No. Succeeding in love is not easy, and there's no formula for it.
Here's the essence of this bad take:
"Since life is itself simply a game in disguise, having a few mathematical tricks up your sleeve can also give you an edge in the game of life."
Life is not simply a game in disguise. There are no fixed rules, apart from possibly the laws of physics. More importantly, there's no fixed definition of what counts as "winning". In fact the whole concept of "winning" doesn't apply, except in very limited realms.
I'm reminded of an anecdote I heard from the statistician Persi Diaconis. I'll probably get the details wrong, but it goes something like this:
Persi Diaconis was friends with an economist who had just gotten two job offers, one on the east coast of the US and one on the west coast. The economist was having a lot of trouble deciding which offer to take: both had their pros and cons. So Diaconis said "Hey, why not use the mathematics you're always talking about? Compute the expected utility in each case, and pick the offer that maximizes it!"
And the economist said "Come on, Persi! This is SERIOUS!"
@johncarlosbaez No need to over-complicate it. "Winning" is having your values realized.
There's no formula in the article, but I suspect it is something like "do at least a little research / napkin math and don't do stupid things that gonna hurt your prospects".
@dpwiz - "“Winning” is having your values realized."
That becomes a kind of game if you have pre-established, precisely defined values. But in reality we should be constantly changing our values as we learn more and become wiser. This means we never know for sure what it means to have our values realized - except of course in limited domains. (E.g.: if I slip and fall, that counts as bad.)
@johncarlosbaez Where does that requirement for fixed/precise definitions come from? A brain can work with shifting/vague/felt "definitions" just fine.
@johncarlosbaez games are very, very hard to define. But I think the article is indeed dismissive of the fine detail and sells oversimplified version of everything.
That said, probabilistic models *can* get you to systematically getting more bang for your buck than some population baseline. In the long run that may account to general "winning", for whatever in-the-moment values you may have over time.
@dpwiz - Du Sautoy is claiming life is a "game", and claiming math can help you "win". Math can help when there are some rules of the game, and concept of winning. I'm saying life isn't like that. It sounds like you agree.