ciphergoth comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong

48 Post author: WrongBot 26 June 2010 02:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (651)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ciphergoth 26 June 2010 12:03:56PM 10 points [-]

I don't think it does avoid this problem. It's nice to know that if someone cute propositions you, you'll be able to say yes, but If you're always wondering if you could do better, you'll put yourself on a hedonic treadmill that will never make you happy. Sometimes you have to say "this is the person, or these are the people, I love; I'm no longer looking for more".

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 June 2010 05:22:36AM *  15 points [-]

It's not so much always wondering if I could do better, as it is having a long list of things I'd like to have in a partner (having an interest in Singularity stuff, having certain hobbies, having certain kinks, and so on and so on). Empirical results so far suggest that a really good match can fulfill maybe 85% of the things on the list, but nobody can fulfill every point, especially since some of the things are mutually exclusive. I'd like to have somewhat with a sciency sort of background for the shared way of thinking about things, and someone with background in the humanities for a way of thinking about things that's different from mine. (One could have both backgrounds, of course, but such people are rather rare.) I like kids but wouldn't want to live with them, so I'd like a partner with kids who doesn't live with me, and for all the usual reasons I'd also like to have a partner who does live with me. There are probably also some other mutual exclusions I'm not consciously aware of.

If I were monogamous, I'd have to settle on a single person and then spend time wondering whether this particular combination of things I want is the one making me the most happy. With poly, I can just look for a combination of people who together satisfy everything on the list. Not that I wouldn't be happy even in a situation where only 85% (say) of the things were fulfilled, but fulfilling more would make me even more happy.

(I don't really draw a sharp line between romantic partners and close friends, and find such a division slightly artificial in the first place. I prefer to just count both of them as members of my 'extended family'.)

Comment author: Blueberry 28 June 2010 07:38:26AM 0 points [-]

I don't really draw a sharp line between romantic partners and close friends, and find such a division slightly artificial in the first place.

Well, there's a division between the ones you connect with sexually and the ones you don't, isn't there?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 28 June 2010 09:36:54AM *  5 points [-]

Sex is often associated with being in a romantic relationship, but I could also easily imagine being in a "friends with benefits" type of situation with someone, or being romantically involved with someone asexual. The asexuality wouldn't necessarily even need to come only from their side - I've occasionally been somewhat smitten by specific men, despite having had little to no sexual interest in them.

Comment author: Blueberry 26 June 2010 06:43:52PM 12 points [-]

If you're always wondering if you could do better, you'll put yourself on a hedonic treadmill that will never make you happy. Sometimes you have to say "this is the person, or these are the people, I love; I'm no longer looking for more".

I'm not understanding this. Suppose that you have numerous friends that you care about: would you have to say "these are my friends; I'm not looking for more"? Would you then not be open to making more friends or meeting more people?

While I can understand the problem of never thinking what you have is good enough, I don't see how being committed to improving your relationships and continuing to find more compatible partners causes this problem.

Comment author: ciphergoth 27 June 2010 08:23:47AM 5 points [-]

By and large you don't buy houses with your friends. The sort of commitment you make to a life partner of many years is one you can only make to a few people at most.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 27 June 2010 07:06:00PM 17 points [-]

By and large you don't buy houses with your friends.

In the spirit of the original post: Why not?

Comment author: Blueberry 27 June 2010 10:31:28AM 4 points [-]

I see. You have a few slots available and you'd like to fill them with lengthy stable commitments, so preserving stability requires giving up changing the slots. (I was thinking more of short-term and more casual dating relationships, where I don't think this consideration applies.)

Comment author: thomblake 28 June 2010 05:52:54PM 4 points [-]

N.B. Some of us think only of long-term relationships, and never had a concept of "casual dating relationships" that aren't an effort to start a long-term commitment.

Comment author: Blueberry 28 June 2010 06:47:42PM 6 points [-]

In the spirit of the original post: why did you choose to only have long-term relationships?