= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MileyCyrus comments on Marketplace Transactions Open Thread - 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 (40)
This is not an offer but it is related to marketplace norms.
Bryan Caplan argues that romantic relationships are the last refuge of the just price theory. Relationships are expected to "equal" in that both parties the burdens and benefits are split equally. If I do the dishes, my partner is expected to sweep the floor. If I pick which restaurant we go to tonight, my partner gets to pick next week.
I'm wondering if LWers would react if, hypothetically, they were offered the chance to be in an "unequal" relationship. Let's say you are looking for a long-term mate. A particular brilliant and attractive mate, the kind that would normally be "out of your league" offers you the following terms:
Would you consider this offer, weighing the value of an attractive mate verses the costs of an unequal relationship? Or would you be offended that this person differed you an unequal relationship, when clearly only equal relationships can be just?
Conversely, suppose a mate who was normally "below your league" offers to reverse the deal: you only do 30% of the house work, ect. Would you be consider a lopsided arrangement with an unattractive mate, or would you reject it out of hand as being exploitative?
Far mode rejection near mode acceptance.
I think most relationships are "unequal" but we have a polite fiction and more recently an ideological imperative to pretend they aren't and to pretend we only seek "equal" relationships.
I wouldn't expect equal relationships to be the norm.
It seems plausible that people approve of equal relationships, but wanting and liking them is quite a different matter, reality all to often looks quite different.
Also, equal relationships are the nice, symmetric piece of advice to give to people when you don't know anything more of their situation. Hm, what's the name for the fallacy of substituting the mean for the mode again?
I don't think the norm violation here has to do with how good a deal it is, but with making very explicit offers at all. For instance prenups are unpopular, and asking for prenup with generous terms sends just as bad a signal as asking for one with stingy terms.
Interesting. Are there many other contexts where, given that you're going to ask at all, you should go ahead and ask for something outrageously in your favor?
That first offer would turn me on. The second would do the reverse. That said, I would try to put considerations other than how interested I am in a potential mate into account when deciding whether or not to date her, although doing so would go against my instincts.
Are you a masochist?
You mean submissive?
Submissive: yes. Masochist: I don't think so.
I think the unequal deal you are describing is the rule in the world rather than the exception. Indeed, the equal relationship is something that was fought for in the U.S. by "woman's libbers" for much of the 2nd half of the last century. I guess they must have succeeded pretty well in that so many people here seem to think it is "the" rule instead of a local in time-and-space cultural meme.
"A woman's place is in the home." "Barefoot and pregnant." In many cultures the women are covered head to toe, cannot leave the home without a male family member escort, are not allowed to own significant classes of property, are essentially precluded from various forms of work. They marry men who do all that stuff for them.
Successful men are usually wealthy and powerful and a bit older. They marry "equally" successful women, but success in the women they marry means they are young, beautiful, and presumably possess other characteristics that are harder to list. I haven't studied it, but I would love to see the rate of men over 40 who have 2nd wives more than 10 years younger than they are, plotted vs. the income of those men. And that's IN the west where "women's lib" has succeeded to the point that it appears that many of you youngsters think equal marriage is the norm.
Me, I married a schoolteacher who quit more or less as soon as we got married. Her earnings power seems to be about 1/4 mine, and with marginal tax rates being what they are, it didn't seem important to get her to work if she didn't want to. Her predilection is to do much more with the house and kids. This is a relationship that many women, even young ones, look for.
"Curly Locks, Curly Locks, wilt thou be mine? Thou shall't not wash dishes, nor yet feed the swine" etc.
Though probably the woman in the nursery rhyme wouldn't have had 70% of the decision making power.
Would you expect significantly more "equal" relationships among homosexual couples than among heterosexual couples?
I would anticipate there being a measurable difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations.
How does that follow? Both partners doing about the same amount of things doesn't mean that one of them couldn't specialize in certain kinds of tasks.
Also, whether the division of tasks is subjectively experienced as equal is usually the most relevant criteria, which can make for a division that would be very unequal if looked at in objective terms.
Kaj, I am referring to equality among objective measures like time spent doing X or number of times doing X per time T. Since most people have different skills and preferences most people would not have a subjective impression of fairness while splitting up tasks equally (in the objective sense). Frankly, I would feel very petty if I insisted that my wife spend equal time doing computer maintenance that I do (even though I am more experienced and enjoy it more).
I would consider these deals practically unworkable for myself, as the added value from having a "superior quality" mate would be more than outweighed by the lack of mutual respect, lack of self-determination, etc. Similarly for the reverse deal. However, I would have no moral objection to somebody else choosing to enter such a relationship, if that made them happy.
Suppose they were perfectly respectful to you in everyday life, but it just so happened that the baseline of your relationship is this 70/30 split? This is not unusual in my observation. It's a mistake to confuse "equal status" with "respectful": this is especially clear when you attempt to apply that heuristic beyond romantic relationships.
That would be different. I read the original comment to say that the person in question was offering me such terms with the understanding that because I'm lower status than them, I have to accept lop-sided terms. When it comes to relationships, being considered lower status by my mate is an automatic deal-breaker to me.
But it's of course possible to settle on a 70/30 split while both partners consider themselves equal in status. That might very well work. (And of course, there are plenty of happy relationships where the partners do consider themselves to have an unequal status - which is great for them, but I don't see it working for myself.)
Same here. Having a shining fashion accessory on your arm when you go out is nice, but doesn't begin to compete with the rewards I get from an equal relationship based on plain old (stupid?) love. If being with me isn't rewarding enough without extra enticements, I'm not going to get enough of what I want. A status increase won't compensate.
The reverse deal proposal would make me doubt the potential mate's grasp of my psychology, or her sense of self-worth, or both. Either of which is a big turn-off.
I think division of housework and expenses is more of a small technical detail to work out in a relationship. A person who measures utility in a relationship based solely on such things and physical attractiveness reveals a tendency towards being shallow and manipulative. If personality and character weigh heavily in someone's utility function, then I doubt he or she would take this deal.