= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala 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?
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.