Chad offers a hypothetical situation based on finding your perfect love interest. It boils down to this:
If you were offered the chance to be introduced to your perfect mate (perfect compatibility in temperament, sex, food, etc), but it came with the condition that after 5 years, that person would die suddenly, would you take it?
Read his full explanation to get all the loophole-closing stuff (you wouldn’t meet them without this deal, their death is unavoidable, etc) Here’s my take on the situation
I know Tennyson said, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.”, but I disagree.
There has been a large body of research that says humans base their conception of happiness on comparisons. So take two hypothetical yous: One starts out making 30k, and gets a pay bump to 50k, and they’re estatic. The other starts at 70k, and gets a pay cut to 50k, and they’re unhappy. So even though they’re making the exact same amount, you have two versions of you with very different temperaments.
So, given that we know this, I’d rather never meet this perfect, but fleeting, match. No one else will ever compare favorably, and so I’d be unhappier in the long run than if I had never met her.
Any hopeless romantics care to argue with my pragmatism?