anonymouslyanonymous comments on The ideas you're not ready to post - Less Wrong

24 Post author: JulianMorrison 19 April 2009 09:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (253)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: anonymouslyanonymous 20 April 2009 03:17:15PM *  2 points [-]

It's been noted that Less Wrong is incredibly male. I have no idea whether this represents an actual gender differential in desire for epistemic rationality, but if it does, it means most male Less Wrongers should not expect to wind up dating rationalists. Does this mean that it is necessary for us to embrace less than accurate beliefs about, eg, our own desirability, that of our partner, various inherently confused concepts of romantic fate, or whatever supernatural beliefs our partners wish do defend? Does this mean it is necessary to make the world more rational, simply so that we can live in it?

"We commonly speak of the sex 'drive', as if it, like hunger, must be satisfied, or a person will die. Yet there is no evidence that celibacy is in any way damaging to one's health, and it is clear that many celibates lead long, happy lives. Celibacy should be recognised as a valid alternative sexual lifestyle, although probably not everyone is suited to it." -J. S. Hyde, Understanding Human Sexuality, 1986

Source.

Comment author: MBlume 20 April 2009 05:22:00PM 6 points [-]

I have been in a happy, mutually satisfying romantic/sexual relationship once in my life. We had one good year together, and it was The. Best. Year. Of. My. Life. I know people say that when something good happens to you, you soon adjust, and you wind up as happy or as sad as you were before, but that was simply not my experience. I'd give just about anything to have that again. Such is my utility function, and I do not intend to tamper with it.

Comment author: anonymouslyanonymous 20 April 2009 11:07:47PM 6 points [-]

People differ. All I'm trying to say is this: telling someone something is a necessary precondition for their leading a meaningful life, when that is not the case, is likely to create needless suffering.

Comment author: MBlume 21 April 2009 05:15:33PM 1 point [-]

indeed

Comment author: PhilGoetz 20 April 2009 06:06:13PM *  3 points [-]

I've read several times that that feelings lasts 2-3 years for most people. That's the conventional wisdom. I've read once that, for some people, it lasts their whole life long. (I mean, once in a scholarly book. I've read it many times in novels.)

Comment author: MBlume 20 April 2009 06:25:18PM 0 points [-]

I rather suspect I might be one of those people. It's been over three years since I first fell for her, and over nine months since those feelings were in any way encouraged, and I still feel that attachment today.

If it turns out I am wired to stay in love for the long term, that'd certainly be a boon under the right circumstances.

Rather sucks now though.

Comment author: Jack 20 April 2009 11:11:54PM 0 points [-]

Don't know if it applies to you. But I imagine a very relevant factor is whether or not you get attached to anyone else.

Comment author: MTGandP 07 July 2015 04:59:12AM 2 points [-]

This is really remarkable to read six years later, since, although I don't know you personally, I know your reputation as That Guy Who Has Really Awesome Idyllic Relationships.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2012 06:14:38PM 1 point [-]

there is no evidence that celibacy is in any way damaging to one's health

Er...

Comment author: shminux 02 October 2012 06:19:40PM -1 points [-]

That's involuntary celibacy, not a lifestyle choice.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2012 06:43:57PM 1 point [-]

I guess the male LessWrongers that MBlume was thinking about in the ancestor comment haven't chosen that.

Comment author: shminux 02 October 2012 06:54:17PM 0 points [-]

Right, but that's not what the quote you replied to was about.