel living is worthwhile when in fact all evidence points to the fact that death is final and life is meaningless.

It seems pretty silly for you to listen to your lizard brain telling you to try to stay alive each day. You get hungry and your brain tells you to eat, and lo and behold you eat food and survive. Anything other than pure nihilism is a conservative notion should be marginalized. See what I did there? Those who live glass houses should not throw stones. Physical attractiveness standards are nowhere near as specifically biologically determined as the reaction to "slimy spilled guts. And "I don't find that person attractive but I'm sure someone else will" clearly can apply for cases like hair color preference.

I believe there has been research showing more universal preferences for, for example, bilateral symmetry - but the specifics vary by culture and individual. You've painted love in this way, and it may be true for the majority of us. But there will always be exceptions in a million other forms. I know ugly people who are utterly charming, either sweet or swaggery and others fall for them all the time. I also know beautiful people who are foul-mannered, and their relationships never last.

And then all the others in between these two extremes. The good-looking one who had stinky pits like the rest of us after an all-nighter. The average-looking one with a wicked sense of humour, only after 3 conversations though. The dummy-looking one who actually has a strength so niche it's effing admirable.

The chatterbox, the joker, the quietly brilliant Oh and let's not forget the time factor; personalities change, experience builds up et cetra. See, that's how you get over this "biological defect. No idea what social individualism is but the way I see is this: Nurture yourself to be the person you think you are, and open yourself to interactions. Invest in the relationships once you get them. Be empathical, even if you 'lose'. If everyone does this, we're on track to a happier, more loving society.

Bear in mind that everybody loves something , even if it's just beer, or ice cream, or criticizing other people. Btw, this Roald Dahl extract from 'The Twits' is relevant to visual attraction: AnimalMuppet on Aug 7, It's her heart and mind that I fell in love with. The most hacker-news comment ever. This is almost nihilistic. Eduardo3rd on Aug 7, I very much enjoyed Part 2 of this article. It puts forward a much more complete framework for success than part one, which mostly just talks about the flaws in many standard approaches.

The notion that you are going to find the perfect person for the rest of your life at any given moment in time is ridiculous - you are going to change, they are going to change, your relationship is going to change both of you. The sense of friendship, being at home with one another, and the mindset that a marriage takes work have all been instrumental in my own marriage so far. My wife and I met in our early 20s. The things we wanted out of life - both individually and as a couple - have changed significantly over the past decade.

It is likely that if either of us had known where we would end up we might not have chosen our past selves to be together with our future selves. However, we've been a part of every individual and collective change and have worked to build a strong relationship through the changes.

There is something amazing about walking through adulthood together and staying committed through all of the ups and downs. Sounds great if you have lots of options. Some of us are getting older and haven't made it past anyone else's filter. At some point your will to just try and make it work regardless of the match. The only place I think that really applies is if you're in a small town. If you can't get past the first few dates after trying with candidates in a big city requiring solicitations , you're probably facing one of a few very solvable problems, off the top of my head: But it's a really tiny percentage of people.

I'm talking you literally make babies cry with your appearance, or you have a history of torturing animals, or something like that. Most people have just a couple of actual dealbreaking items on their filter, so out of 20 candidates there should be one or two whose filters are on things you accidentally do right. And I'm not saying those four things I listed above are quick to solve. It might take 2 years of daily effort. I'm just saying they're easy to solve: Anyone who can bake a cake can do the steps necessary to solve them.

PrefixKitten on Aug 8, I've been in Cleveland 2 years and I have only went on dates with 2 people. At my most recent workplace there was only ever one woman around my age. We went to lunch together and talked a ton so I think she liked me but I didn't want to date a coworker at the time. Other than her though, dating through work is apparently not an option. So based on all that I don't understand how it's so commonplace for people to go on dates.

My whole life I've always just dated the first person that liked me, usually with years between girlfriends. Luckily they have all turned out to be great people but that's not something I can count on.