Well, that's interesting...unless you are bisexual, you don't and won't ever have such bad experiences with men.
So from a rationalist perspective, does it make sense to use this evidence to update your beliefs about the trustworthiness of women, but not your beliefs about the trustworthiness of men? (This is a real, not rhetorical question)
Well, that's interesting...unless you are bisexual, you don't and won't ever have such bad experiences with men.
That's correct (I'm not bisexual).
So from a rationalist perspective, does it make sense to use this evidence to update your beliefs about the trustworthiness of women, but not your beliefs about the trustworthiness of men?
Positing that I cared about the trustworthiness of men in relationships (which I don't), I think it stil makes sense, as long as there isn't a uniformity between male and female behaviour which, in my experience, is not warranted at all.
Information that surprises you is interesting as it exposes where you have been miscalibrated, and allows you to correct for that.
I suspect the users of LessWrong have fairly similar beliefs, so it is probable that information that has surprised you would surprise others here, so it would be useful for them if you shared them.
Example: In a discussion with a friend recently I realised I had massively miscalibrated on the percentage of the UK population who shared my beliefs on certain subjects, in general the population was far more conservative than I had expected.
In retrospect I was assuming my own personal experience was more representative than it was, even when attempting to correct for that.