I would argue that, in addition to this, you maximise the probability that you don’t make a bad choice, which can be worse (i.e. the consequences of a false positive can be greater than those of a false negative), and the chances of making a good choice (not just the best out of your sample size, but including the second best or third best, which could be OK) should be much higher than that 37%.

Could someone do the maths to calculate my chances of success if I am prepared to date 100 people, but that ending up with ‘X’ (the best), ‘X-1’ (the second best), ‘X-2’ (the third best), ‘X-3’ (the fourth best) and ‘X-4’ (the fifth best) would all be regarded as successful? I’d be intrigued by the percentage difference. Will the difference be as great as one might intuitively feel it surely must be after the mathematical dust settles?

I would argue that, in addition to this, you maximise the probability that you don’t make a bad choice, which can be worse (i.e. the consequences of a false positive can be greater than those of a false negative), and the chances of making a good choice (not just the best out of your sample size, but including the second best or third best, which could be OK) should be much higher than that 37%.

Could someone do the maths to calculate my chances of success if I am prepared to date 100 people, but that ending up with ‘X’ (the best), ‘X-1’ (the second best), ‘X-2’ (the third best), ‘X-3’ (the fourth best) and ‘X-4’ (the fifth best) would all be regarded as successful? I’d be intrigued by the percentage difference. Will the difference be as great as one might intuitively feel it surely must be after the mathematical dust settles?