In WW2, Allied researchers were trying to figure out how to reduce the number of their planes that were shot down. They found that most of the planes that returned had extensive damage in the wings and tail, so they decided to add armor to the wings and tail.
Then a Jewish scientist named Abraham Wald stepped in. He said to ignore the wings and tail, because the planes that got hit in the wings and tail still made it home to base. Armor the ENGINE. Planes hit in the engine crashed and never made it home to base, so they were never counted. That’s survivorship bias.
So when someone tells you, “ugh if only I could find a man who keeps a clean house” or “I would love to be with a woman who mows the lawn” well…you’re not dating those people. You never date those people.
So, maybe…no you don’t? Maybe the sloppy man and the lazy woman get to home base all the time for a reason.
Maybe stop asking what people think they want, and instead look at what they choose.
One minor complication: People learn and develop their knowledge of what they want from experience. Where the performance of a given bomber model over german flak batteries should remain fairly consistent over time, a person’s tastes should not. Since they’re likely to change over time, one cannot simply use old data to extrapolate for future results. The system just has more variables than that.
Additionally, even if you were able to use old data to extrapolate for future results, this would simply tell you you’re likely to get the same result as those other guys that were dated: a failed relationship.
All that said, kudos for the succinct summary of survivorship bias, even if it doesn’t fully apply in this case.
Depends on your criteria for failure. If you’re looking for marriage and kids, not a great strategy. If you’re just looking to have fun, statistically it’s very reasonable. These guys got dates with these women. Consistently enough to form a trope.