I'm very uncomfortable with this piece.

cultural elites (e.g. top university graduates) control almost all major institutions

the most elite groups (like billionaires or jews)

I thought we were done with blaming Jews for controlling almost all major institutions. I understand you are trying to give a two-sided view of things, but this paragraph comes across as propagating old libels that should have been laid to rest by now.

If you want a specific example of why this portrayal of Jews as elites is problematic and painting a false picture of reality, there are no poor powerless billionaires. There are plenty of poor powerless Jews.

I think there was a misunderstanding, I was asking about the positive effect of former soviet union  educated immigrants inside Israel, meaning compared to other jewish (most of them Ashkenazi) Israelis. The question of innate IQ is less relevant here.

It was only an example though -- what I'm trying to understand is does Caplan discuss the effects of better and worse education systems, or does he mainly argue that all of them are over-budgeted? 

I love this portrayal of these ideas through dialogue, great job. 

Piggybacking the dialogue, I have a question about Caplan's theories, as I am not familiar with them:

In Israel, it is considered well-known that the immigration waves from the former soviet union brought about a highly skilled and educated (especially in STEM) population, who's effects on the Israeli industry are positive regardless of the specific job they chose. How does Caplan account for the tangible differences in outcomes between various education systems?

The quote is not countering the arguments.

The combined utility function implies the parties are a single unit finding the best approach to fill the preferences of all parties involved. The arguments above point that some relationship seekers don't see themselves as a single unit with their partner, and seeing themselves as such will be harmful for their own preferences, e.g., a short-term relationship or a non-negotiable belief system.

The concept of selfless relationships can definitely work and is useful for some, but the post makes a few assumptions that make it seem like this mindset towards dating and relationships is useful for more people than it is:

1. Not all relationship seekers seek a relationship to last forever. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who want to share interests with someone for a short- or medium-term e.g., a summer fling or a winter cuddle partner.
2. Not all relationship seekers have a stronger preference to stay in the same relationship than to achieve some other personal preference. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who would always place a certain preference in their innermost circle of concerns above their partners, e.g., a contradictory religious or ethical belief or a demanding career.

This leaves only people who want to stay in the same relationship forever, and who want to find a partner with whom they will stay forever regardless of future conflicts of interests. There are certainly people who seek that kind of a relationship, but for people who seek other kinds, this definition of selfless relationship is detrimental to them and their partners.