= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lawliet comments on The ideas you're not ready to post - 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 (253)
I'd be interested in reading (but not writing) a post about rationalist relationships, specifically the interplay of manipulation, honesty and respect.
Seems more like a group chat than a post, but let's see what you all think.
I've found the work of Stefan Molyneux to be very insightful with regards to this (his other work has also been pretty influential for me).
You can find his books for free here. I haven't actually read his book on this specific topic ("Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love") since I was following his podcasting and forums pretty closely while he was working up to writing it.
Do you think you could summarise it for everybody in a post?
I'm not confident I could do a good job of it. He proposes that most problems in relationships come from our mythologies about ourselves and others. In order to have good relationships, we have to be able to be honest about what's actually going on underneath those mythologies. Obviously this involves work on ourselves, and we should help our partner to do the same (not by trying to change them, but by assisting them in discovering what is actually going on for them). He calls his approach to this kind of communication the "Real-Time Relationship."
To quote from the book: "The Real-Time Relationship (RTR) is based on two core principles, designed to liberate both you and others in your communication with each other: 1. Thoughts precede emotions. 2. Honesty requires that we communicate our thoughts and feelings, not our conclusions."
For a shorter read on relationships, you might like to try his "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion". Be forewarned that, even if you disagree, you may find either book an uncomfortable read.
This sounds very interesting, but I don't think I'm qualified to write it either.