← back
notes on dating (with hannah)
16nov2025 - 12AM EST - 285 Bedford Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11211
modern dating * actions * summary by claude * actions by claude
modern dating
- who do i know vs. who am i going to meet
- vague goals and rules about ideal partner (no actual criteria to select)
- even if superficial imagine 3-4 critical things you want that are criteria for dating someone (hannah's exercise that christian liked)
- opposed to dating vaguely and goal posts shifting
- leading to not taking people seriously
- leading to opting out of relationships when it starts to get difficult
- look at track record
- even if you have (in your mind) tried to date in earnest there are likely blindspots
- if you have been unable to find a serious relationship YOU are the common denominator
- this is good, there is opportunity to control this (more easily than controlling others)
- are you not able to describe your dating patterns
- do you believe it is always the other person
- if it is the other person, why are you dating people with similar attributes
- if it is not the other person, what are you doing wrong
- regardless of the outcome there is something you change/learn from
- think about the people you date and the common issues you have run into
- how are you part of the problem
- other notes:
- men not having to work hard, for what they want
- access to girls giving them 'girlfriend privileges' without commitment
- sex/types of quality time/types of emotional connection/types of physical intimacy or gift giving
- is this appropriate? are you ok with settling this way?
- often people talk about not wanting to 'settle' for a partner, but you end up settling for something shitty still (so YOU are still SETTLING, just not for something long term?)
- corelated to empowerment of women, being able to have opp's for sex and physical intimacy, low stakes
- this is nice in theory but in reality it is just game theory for a lot of men and women
- want to feel like you are 'winning' if you don't feel this way you may not be able to opt into a relationship easily
- in a lot of traditionally relationships (and in life generally)
- you have to commit to things long term to see results
- you do not get to do anything difficult or get a reward without having longer time horizons
- again related to settling for 'situationships' + 'fwb' (fear of vulnerability/easy sense of self esteem, convivence of having sex/frivolous relationships you are still settling for something even worse)
- online dating
- dating in a vacuum where there is
- 0 context for the other person
- immediately turns into a romantic relationship (unnatural)
- argue against that is often ideas of love at first sight
- airport crush/cute person at bar
- in reality these things still have a lot of context, there are more human heuristics to this
- the vacuum created gives your heuristics that may not signal well in reality
- signals for what you have already experienced or what is familiar will be picked up on
- easy to date in the same PATTERN (imagine driving down a highway vs. driving through an old dense forest with no existing roads, your neural pathways are like this for all things)
- subconscious feelings and decisions might guide you/lie to you
- vs. signals that are actually good
- again important to define what you actually want
- what are useful heuristics
- dunbar number
- average person can only maintain 150 meaningful relationships
- humans are context based even past small numbers
- seeing someone out of their context and they are unrecognizable briefly although familiar
- seeing a stranger in a familiar context, and you mistake them for someone you know
- related to analysis paralysis
- go to store there are 150 hot sauces
- probably pick the ones you are familiar with
- if not, then ones with similar heuristics - label, color, shape, ingredients
- there may be one that exists that would suit you even better, but you would never try it
- if you were in a situation where you only new 100 people
- you would certainly be able to pick out who you would want to marry
- unlimited number of potential spouses (each imbibed with your imagination having better and better attributes) there will never be enough
- are fears of settling 'anxiety/inadequacy/status climbing'
- or fears of intimacy 'self worth, fear of judgement, fear of failure, fear or rejection:'
- etc. stopping you?
- do you repeat patterns with out knowing? do you repeat patterns while aware?
- easy to get in your own way (by setting fake rules or goals) that will stop you from being at ease with yourself
- analogy (christians's analogy that Hannah liked)
- modern dating (especially with app use)
- hinge/dating apps = uber eats a boyfriend
- easy to extrapolate on (use ur brain)
- expedient, convenient, soulless, instant gratification etc.
- transactional mindset
- removal of serendipity (even though you might mistake nervousness/physical attraction for this)
- optimization for convenience disguised as quality
- CONSUMER MENTALITY
- social media generally (hinge but any other form)
- performance
- downloading a personality
- mimetic desire
- comparison traps (mine vs. theres, fake metrics not based on KNOWING)
- who do i know vs. who will i meet
- WHO AM I BECOMING? WHO WILL I BECOME
- WHO WILL MY PARTNER BECOME??
- select for 'trajectory values' vs. current state
- instant chemistry, immediate attraction (social media/love at first sight)
- romantic/feels good
- has this worked for you historically?
- is this just someone being sexy (not funny... this is dangerous)
- sexy people can do mind control, you can be less aware of yourself
- you can become desperate
- you may think you have a deep connection with them but they are just fucking with your chemicals by being so sexy
- mistake hormonal responses for "deep connection"
- less self-aware
- has intense physical chemistry actually predicted good relationships for you?
- or has it predicted chaos, red flags you ignored, relationships that burned
- does this help you select for long term partner (remember not negotiable attributes)
- concrete vs. abstract criteria
- balance of too vague and to particular
- be like water
actions
- make a list of 4 attributes (better if non negotiables) that you want in a partner (does not matter if superficial or intentional) - these in theory should be criteria that you date based on
- examine relationships you have been in and notice if there are common patterns to how they end
- examine relationships you have been on and notice if there are common patterns to how they began
- think about your relationships with your needs vs. how people (peers/family etc.) will perceive you
summary by claude (tldr):
Core Themes
1. Self as the primary variable
- The individual is the common denominator in their dating patterns
- Blindspots, pattern repetition, and externalizing blame are obstacles to change
- Track record reveals more than intentions or stated preferences
- Control over one's own patterns is the most actionable lever available
2. Abundance paradox and decision paralysis
- Unlimited options prevent commitment rather than enabling better choices
- The Dunbar number constraint: humans default to familiar heuristics when overwhelmed
- Dating apps function like Uber Eats—transactional, convenient, optimized for ease over compatibility
- Infinite imagined alternatives make any real person seem insufficient
3. Signal corruption in modern dating environments
- Context collapse: Online dating strips natural social heuristics, creating vacuum where familiar patterns dominate (neural highways vs. forging new paths)
- Chemical hijacking: Intense physical attraction overrides judgment—hormonal responses misread as compatibility, reduced self-awareness, ignored red flags
- Performative identity: Social media encourages downloaded personalities and comparison based on appearance rather than actual knowing
- False immediacy: Instant chemistry and love-at-first-sight narratives feel compelling but rarely predict long-term success
4. The settling paradox
- Refusing to "settle" for commitment while settling for situationships/FWB—still settling, just for something worse
- Girlfriend privileges without commitment as game theory problem
- Need to feel like "winning" prevents genuine opt-in to relationships
- Fear of vulnerability masquerading as having standards
5. Time horizons and developmental thinking
- Meaningful outcomes require long-term commitment and tolerance for difficulty
- Modern dating culture optimizes for short-term comfort over long-term compatibility
- Critical shift: from "who do I know/will I meet" to "who am I/will I become" and "who will my partner become"
- Selection should prioritize trajectory and values over current state
6. Obstacles disguised as preferences
- Vague criteria and shifting goalposts enable non-commitment
- Fake rules and goals prevent ease with oneself
- Distinction between legitimate standards and anxiety/fear of intimacy/status concerns
- Need for concrete but flexible criteria—substance without rigidity
The mechanism: Without self-examination and clear criteria, people repeatedly select for familiarity, mistake chemistry for compatibility, and optimize for convenience over connection.
actions by claude:
Self-examination:
- List 4 non-negotiable attributes wanted in a partner (concrete criteria for selection, superficial or intentional)
- Map patterns in how past relationships began (what attracted you, what felt like "chemistry")
- Map patterns in how past relationships ended (common conflicts, reasons for leaving)
- Identify which needs are genuinely yours vs. what peers/family would approve of
Signal verification:
- When experiencing intense attraction, pause and ask: "Has this type of chemistry predicted good outcomes historically?"
- For each person dated, note: familiar patterns being repeated vs. genuinely new dynamics
- Track whether relationships selected for convenience/excitement or for long-term compatibility markers
Criteria refinement:
- Define what "trajectory/values alignment" means concretely (not just abstract compatibility)
- Identify useful heuristics for long-term partnership vs. misleading short-term signals
- Examine whether stated preferences actually align with dating behavior
Pattern interruption:
- When defaulting to familiar "type," question whether familiarity equals suitability
- Notice when game theory thinking ("am I winning?") interferes with genuine connection
- Recognize when settling for situationships while claiming to avoid settling
← back