Philosophical Dilemma

You're operating under the notion that there is such a thing as an "optimal match".

In a company just as much as in a relationship, you have constraints of availability, time and the opportunity cost of waiting for a better offer. Making the decision you're talking about is entirely dependent on what qualities you found in those potential hires and partners, and wether or not you think they can get the job done.

Ultimately, if you're looking for someone that's "optimal" from the onset, you are on the wrong track. You have probably some deep seated issues and misunderstandings about human worth in general, and don't understand why you don't find anyone "good enough".

But the truth is that, both in relationships and in employment, what you should really look for is the potential for growth. Because however good an option seems at first, it always comes with drawbacks. There is no exception to this rule. Making the right decision is about knowing which drawbacks those are, wether or not they can be worked around, and wether or not that particular person can grow into something more desirable to you through your prolonged partnership.

tl;dr you're an idiot, stop obsessing about perfection and concentrate on interacting with those people instead of judging them from your ivory tower

>>18195365
You are judging me too quickly. I'm the last who values people on a superficial basis.

Furthermore - as much as your 'look out for potential of growing' statement is true - you still contradict yourself.
Let's agree that 'potential' is the crucial criteria and not 'status quo'. Then there is still the question wether to go with the first option of potential or to wait for a higher potential.

You know, I'd bet at least once in life you adviced somebody to have higher standards and to choose more carefully. Now you advice to not be obsessed with perfection. Is there any kind of logical structure behind that or is it pure intuition aka wild guessing?

(still the growing aspect has been good advice in any case.)

not really a philisophical question anon, but lest move beyond that.

as always the answer is somewhere in the middle.

as far as your movie goes, you say its that they haven't 100% convinced you, but it sounds to me like they just haven't convinced you at all. if they had you'd be ready to say 'she can handle it' and move on. trust me, ive been there, I've done casting, and there isn't really a 'spectrum' that the actors fall on. they are either gonna fit the role or they don't, and when they do, you know it. its one of the few things in life that are an on and off switch.

if you have the time, keep casting. assuming you aren't holding one session a month it wont take very long, just book up multiple days over two weeks and have at it. your movie will thank you.

as for relationships, its a litle different. there is no deadline so you could wait forever, but also you don't really want to be alone forever. im introverted and like being single, but even i like to have flings here and there.

with relationships its a lot more subjective, however. you note that you have a problem of dating anyone who comes along but that doesn't make them a 'good one'. maybe they're a good person, but if you have no emotional investment in them, then you really shouldn't be dating.

even if they arent /perfect/ emotional investment is what matters, even if you know it can't last as most relationships dont.

example, two years ago i was dating a girl. she was an ideal girl, super curly hair (my favorite) perfect tits and ass, super submissive, let me do whatever i want ot her sexually, was fine watching all my shows and would always get into them, and personality wise we should have clicked amazingly.

cont

>>18195449

but we didn't, or rather I didn't. despite her being a total 10/10 on the scoresheet, not just in looks but in personality, i felt no spark. chemistry runs a little deeper than that.

then one day i eye a girl on the train. shes arguably uglier than my gf, and we are not a match on the personalities, yet i am drawn to her, simply because of chemistry. ended up braking up wiht gf and had a passionate summer with that foreign exchange girl on the train.

ultimately what im trying to say here is that you will never be 100% convinced, and if you are its not really a logical reason, its just an intuitive sort of thing, which men are just as capable of as women for the record.

go with what feels right, not whats 'perfect' or whats 'there'.

It's really a good question. Despite what >>18195365 says, there logically has to be at least one "optimal match", even if it's not the same person constantly, although that starts to get into weird other philosophical questions like if the person who would be you're 100% perfect match died before you met each other (or ignored you because you were with someone else), were they actually your "optimal match"? And actually now that's starting to sound like the ontological argument.

>>18195394
>You know, I'd bet at least once in life you adviced somebody to have higher standards and to choose more carefully. Now you advice to not be obsessed with perfection.
There's a middle ground there. You can be less obsessed with perfection while still having some standards. Like settling for someone who >90% convinces you (or like 80% but you think you can shape them into a 95%) instead of demanding 100%.

So that answers your question. If what you can get now will make you happy, go for it. You can keep your standards high but don't keep them so high no one gets past them.

>>18195394

There is no contradiction between not looking for perfection while still having some standards, there is just the matter of finding the right balance. Said balance is different from person to person. There is not a single call that can be made for everyone.

>Then there is still the question wether to go with the first option of potential or to wait for a higher potential

No, because like I said in my previous post, waiting has an opportunity cost. For your movie, it's to not being able to be shot because it's missing an actor. For your romantic life, it's the lack thereof.

When those costs become unbearable, you will have to chose the best option available to you at the time. It might be worse than ones you passed earlier, when you were a bit more comfortable paying said cost. Taking that into account, it is foolish to wait for a potential better opportunity, that has no guarantee of ever showing up. If you have cause to believe that yes, someone better is definitely coming, then why not. But what sense is there in not letting things happen just because of an hypothetical ? Absolutely none.

Besides, there is still the matter of the definition of "worth" in this conversation. What would you do if two candidates showed themselves, one with all the qualities the other doesn't have, and vice versa ? You'd agonize over that choice, because you'd judge their qualities as checkboxes and consider each of them as equal because they have roughly the same amount of boxes checked, when realistically speaking some of these qualities are probably better suited to your needs in that particular moment than others, and there is an objective winner candidate in that situation.

Overall, I feel reinforced in considering that you have a skewed version of worth, you do not truly understand what you want or need, and that is why you are incapable of making a choice, not because you are somehow waiting for something perfect to show up.

>>18195454

i think the problem is trying to apply math to human relationships and art. you can't really say 'well she is a 90% match for the role...' but the fact that you aren't immensely sold implies that there is some intuitive discomfort to the situation.

these two questions are dominated by emotion, and you should trust them. think about how you actually feel about a girl, or an actor, and if there are bubbles of discomfort inside, maybe /dont/ date/cast them.

>>18195457
What you did not consider, is the fact, that at some point you don't have enough time anymore to NOT wait. For example in regard to my profession. Of course every day I don't have the cast it costs money. But what I ABSOLUTELY cannot afford, is the next meh-tier product.
Same goes for relationships. I don't have any more time for medicore tryouts.

This all leads to the situation that I don't have enough time for not having time ...

>>18195466
Can you really trust emotions? How could I for example exclude that my emotions are not contaminated by past failures?

>>18195466
>i think the problem is trying to apply math to human relationships and art.
I think you're taking it too literally. He's not saying something like "match = cup size + (6' - height) * (125 - weight) - age / 24", he just means 100% as perfect.

>>18195476
Just start with high standards, lower them as time goes on. It's how matchmaking services in games often work. You can't always get a perfect match, so you start looking at the next best thing and expand the search over time so you eventually get something instead of being stuck waiting for exactly what you want.

>>18195484

only slightly more than you can trust logic.

there is no way to KNOW the actors are gonna work. the same people who had the same feelings about casting hit movies also cast some really awful movies. actors who logically would be good because they gave similar performances that won awards have tanked movies with unusually bad performances.

people who get married out of logic get divorced and people who get married out of emotion get divorced.

there is no RIGHT answer, but at the end of the day trusting that you are happy wiht the decision your making at least means that you're happy.

whereas not actually being happy but saying 'WELL THEY HIT SOME ARBITRARY 80% GRADING SYSTEM I JUST MADE UP SO I GUESS ILL GO THROUGH WITH IT' doesn't really give you any validation at all.

>>18195490

that guy was tlaking about dating someone if they were 80% or 90% a match.

and unless you're actually doing a math system the translation just comes back to 'go with who you FEEL good about'.

>>18195476

And what you don't take into account is that, wether it's a movie or a relationship, one person is never completely responsible of its failure. Wether that person performs well or not during the movie / the relationship maybe have nothing to do with their qualities and everything to do with outside factors, the environment, how well they integrate within the team, etc.

There are a lot of factors at work, and you'll have to come to grips with the fact that you don't control half of them, and that even if someone appeared optimal they might actually not be. This is why you need to prioritize things that you deem essential, the things you refuse to negotiate on, seek people that have these qualities, and work on the rest as things go along.

>>18195490
the concept of starting high and lowering is interesting in principle. but in the process you could undercut the niveau you already had but then it's too late.

say, you start at 99% and find a 90%. you dismiss and a year later you reach 50% and missed the 90% out ...

>>18195510

its almost like its fucking retarded
wow

>>18195498
You're still taking it too literally. He just meant 100% as "a perfect match", and I meant 80% and 90% as "not quite a perfect match". Your translation is pretty much it, though. Going for a "100%" is just going for perfection.

>>18195510
That's the pessimistic way to look at it.

>>18195519

so yes.

>>18195495
>>18195506
I agree that it is no exact science. Therefore I called it a philosophical dilemma. In the end you make your decisions and with some luck you come out more or less satisfied. Dealing with what retrospecitely appears as a bad decision is something more advisable.

But I wanted to give it a shot, maybe someone has a solution to this dilemma I couldn't think of.

>>18195519
don't tell me the thought 'damn, I should have gone with xyz' is something which could never happen to you.

>>18195510
And your idea is instead to have no standards, or to have a set limit that never changes?

Say you decide to just get with the 90% because you think it's the best that ever could happen. A few months later Ms. 99% walks up and you're missing out. There's no "system" that actually will guarantee you get the best person without having to have no attachment to anyone who isn't perfect.

>>18195540
Hindsight is 20/20. When you look backwards, it's really easy to say "I should've tried harder with her" or "I wish I noticed her sooner".