Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Sunday, May 26, 2024 - 23:07 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

Causal Not Casual

To follow up on the last (couple of) post(s), "causality" had been remarked to be kind of airy-fairy and abstract by off-blog commentators, to which I must clarify that everybody uses it. Take for example the scenario of there being an uncovered manhole in the middle of the sidewalk, possibly due to some distracted construction workers. Just about any sighted fellow strolling down the sidewalk, then, would take care to shift to the side of the manhole while passing by it. If asked why, and not by a child, he might well be confused or even insulted - this is just common sense, does it warrant a serious explanation?! A kinder soul might work through it in more detail: if he stepped onto the open manhole, there would be no support for his feet; he would then fall into the sewer below, and likely be seriously injured and/or incur a hefty laundry bill, depending on the conditions within the drain (water level, depth etc.)

But, if one thinks about this, this is merely causality! The fellow had a mental model of how physics works, and another model involving the simulation of the (near-term) future, assuming that he had walked straight ahead (as he and most others would have done, had there been no open manhole). Perhaps the application was automatic and unconscious, but the basic nature remains nonetheless. Extensions of this scenario involving more and more specialized context can easily be imagined - let us say that someone is loitering further down the sidewalk. Does our fellow continue past him, or cross the street to avoid an encounter? Then let us say that our fellow has a destination ten blocks down, with dark clouds gathering - does he turn back to get his umbrella? So on and so forth.


There exists a strict order of precedence in street cred


Causality as applied to "highfalutin" topics such as finance and geopolitics, as raised in the previous post, is then essentially exactly the same concept. There is a mental model, facts and suppositions of various confidence levels within the model, connections and implications between all those datapoints (again probably probabilistic), and hypotheses simulated based on various combinations and assumptions on the above. Sure the facts may be more obscure or uncertain, the connections less obvious or outright obfuscated, the scale larger and the structure (including feedback loops) more complicated and dynamic, but this is a distinction of degree and not type.

The measure of accuracy in one's mental model(s), then, is how well their projections fit eventual reality - which is basically falsifiability in scientific experiments. Of course, given the messy state of reality, care has to be taken when interpreting the outcomes - there could plausibly have been additional unknown factors producing the results, or we might just have been lucky - but aggregate results should be instructive, barring a change in paradigm (e.g. Newtonian physics at the velocities more relevant to regular human life, towards lightspeed). Or taking chess as an example, an expert might look at an ongoing game with apparently equal material and position and pronounce that one side will win in five moves (barring blunders), while a regular (clever but untrained) observer might (wrongly) suppose the match being undecided. In this case, then, one might accept that the expert's model of the game is superior.

Which brings us to the point: the understanding of causality is a skill that most everyone already has to an extent, and like many skills, it can (consciously) be improved upon (particularly via the continual seeking, updating and validation of one's beliefs, from Superforecasting). This also entails the importance of maintaining the integrity of one's mental model. Say that, to please an acquaintance, one adjusts the actual best-effort estimate of datapoint A; then, to fit in with group opinion, shifts connection B; next, affected by propaganda, neglects to attempt an entire class of valid hypotheses, etc. It is easy to see how the whole model can swiftly get irrepairably skewed. Perhaps some are skilled enough to clone or fork various models, to satisfy different audiences as needed. Alas, I am not.

Admittedly, for certain domains (including economics and finance), social engineering is indeed a valid factor affecting the outcomes. For others such as the harder sciences, it should not be so. In any case, to the query on why try to understand causality, one can only answer: so it has come to this?


Like a movie scene... only it's Teletubbies on repeat
[N.B. Helps to spoil movie lines too, as in "I know a place" from Fast X, though in the form of "I know just the place", which feels better to me.]


A focus on causality does have some potential tradeoffs: firstly, there's the sense of "not being fully in the present", probably picked up - and sometimes not appreciated - by other people. This is due to there always being a little bit of the self trying to "get ahead" to the future, no offense intended to anyone. Secondly, there tends to be a certain degree of fatalism, since a developed mental model of what is to come, naturally perceives (oft accurate) limits on how much can, and is likely to be, changed via (collective or individual) effort, especially for larger-scale events (e.g. psychohistory). Now, this is not necessarily bad, since a good prediction can prevent wasted effort, and allow effort to be channeled towards more-productive avenues.


Serious Search, Continued

"...Turn aside from the hunt, my liege, just for a season."

"We made a promise, brother." he says.

"You think the others will keep theirs?"

"What does that matter to me?"

- lessons from Lion El'Jonson, relatable autist


While we're on new skills, here's continuing the series on dating from the end of last month, on which I had a long and much-appreciated discussion with my (married) cousin over the weekend (also, Manchester is Red again!), which also involved the hilarious setting up of a profile for Leonardo DiCaprio (hey, it's entirely plausible that he's on there given his turnover rate). But before continuing, some hard data from Bumble, which for some reason took an explicit request to retrieve, instead of being available in real-time as surely would be possible:

YesNo%
Outgoing557425411.6%
Incoming213375.9%
Matches17 (total, report listed only active)

So it seems that my prior estimate of a 5% right-swipe rate was off, it being 11.6% instead, which might be attributed to being a little more flexible to begin with, and perhaps not being as strict on the "my type" bar overall (i.e. about 6% definitely qualify, with the remaining 6% on the threshold; it's not rare that for a given profile, some of the photos would qualify, while others not). In return for my close to 5,000 swipes, I received 358 of which 21 (or some 6%) were positive - which was probably not too bad, given the deliberately no-frills target-oriented bio designed to scare off casuals.

Encouragingly, 17 of those 21 were matches (i.e. mutual right-swipes), which appears to suggest that I do indeed disproportionately attract "my type"*, if assuming that the distribution of incoming swipes followed the general population; of course, if Bumble's algo displayed my profile more often to those that I had preselected, or if the stats include swiping from within the "liked you" tab for paid users in that group, this would not fully apply. Given this, my current assessment is that my standards are reasonable, especially since the raw volume of matches ultimately means nothing: dozens, hundreds or thousands, all that is wanted is that special one, after all!


Hullo? You called?
(Source: youtube.com)


[*In the extreme case, it is possible to have an otherworldly 50% right-swipe rate for both outgoing and incoming swipes, only to end up with zero matches due to those having no overlaps.]


"The One" & The Tragedy Of Numbers

All the trouble in this aspect of my life thus far, upon reflection, has been down to an insistence on 1) there being a fated match, and 2) that match being able to be fulfilled, through sufficient application of effort. While that second point/facet of my character (i.e. plain stubbornness) has driven me through plenty of obstacles, it doesn't seem suited to personal relationships. As concurred by my consultant-cousin (and others/online), dating is fundamentally a numbers game, for several reasons:

  1. Once the field is narrowed down to plausible candidates (i.e. passes the type and demographics test), each of them has an approximately equal chance of being a (great) fit; thus, first-dating/getting to know 100 ladies would give 100x the chances of discovering that match, compared to a single date/preliminary courtship

  2. Dating is, too, a skill. As such, the mere act of continually chatting up the ladies should improve one's ability to communicate with, and understanding of, that group - which then helps eventual success

  3. Dating also provides experience of what the fairer gender are actually like, especially after the first few meetups when everyone's still on guard. Perhaps the Instagram goddesses flaunting trips to exotic locales, do actually flop about at home in pajamas most weekends too (going on a trip with someone reveals a lot of their true personality, according to dear cousin)?

  4. Dating volume fosters an abundance mindset, or in other words, there are plenty of fish in the sea. This reduces desperation, supposedly a common attraction-killer

  5. Dating - or at least one's first partner - leads to (some) social proof, i.e. that the guy has already been vetted and approved by at least one female (competitor). I suppose this makes sense - many people wouldn't pick up a thousand-dollar bill lying in the street, less out of pure morals but more due to it being "too good to be true", i.e. if the bill were real and there's no catch, someone else would have claimed it already.

    Also, while it might not be polite to state, girls often just want what other girls have/desire (also applicable to handbags/accessories/shoes etc., or by cousin: 犯贱); this has been demonstrated by social experiments in which a run-of-the-mill guy got transformed into a (fake) rock star through a makeover and provision of an entourage, and suddenly started pulling chicks who would not have given him the time of day previously

Rationally speaking, I can't really refute the above points in terms of their efficacy in achieving the desired outcome (i.e. a [long-term] relationship/marriage). As such, any objections would be on personal principles only.

On the general concept of volume in dating, the ability to pursue that has been enabled and encouraged by modern-day dating apps, particularly for the ladies. I mean, it's really true - there's definitely somebody else out there, and not only that, very likely somebody better (i.e. paradox of choice). The apps are basically a human gacha game: why not come online and try your free spins every day, until you, yes you, get the hot five-star-rated Ivy-League educated banker and part-time model that you deserve (I'm not kidding, they share a lot of game mechanics, right down to paying for more spins/unlimited swipes)?

The dark side of this is then that it makes it difficult to commit (which suits the paid subscription plans of the app companies just fine) - why bother with compromise and working issues and disagreements out, when one can just press a button and have a new, potentially perfect mate served up on a platter (N.B. this probably applies more to the ladies)? Sure, the current option's not bad at all, but maybe the next one is everything he is, but five years younger? Or three inches taller? Or has a nicer apartment? Better dress sense? It never ends...


Wise black guy spitting truths, sort of


On further reflection, the major part of my reluctance to simply go full tilt and line up a date for every evening - technically, it's very doable - is rejection. Oh, not them rejecting me; it's not great, but I figure I'll live. It's when I have got to pull the lever when there's interest at the other end, that hurts. And, one supposes this only gets worse the longer the process goes on. Let's say that one actually racks up a hundred first dates with the same discipline as a fitness programme, and comes away with five mutual matches that turn into short-term tryouts (I don't think a 5% conversion rate counts as boasting here). Obviously, four of them will eventually have to be cut loose, which would be a real bummer.

The alternative is to do it serially - start from the top of the list, pursue until clear success or failure, then move on to the next candidate. The problem is the excruciatingly slow pace, all the more given mixed signals (possibly some sort of test of interest, on which more next time). The advice given has tended to be that they are very likely multiple-dating too, if not otherwise stated, so this becomes a matter of personal ethics and preferences. I guess stating it upfront should be fair enough?



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Serious Search, Concluding


Related Posts:
In Search
National Day Special
Excuse Me, Are You A Model?
Yo Bro
Take A Seat Long Read
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.