derefr comments on If reductionism is the hammer, what nails are out there? - Less Wrong

14 Post author: AnnaSalamon 11 December 2010 01:58PM

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

Comments (46)

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

Comment author: derefr 14 December 2010 01:00:45PM *  2 points [-]

I would say that it is not that we want essences in our sexuality, but that gender and sexuality are essentialist by nature: the sexual drive is built on top of the parts of our brains that essentialize/abstract/encapsulate, and so reducing the concept would involve modifying the human utility function to desire the parts, rather than the pretended whole.

Or, to put it another way: a heterosexual blegg is not 50% attracted to something with 50% blegg features and 50% rube features; it is attracted only to pure rubes, and the closer something is to being a rube, without exactly being a rube, the less attractive it is. This is basically the Uncanny Valley at work: some of our drives want discrete gestalts, and the harder they have to work to construct them, the less favorably they'll evaluate the things they're constructing on.