= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JAlfredPrufrock 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)
There seems to be a strong sense that a thread like this won't work. My question is: What would it look like if it did work? We seem to know where we don't want to go, but I don't have a clear idea of where we do want to go? What does winning look like?
I suggest self-limiting participation according to these criteria:
Advice seekers: "I want to move from present equilibrium A to desired equilibrium B. Here is my specific problem. What should I do?"
Advice givers: "I have field-tested solution X. YMMV."
Advice takers: "My results, in detail."
"Winning" looks like fewer preventable problems in friendships, dating, sex, and romance.
Letting advice seekers drive the discussion seems like a good idea, but I'm a little leery of the advice givers. Giving advice is fun and that makes it dangerous. Even if you have field tested it, external validity seems like a big problem here. There's enough heterogeneity in behavior that what works for me is not necessarily likely to work for you.
That said, I don't have a better alternative, so why not try out this one.