= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_M comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - 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 (101)
Feels like you have forbidden knowledge. Not coincidentally, I want to know what it is.
What is it roughly? That innate differences across the sexes play a strong role in causing statistically different mating behaviors to develop? That these differences end up somewhat resembling "females want high-value sex and a devoted father while males want sex and sexually faithful partners"? That females are often attracted to high value behavior (e.g. PUA stuff)? That many people have some, possibly very vague, estimate of how sexually valuable they are, and act upon this belief? Is there any way you can quench my curiosity? It seems obvious that if you answer in general terms you won't offend anyone, as meta thought doesn't really push the emotional buttons.
PS: It has been suggested that general statements can cause worse beliefs in a group, since they're very simplified. But there should be some way of pointing to an area of the map without degrading that region of the map.
There is no forbidden knowledge involved. Just search for old LW discussions on these topics, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And yes, often the problems revolve around issues such as those you've mentioned. (Though I wouldn't really agree with the way you've worded most of them, and there are many additional issues that are also apt to cause problems when brought up.)
Analyzing and documenting all the sources of bias and discourse breakdown that appear when these topics are discussed would be a large and fascinating project in its own right. It's an extremely incendiary mix of ideological preconceptions and biases, personal emotional investments, urges to switch from factual discussions to moral superiority contests, signaling-driven opinions, unwillingness to face ugly truths, and so on.