All I can say is that my experience has been different. I have met “extraordinarily” attractive women in my life. And while I wouldn’t use the cheese grater metaphor, I understand the feeling.
Alexei
Karma: 3,476
If you end up finding that all of the dates you end up having are bad then you can consider the possibility that maybe your filtering isn’t good. But until then it’s likely fine.
Or you can literally flip a coin for each person to avoid bias.
Pretty simple:
Just drop half (or more) of all candidates based on whatever criteria you want, even if it’s just intuition / feeling.
Schedule a 15 minute call (tell them explicitly it’ll be 15 minutes so it’s easy to end it) before commiting to meeting in person. Use the information from the call to drop even more candidates.
If there are still too many candidates you can repeat step 1, but this time top-down. Say you want 2 dates this month, so you take your top 2 candidates and reach out to them. Rinse and repeat until you get 2 dates.
So why would the ancient Atlanteans program magic to be responsive to phrases that would not exist for several thousand years in their future?
My guess is that they saw into the future, or at least some parts of the future. Maybe directly, maybe via prophecies. So their language (or the language they designed for spells) actually pulls on all the languages that existed and will exist on the planet.
Wow…..
I think I might have this. Will test immediately.
This needs to be a top level post.
Strongly agree. Exact same experience in research, but in finance / quant trading.
If you would like to increase engagement with your posts, I’d highly recommend not posting all of them at once, especially because they’re long. Post the first one, see how people respond. Then adjust and post the second one next week.
It’s much easier for me not to say anything, but my model of Duncan would prefer for me to comment.
Overall strong upvote from me, but I’m not doing it because: what is up with the section about Zack Davis?? I’m not disputing the veracity here, because I don’t know. But it just doesn’t feel at all necessary or even useful to have it in this post. Just comes across as kind of petty. Kind if like writing The Inferno just so you can categorize and viscerally describe your enemies in hell.
I looked at your post:
I don’t think I ever saw it on the front page. If I did, I don’t think the title would have made it seem worth reading.
Reading the first few paragraphs: I’m not sure who this post is for, what problem is it addressing or why should I care in general. It’s referencing some specific chapter out of a book I never heard of.
It seems like a long post, so I just skip reading it.
I hope the suggestions are easy to derive from the above points.The writing is not amazing but I didn’t get LLM vibes.
I’d recommend Primer over this.
How do I opt into the LessWrong Watercolor Aesthetic?
Object for the stated reason.
I have a personal rule that I tell people when they start bringing this energy into my life: “I’m happy to listen to you for 5 minutes a day on this topic. After that I’m out.”
I’m interested! But I live in Portugal, so it would need to be remote.
The former. I think you can just explain the blinds without explaining the entire poker game.
I like the idea and would consider doing something like that in the future. Thanks! FWIW, I found the explanation of poker completely extraneous to the main point.
Vernor suggested a principle: The bad beings nearly always optimize for engagement, for pulling you ever deeper into their influence. They want to make themselves more firmly a part of your OODA loop. The good ones send you out, away from themselves in an open ended way, but better than before.
That is profound!
Oh, I should clarify that we won’t be doing Circling. We’ll just be talking.
That’s a great question. I think there is a high degree of consistency. The variable that changes the most is how age is factored into the attractiveness.