= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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)
Wow, that's a rather significant vow if taken literally.
Willingly promising to turn down any offer of the form "I'll tell you a secret if you don't repeat it"? Yeah, hardcore. For one thing this bars them from any job with non-disclosure agreements.
If they're good decision theorists, they will just not wish to know anything that their wishing to know would cause problems like that.
If they're good rationalists overall, they could also establish as common knowledge that they both timelessly decide not to predict/estimate their spouse would wish to know something which is known by themselves to be likely to bring about lower total utility to them both than if the spouse had never wished to know it, whether the spouse knows of this or not.
If they're good decision theorists they will just not make commitments that can only have downsides (relative to more careful commitments). It is of benefit to neither to arrange a system that requires mindreading how well the other person has mindread you and chosen to self modify to not want the thing that you would want them to not want to know. All that can do is allow extra opportunities for any deviation from good decision theory at any time to cause problems.
You could just assume all NDAs apply equally well to the spouse. They should just be considered legally one person.
You could also assume that all guns are toy replicas. Assuming things like this is not well known for actually changing how the world works, however, so it's usually best to deal with reality as it actually is instead.
That's the decision of the person providing the Non Disclosure Agreement, not the decision of the people engaging in bonding rituals.
I'm pretty sure it's some combination of the decisions of both parties making the agreement, and the relevant laws.
I've definitely seen NDAs negotiated to cover a spouse, but this needs to be negotiated in advance, and will require the spouse to sign as well. More importantly, my experience is that it is absolutely NOT reasonable to expect this when signing an NDA. Quite a few organizations will shoot it down, either because they view the request as unreasonable, or simply because of the sheer bureaucratic wrangling it would take to make an exception.
To clarify, my comment was not about what is a reasonable assumption given the current legal state of affairs. It was a suggestion for how married couples could legally be viewed.
In practice, I would guess that most people who sign NDAs and are married just disregard them when it comes to one's spouse, so people providing NDAs really should be aware of that if they're concerned.
Upvoted because I can't see any reason THIS comment should be negative, even if I STRONGLY disagree with the "just assume they apply" comment beforehand.
In theory, yes, but probably not in practice.