>So is there an ideally sized choice set when it comes to dating—one large enough to include variety and depth, yet small enough that you can fairly weigh each prospect’s potential without tripping your brain’s overload switch? [...] Fisher puts people somewhere in the middle of that range. “Once you’ve met nine people who are vaguely in the ballpark, choose one and get to know that person better. If nothing works in that nine, go for another nine,” she says.
The article talks about simultaneous choices (choice overload). A related concept is serial choices and the "when to stop looking for The One" dilemma. That's been modeled as The Secretary Problem[1] which calculates a 37% stopping point. It also has been discussed by several authors: [2] [3] [4] [5]
The article talks about simultaneous choices (choice overload). A related concept is serial choices and the "when to stop looking for The One" dilemma. That's been modeled as The Secretary Problem[1] which calculates a 37% stopping point. It also has been discussed by several authors: [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
[2]https://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Live-Computer-Science-Deci...
[3]https://youtu.be/OwKj-wgXteo?t=10m12s
[4]https://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Love-Patterns-Ultimate-Eq...
[5]https://www.ted.com/talks/hannah_fry_the_mathematics_of_love...