= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stefan_King comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
This is a generalization, but men who can stick to their principles are generally more attractive.
Look at it this way: if you can actually "get away with" having relationships that meet your preference, then this is social proof that you are being judged valuable enough ("in the marketplace") to be worth having non-exclusively.
Conversely, if you accede to a request for monogamy, this is evidence that you do not consider yourself that valuable, or that you are unable to get other people to agree with your value assessment.
In short: acceding to a request for monogamy in overt contradiction of your preference is a statement of low self-esteem/confidence, and would be expected to reduce your attractiveness even to the person who made the request for monogamy.
Did the passion in those relationships increase or decrease following your concession? I would guess it decreased, and by more than would have occurred had you not made explicit your preference for polyamory.
If you want polyamory, you'll have to make it a principle, not a preference, and (IMO) state it before someone is even in the position of considering a relationship with you. In this way, merely interacting with you expresses a tacit commitment to at least consider it, and as your perceived attractiveness increases, so will the apparent reasonableness of your principle.
And, your attractiveness increases with your perceived willingness to sacrifice for your principles: this is a highly-valued trait, and a big part of why firefighters, soldiers, doctors, etc. are considered more attractive (than the same person without the role), even though an aspect of their sacrifice is decreased availability to their mates.
Edit: fixed typo of "over" for "overt"
del
True - what I said had an implied pre-commitment that they would not be attractive to you (from the initial meeting forward) if they were the kind of person who would make such an ultimatum. So, there's definitely a first-mover advantage from the game theory perspective as well. ;-)
Interesting, really... there are a number of PUA tactics (the entire subject of "qualifying" and "disqualifiying") that could be considered relationship negotiation via precommitment to not be even interested in the first place, unless one's own criteria are met. I don't know if anybody's actually explicitly discussed those things in terms of game theory per se, but that'd be an interesting topic.
Yes - but that's when it's his idea because he's so in love that no other woman will suffice to interest him, not because she gave him an ultimatum to give up pursuing those interests.
Ah. Different subject, then, I suppose.
del
'Usually will not'. Identity, affiliation with a subculture can override this consideration at times.
Affiliation with a subculture makes a lot of things way easier. Have you been reading Brad P?
Making a subcultural commitment may actually lower your average attractiveness to the entire population of women (most of who are not in that subculture), but it increases your variance in attractiveness across the female population, increasing the proportion of women who are into you to a high degree.
I don't how well this principle applies in reverse for women attracting men.
Never heard of him. Link and/or surname?
The obvious hypothesis, crude as it may be, is "It applies but is much weaker. Girls still have boobs either way." The premise clearly being that physical attractiveness on average plays more of a part in females attracting males than the reverse.
Retract the literal component of the link or surname request. Obviously google can answer the question for me (bradp.com!). Leave the signal of genuine interest and openness to receiving further information with respect rather than rejecting it as infringements upon social territory by a potential rival.
(What I have been reading (too much of) is Harry P.)
Um, what about all those married guys cheating on their wives? Not all their partners are deceived about the men's marital status, and of those not deceived, surely not all can be dismissed as not being "hot girls" in your rating system, nor can all the men in such situations be dismissed as "super-alpha".
So, your belief has too high a confidence rating, unless your definition of the "hot" set includes a term for "won't date me except exclusively", or your definition of the "super alpha" set is defined so as to exclude yourself. ;-)
(That being said, I'm not arguing that you change your belief or behavior instrumentally -- just pointing out that, epistemically, your map is out of alignment with the territory.)
Which has got to be the worst definition of "super alpha" ever! ;)
del
If the theory of hypergamy is correct, and women are indeed more selective on average, the large majority of women are typically going for guys who are at least slightly "out of their league" (which I will operationalize as "higher in rank attractiveness within ones gender).
My hypothesis is that lots of difficulties in dating between men and women stem from the same source: a difference in what each gender is willing to settle for. There may be a tendency of females to only settle for males of higher rank attractiveness, while males are willing to settle for females of "merely" equal rank attractiveness. Males want females at the same level of rank attractiveness, but those females are looking past those males at other males of higher rank attractiveness; meanwhile, males receive interest from women at lower levels of rank attractiveness, who they just aren't that into.This means that both genders experience the same difficulty a lot of the time: what you can get, you don't want, and what you want, you can't get.
Couldn't you have just agreed to always use condoms with other people, but not each other, for roughly the same amount of protection in a non-exclusive relationship? ("Roughly" because condoms aren't perfect.)
del
Good point. I'd almost forgotten that one. That convenience is a huge benefit.
del
Is it about friends with benefits?
del
-fart-