So the biggest change was to make wayyy simpler questions. I'm like... mad at myself for not noticing that earlier. But also like, if someone ghosts you have no idea why, so...
At least we know reductionism is a good philosophy. Occams razor: because it works.
Update on day 3 - I altered the treatment variable on advice from a colleague. In the treatment case I only write messages that can be responded to in 5 seconds. Steer the conversation to something vaguely praiseworthy about the other person. Reward them for the statement. Try to repeat that a couple times
For the control group I just use my old tinder convos, that's easier.
So far the results show massive increases in response rates. I'm stunned.
Yeah I observed that as well. Why have a rationalist community if you accept motivated reasoning or have an ideological standard. Like being woke is still an ideology. You did not become woke by evaluating every assumption your ideology supports and finding all of them true. So why use that to write answers at the bottom of the page. Whatever, Dagon is right.
This does update me toward thinking rationality has many many failure modes which are hard to avoid. Tsuyoku Naratai is important. Having external goals to our rationalism is important.
Even in the deepest darkness, there are warriors for truth.
Forecast- Conditional on the results being conclusive - 2:1 odds in favor of Aloof Alfie
Preregister a Tinder Randomized Control Tiral:
In a previous post I suggested that early in a relationship hetero women prefer men who show only slight interest. I argued the optimal early dating strategy is to show only as much interest as she does and cultivate a state of "Is he into me or does he just want to be friends". This RCT is intended to test the theoretical issue, and advise future Tinder and Bumble policy specifically.
I will randomly select Tinder/Bumble matches to receive disinterested, low-energy messages and the rest will receive control messages. Matches will be split by flipping a coin. My swiping will continue as normal, as the algorithm is weird about it. The target sample size is 20.
The control group will receive my usual messages (Todd's). They begin with a comment on a mutual interest or interesting fact about the person from their profile. If I see nothing interesting on their profile, I will introduce a topic I would like to talk about. Average message length is 3-5 lines, and double messages are common. Control group will occassionally receive emogis and exclamation points as an expression of interest. This is my regular texting style. After 6-7 messages I will invite the person to a coffee date. Ghosters will receive a second, in-character message on an unrelated topic after 48 hours.
I altered the treatment variable on advice from a colleague.
Removed all standardization of response time
Control and treatment will be compared on the following four variables: number of first responses, number of total responses, number of coffeedates, and number of ghostings.
Edited because I changed the treatment on advice from a colleague.
Seeing if I understand. If Christiano is right about the pandemic we will see continued panic and lockdowns leading to high savings. High savings decrease the cost of fincap => stonks go up. So until we observe increased consumption (barring other crazy shit) we can expect continued high stock prices. So lockdowns continuing suggests a higher future SPY, lower.
I personally am investing in the long term (I'm young), so I am cool with risk. I do not want to buy into the SPY right now because it is so high. I'm considering buying stocks that have been hit hard in the short term but with have higher longterm expected value.
Being (more) conventionally attractive has advantages. Being known to focus on physical attractiveness has disadvantages. And most importantly, attractiveness is different for different evaluators. It's quite likely that even if a change is judged as an improvement by your average contact, it can be significantly negative to some important people (your family, close friends who liked you how you were, people you have yet to meet who just prefer natural looks).
That is a good point. Past friends and family might actually judge quite harshly. My mom would get it, but otherwise... One quibble, it is hard to notice a nosejob for a new person. Unlike lip injections or whatever, it should look like you were born with a straighter nose. All the other alterations have too many downsides to consider.
You're not looking for a number or a final result from that, you're looking for general attitudes and specific reaction to your options.
Also skewed, but once you recognize that you don't want averages, but distributions of attitude across groups, that's not too harmful to your choice.
That is true as well. I have been using tinder matches for advice on fashion choices.
You can also collect some evidence by investing smaller amounts of time/money and seeing if that has any noticeable effect - which may be valuable on their own as well. Pay for a really nice haircut, and hire a personal shopper or consultant for a wardrobe upgrade.
Very very true. I have already begun buying an all new wardrobe. Any nosejob should wait until trying out the really good cost/benefit propositions.
Good point. It would be slightly more valuable when moving cities.