Tim Molnar

So we run into this paradox of choice sometimes in the apps where there's so many options and there's the temptation to continue swiping to try and find this partner who's as good looking as this ex and as funny and charismatic as this ex and whose in-laws you got along well as this other ex.

And if you don't find them in this date, there's the temptation to just swipe the grasses greener on the next date. Um, we know that's not the case. We know there are a lot of fallacies and cognitive biases built into that thinking. And so then the question becomes, how do we know when to stop? How do we know when enough is enough?

And if you don't find them in this date, there's the temptation to just swipe the grasses greener on the next date. Um, we know that's not the case. We know there are a lot of fallacies and cognitive biases built into that thinking. And so then the question becomes, how do we know when to stop? How do we know when enough is enough?

And if you don't find them in this date, there's the temptation to just swipe the grasses greener on the next date. Um, we know that's not the case. We know there are a lot of fallacies and cognitive biases built into that thinking. And so then the question becomes, how do we know when to stop? How do we know when enough is enough?

When, when we've met someone who's, uh, met the, you know, the three or four, like really fundamental criteria is that, that we're looking for someone, someone who may say stop dating.

When, when we've met someone who's, uh, met the, you know, the three or four, like really fundamental criteria is that, that we're looking for someone, someone who may say stop dating.

When, when we've met someone who's, uh, met the, you know, the three or four, like really fundamental criteria is that, that we're looking for someone, someone who may say stop dating.

Excellent question. The latter. So when do we decide, you know, I've been on some dates and this is the person who I want to commit to. So there was this math riddle that circulated in like the 1950s known as the secretary problem. And the idea is you're hiring for the position of a secretary and there are a hundred secretaries out in the waiting room.

Excellent question. The latter. So when do we decide, you know, I've been on some dates and this is the person who I want to commit to. So there was this math riddle that circulated in like the 1950s known as the secretary problem. And the idea is you're hiring for the position of a secretary and there are a hundred secretaries out in the waiting room.

Excellent question. The latter. So when do we decide, you know, I've been on some dates and this is the person who I want to commit to. So there was this math riddle that circulated in like the 1950s known as the secretary problem. And the idea is you're hiring for the position of a secretary and there are a hundred secretaries out in the waiting room.

One of them comes in, you interview them and decide yes or no. If you say no, then that candidate is forever gone and you continue on with the interview process. Of course, you want to select the person who's going to be best for the job. you can make two mistakes. One mistake is you don't interview enough people.

One of them comes in, you interview them and decide yes or no. If you say no, then that candidate is forever gone and you continue on with the interview process. Of course, you want to select the person who's going to be best for the job. you can make two mistakes. One mistake is you don't interview enough people.

One of them comes in, you interview them and decide yes or no. If you say no, then that candidate is forever gone and you continue on with the interview process. Of course, you want to select the person who's going to be best for the job. you can make two mistakes. One mistake is you don't interview enough people.

So you interview two or three people, you say, yeah, this will do, and you leave the other 98 or 97 sitting out in the waiting room. The other mistake is to wait to the other end of the distribution where you said, gosh, I've interviewed 95 people at this point, I only have five more choices, and there are actually some pretty good ones now that I'm looking back on things.

So you interview two or three people, you say, yeah, this will do, and you leave the other 98 or 97 sitting out in the waiting room. The other mistake is to wait to the other end of the distribution where you said, gosh, I've interviewed 95 people at this point, I only have five more choices, and there are actually some pretty good ones now that I'm looking back on things.

So you interview two or three people, you say, yeah, this will do, and you leave the other 98 or 97 sitting out in the waiting room. The other mistake is to wait to the other end of the distribution where you said, gosh, I've interviewed 95 people at this point, I only have five more choices, and there are actually some pretty good ones now that I'm looking back on things.

So how do we more intentionally, more thoughtfully think about optimizing our chances of finding the best secretary? And there are no guarantees, but from a statistical standpoint, the way we maximize that is to interview the first 37% of candidates, identify who the best fit was, call that our baseline, and then continue to date.

So how do we more intentionally, more thoughtfully think about optimizing our chances of finding the best secretary? And there are no guarantees, but from a statistical standpoint, the way we maximize that is to interview the first 37% of candidates, identify who the best fit was, call that our baseline, and then continue to date.

So how do we more intentionally, more thoughtfully think about optimizing our chances of finding the best secretary? And there are no guarantees, but from a statistical standpoint, the way we maximize that is to interview the first 37% of candidates, identify who the best fit was, call that our baseline, and then continue to date.

Once we find someone who's better than that baseline, that's our person to settle down with. So this is a riddle that's been likened in a dating context in different places. Logan Urie talks about it in her book. I've heard it talked about in Algorithms to Live By. Again, it's an old math riddle. I think maybe Hannah Fry does a TED Talk on it. And my thought was it's an interesting...