= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver 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)
You're missing four letters. Call the strength of your preferences for X and Y A and B, and call your partner's preferences for X and Y C and D. (This assumes that you and your partner both agree on your happiness measurements.)
I agree there's a choice among available actions which maximizes AX+BY, and that there's another choice that maximizes CX+DY. What I think is questionable is ascribing meaning to (A+C)X+(B+D)Y.
Notice there are an infinite number of A,B pairs that output the same action, and an infinite number of C,D pairs that output the same action, but when you put them together your choice of A,B and C,D pairs matters. What scaling to choose is also a point of contention, since it can alter actions.
So, we're assuming here that there's no problem comparing A and B, which means these valuations are normalized relative to some individual scale. The problem, as you say, is with the scaling factor between individuals. So it seems I end up with something like (AX + BY + FCX + FDY), where F is the value of my partner's preferences relative to mine. Yes?
And as you say, there's an infinite number of Fs and my choice of action depends on which F I pick.
And we're rejecting the idea that F is simply the strength of my preference for my partner's satisfaction. If that were the case, there'd be no problem calculating a result... though of course no guarantee that my partner and I would calculate the same result. Yes?
If so, I agree that that coming up with a correct value for F sure does seem like an intractable, and quite likely incoherent, problem.
Going back to the original statement... "an ethical rationalist's goals in relationship-seeking should be to seek a relationship that creates maximal utility for both parties" seems to be saying F should approximate 1. Which is arbitrary, admittedly.
Yes. If you and your partner agree- that is, A/B=C/D- then there's no trouble. If you disagree, though, there's no objectively correct way to determine the correct action.
Possibly, though many cases with F=1 seem like things PhilosophyTutor would find unethical. It seems more meaningful to look at A and B.