= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - 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 (1529)
Or disagree that it is off-topic or mind-killing.
Why would anyone so disagree? If this topic isn't off-topic and mind-killing, is there any topic that is?
I don't find "do women dig jerks?" particularly mind-killing, or at least, not here (much less than the ethics of PUA, political parties, elections, welfare, taxes, Occupy Wall Street, race and intelligence, Israel and Palestine ...); I don't have strong opinions on the issue, and hearing someone speak on that topic doesn't allow me to categorize them into a clearly-defined group.
I can't clearly see any "sides" on the issue (two possible sides are of course "women are stupid and dig jerks so I hate them" and "anybody who criticizes women is stupid", but I'm not seeing either of those here, the sides are more "it's complicated" and "it's not that simple").
There's no "that" for it to be either that simple or not that simple.
(Implicit modifier A) women (implicit modifier B) dig (whatever that means exactly) jerks (whatever that means exactly).
Modifier A can be "all", or "most", or "the most attractive ones", or whatever.
Modifier B can be "most days of the week", "most years of their lives", or whatever.
"Dig" can mean "prefer ceteris paribus", "will only have one night stands with", "will stay with them even if the guy hits them", "strongly prefer at all times", "prefer for all types of relationships", or whatever.
"Jerks" can mean "people who are more assertive than average", "people who try and make them feel bad about themselves", "people who have killed a man", "people who wear motorcycle jackets", "people who frequently brag", or whatever.
"Women dig jerks" provides an opportunity to construct an obviously (or not obviously) true or false meaning to something other people say, depending on how right or wrong one wants them to be. It allows room to always easily be able to interpret an interlocutor's words to mean that they are innately evil or hopelessly misguided.
That said, people actually do disagree on the substance of the issue.
I would say yes. I mean, it's clearly on topic relative the main post, and if instrumental rationality is going to be one of the focuses of the site, then "on topic" for top level posts is necessarily going to be pretty broad.
As for mind-killing, there are certainly topics I think it's harder to hold a productive conversation on.
I think a comment can be off-topic even though it's on-topic relative to the main post and the main post is itself on-topic. I'm also worried that people are using too broad a definition of "instrumental rationality".