= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MileyCyrus comments on A Marriage Ceremony for Aspiring Rationalists - 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 (77)
Pleasantly surprised to see Eliezer hasn't jumped on single-parenting-is-just-as-good-as-double-parenting bandwagon. Also surprised to see that he's okay with rationalists reproducing. Isn't that a distraction from fighting existential risk?
Isn't, well, nearly everything? He doesn't expect humans to become risk-reductionbots.
Why stop at double?
If three or four people want to raise a family together,* the kids would be probably be even better off than a double parenting. There's probably a point of diminishing returns--I wouldn't want to be raised by a hundred parents. But I doubt two is the optimal number.
From the parents perspective, most people aren't interested in a poly relationship. And most poly relationships aren't stable for the 20 years it takes to create an adult. So while a poly relationship might be better for the kids, it isn't always feasible.
Now I wouldn't begrudge anyone, even a single person, who wanted to reproduce and had the money and time to do so. Even if a child is raised in a sub-optimal family structure, she's still better off than if her parent(s) had decided not to reproduce at all. But we can value the contributions of sub-optimal family structures without pretending that they are optimal.
*"Together" is the operative word here. Two couples living in separate houses trading kids every other weekend isn't going to cut it.
looks at divorce rate I'd say there's not really a lot of evidence that most monogamous relationships are stable either. Do you have any particular reason to be claiming that poly relationships would produce a less stable environment for the kid?
Poly groups tend to be well-educated well-paid white people; the proper comparison of poly instability rates to monogamous divorce rates is not to 'the general population' but to the comparable demographic group. My understanding was that divorce rates in that comparable group are relatively low...
I was wondering, more, has there been any actual research done on this question, or is this just speculation based on personal anecdote? Are we comparing actual "married" poly groups, or are we comparing monogamous marriage to polyamorous dating?
I've never seen anything beyond personal opinion and armchair philosophy that suggests that mature polyamorous relationships are less stable than mature monogamous ones. The bias mostly seems to be from observing people who are new to polyamory (where the proper comparison would be with people new to monogamy - a group that mostly consists of teenagers and an incredible amount of drama :))
Actual research? I'm not sure. There's not a whole lot that I found: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5317066/2012-gwern-polyamory.txt
I'm baffled by this. Are you saying most studies tend to be done on this group? Do you mean in the US? Are you referring to groups who call themselves poly, or the general practice of honest nonmonogamy?
Yes, yes, and former.
As you discuss in the dropbox link, this is a pretty massive selection bias. I'd suggest that this invalidates any statement made on the basis of these studies about "poly people," since most poly people seem not to be included. People all over the world are poly, in every country, of every race and class.
It's as if we did a study of "rationalists" and only included people on LW, ignoring any scientists, policy makers, or evidence-based medical researchers, simply because they didn't use the term "rationalist."
You state:
Clearly polyamory is not unknown in Europe, though the word "polyamory" might be. Let's not confuse polyamory, which exists anytime someone openly dates two people, with socially organized communities using the term "polyamory."
I think that remains to be seen, unless one is quietly defining away polyamory as a dull negation of monogamy.
I didn't state that; Klesse did. Between you and Klesse, I know who I will put more weight on.
Sorry, I couldn't tell what was a quote and what wasn't.
Polyamory is usually defined as honest nonmonogamy. In other words, any time someone is dating two people openly, that's poly. It's how many humans naturally behave. It doesn't require exposure to US poly communities, or any community in general for that matter.
The third parent's title is typically something like "nanny" or "governess" or "tutor," and they specialize in a particular age bracket.
If rationalists fail to reproduce, they quickly lose the democratic-political-metagame.
It's quicker to recruit existing people and turn them into rationalists than to create new people from scratch. This approach will eventually exhaust the gene pool, but not for hundreds of generations.
But far less fun!
But training new rationalists "from scratch" seems far more practical for purely experimental purposes. Don't they make the perfect cute little control groups, after all?
Good luck explaining Bayes' law to people with IQs below 90.
Only assuming that rationalism is inheritable, which is not at all obvious.
It may not be genetic but it's clearly hereditary.
"Clearly"? I wonder if there are any studies to this effect.
It isn't a case of studies - it's a social contagion - and is thus pretty obviously inherited by non-DNA-based mechanisms.
In the same sense as religion is inherited?
Yes - e.g. see the dictionary - where it talks about the inheritance of property and the right to rule.
Regarding the term "heredity", don't pay attention to this dictionary page, though. Look at this page instead.
Rationalism may not be heritable, but intelligence surely is.
Let's face it, LessWrong and rationalism in general appeal mostly to people with at least 1 SD above average IQ.
It may or may not be inheritable, but I'm tempted to believe that it is "easily" teachable, especially to an unburdened mind not yet filled with the fallacies that school and sociological phenomena are so prone to encourage and reward. At the very least, it seems like the offspring of a rationalist parenthood is much more likely to become a rationalist themselves than the offspring of a single self-convincing pundit.
It's hard to disagree that it is teachable, not sure about the "easy" part. I wonder how one would measure it vs how easy it is to teach some other life skills.
Presumably, by comparing how much time a teacher takes to bring them to a similar level of recognized mastery-usefulness in both rationalism and some other skill / field of knowledge where the teacher is reliably competent and equally knowledgeable in both fields.
I'm just throwing up a conjecture here with the goal of spurring on further thought, though, as the question intrigues me.