= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
anonymouslyanonymous 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)
Winning Interpersonally
cousin_it would like to know how rationality has actually helped us win. However, in his article, he completely gives up on rationality in one major area, admitting that "interpersonal relationships are out."
Alex strenuously disagrees, asking "why are interpersonal relationships out? I think rationality can help a great deal here."
(And, of course, I suppose everone knows my little sob-story by now.)
I'd like to get a read from the community on this question.
Is rationality useless -- or worse, a liability when dealing with other human beings? How much does it matter if those human beings are themselves self-professed rationalists? 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?
(note: this draft was written a while before Gender and Rationality, so there's probably some stuff I'd rewrite to take that into account)
"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.
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.
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.
indeed
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Er...
That's involuntary celibacy, not a lifestyle choice.
I guess the male LessWrongers that MBlume was thinking about in the ancestor comment haven't chosen that.
Right, but that's not what the quote you replied to was about.