Kaj_Sotala 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (651)
Tags: polyamory

Comments (651)

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

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 29 June 2010 03:31:41AM 2 points [-]

"Suckers" is a normatively loaded expression, one generally interpreted to be condescending. (Dictionary.com: "sucker: Informal: a person easily cheated, deceived, or imposed upon.") I'm aware of the difference between preferences and decisions, and I wouldn't have downvoted you if you didn't have that word there.

I'm not saying that you necessarily intended your comment to sound condescending and aggressive, but that's how it comes off as.

Comment deleted 29 June 2010 04:55:00AM [-]
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 29 June 2010 05:12:02AM 2 points [-]

This is not remotely in question and quoting from the dictionary for the word 'sucker' is condescending and bizarre.

My apologies, then. No condescension was intended, but this community is known to have both a large number of people on the autistic spectrum as well as non-native speakers of English. I have personally used offensive language without realizing it to be that, in the past (though not on this site, I hope).

I think I got what you're saying now, but just to be sure. When you said:

I do make the particular presumptive normative implication that you accuse me of, I do make other implicit normative claims that can be the valid subject of your disapproval.

did you mean to say that you were not expressing disapproval to people having a preference for situations with more women than men, but rather expressing disapproval to people thinking they had this preference?

Comment deleted 29 June 2010 05:49:04AM *  [-]
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 30 June 2010 06:35:00PM 8 points [-]

Very well. In that case, I continue to express my disapproval for a variety of reasons, including:

  1. If someone really does succumb to influences that lead away from their preferred outcomes due to emotional insecurities, then acting derisive is likely to only make them defensive and less likely to actually change their behavior.
  2. In general, I think we should seek to foster a positive atmosphere on LW. It makes the site more pleasant to read, and avoids the risk of misunderstandings (like mine above) that arise from provocative language.
  3. Even though your hypothesis of "this is emotionally suboptimal behavior for a large fraction of people" does sound plausible, there's still a considerable chance that you might be wrong. It seems to me that a good heuristic is "be very careful about the kinds of thinking you're loading with negative affect, or people might become unwilling to properly update in favor of that thinking afterwards".
  4. This is especially so since regardless of whether or not that's right for the majority, there are almost certainly bound to be people for whom that kind of behavior is in fact the emotionally optimal one. Loading negative affect on that behavior can cause them lasting emotional harm.
  5. Expressing things in strong and confrontational tones will also make it socially harder for you yourself to update in a different direction afterwards (if that turns out to be necessary), so that sort of behavior should be discouraged.
Comment author: Blueberry 29 June 2010 05:53:50AM 2 points [-]

More precisely I would say that I object to the act of succumbing to influences that lead one away from preferred outcomes in an obvious way due to maladaptive emotional insecurities. That happens to be a flaw in human psychology, a maladaptive left-over from a different environment that has particularly negative consequences, is often exploited at a cultural level and that I have a personal vendetta against.

I agree with you on that, but I don't see why you think that's what's going on with consensual polyamorous relationships.

Comment deleted 29 June 2010 06:49:53AM [-]
Comment author: Blueberry 29 June 2010 07:15:41AM 2 points [-]

I upvoted it, just so you could respond. I'm curious what you did mean then. I thought you said something like that men in polyamorous relationships where men outnumbered women were not making the best decision, that it was a "detrimental sexual influence," and that they were "succumbing to influences that lead one away from preferred outcomes in an obvious way due to maladaptive emotional insecurities." Would you please explain why you think that? It doesn't make sense to me, because such a relationship would be likely to give them supportive friends and partners, and allow them the freedom to find other partners as well.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 June 2010 10:28:50AM -1 points [-]

I upvoted it, just so you could respond.

:) Nice way to circumvent my precommitment!

Your question is reasonable but I if I replied in full it would change my previous stance to a coercion attempt rather than ejection according to my principles!

More practically, I think getting a shared understanding here would involve extensive comparing and contrasting of our underlying models of human behavior. Since claims about how humans think and act can sometimes be sensitive I thought we'd be better off if I left my meaning 'lost in translation'. :)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit