= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on Using Evolution for Marriage or Sex - 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 (148)
1) Agreed, I'm truly sorry, title changed.
2) I do sincerely believe that evolution made us have sex by making it, and the process leading to it fun. I do believe that humans have intentionally attempted to reduce the risks of having sex. We have in particular invented several kinds of contraceptives, condoms, spermicides, and vaccination with the conscious, deliberate intent of making sex less dangerous. I do believe that, so to say, evolution succeded, and sex is a lot of fun. For everyone. All research in positive psychology indicates that intercourse either tops, or rivals only conversation with friends in amount of experiential happiness. (Gilbert2007, Layard 2004, Lyubuomirsky 2008, Seligman201x). I have no reason, and I mean, no reason which I have ever seen, anywhere, or ever heard, from anyone, reliable or not, to think that we are not under-calibrated for how much fun sex is now, given its reduced level of danger. I would be sad, it is true, if new information came up saying so, and would require lots of evidence. But as far as my mind can reach, I do, sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the vast majority of humans, regardless of age and gender, would lead better and more pleasureful lives if they had sex more often, with less guilt, with less fear.
3) Removed PUA off from the title. PUA is only related to short-terming males. I find it abusive and asymmetric that the other three quadrants don't get that much attention, and wanted to say things to the three states that are not short-terming males. I saw the controversy, and thought that a less narrow view of mating could help controversies like that not to happen again.
EDIT: *I do understand the patterns of downvoting and upvoting in all comments and the original post uptill now, all of it. How it was upvoted in the beggining, how slowly the comment that begins with the word "downvoted" rose to the top, thus starting the snowball which as I predicted below in another comment will cause trouble to the post later on.
But I have absolutely no clue why this very comment is being downvoted.
It starts by agreeing that the posts title was bad, and accepting change. It ends by removing PUA, and saying that if anything I wanted to give a broader picture to a narrow vision, which is present in the PUA debate (here as well), and is very undesirable to women (who don't get any info on what they should do) and to long-terming men. And in the middle, it is the most sincere and honest explanation of why I felt it is okay to say that people are under-calibrated for sex. No one disagreed with the reasons I gave for it, yet, this comment is being downvoted. If you downvoted it, please, tell me why, I am deeply intrigued. Reasons 1 and 3 don't exist anymore, and what I did about reason 2 was to explain my feelings and sentiments about it, almost begging for someone to explain to me what is wrong with that statement. Instead of getting an explanation, this comment is being downvoted. I remain intrigued.
I understood all of that, you were quite clear about this in your post. You think that the danger of sex is biological and that this has been vanquished by vaccines, condoms, etc. In reality, most of the power of sex to harm is social, emotional, and psychological. You are feigning expertise, without even considering the emotional, psychological, and social ramifications. It is pretty common to see this kind of shallow, hyper-atomistic (not considering ramifications upon society), reasoning on Less Wrong.
There is substantial evidence that sexually promiscuous people (distinct from people who have frequent sex) are less happy. It is also a fact that married people have more sex (and more varied sex) than demographically comparable singles. Since married people are also significantly happier and report better health, it seems likely that it is not sex *itself that causes people to be happy, but rather that people who are in stable, happy relationships are also having more sex. Yet your post instead argues that people should just have more sex (including casual sex with strangers, multiple partners, etc.), ignoring the vital element of being in a stable, long-term relationship--in spite of the fact that promiscuity actually is associated with lower happiness. This is inexcusable. Do not give advice about topics when you have such a shallow understanding.
You have not shown this. Perhaps less happy people tend to engage in more promiscuous sex as a way of compensating for their lower happiness. Perhaps there is a common cause of both factors, e.g. excitement seekers might have more promiscuous sex, and also have lower happiness set points due to the same neuro/psych factors that cause them to be excitement seekers.
Fair enough, although the overall point still stands. He is arguing in favor of promiscuity, something associated with lower happiness.
Students who go to my office hours are generally at slightly below average grades in their class. If someone said that encouraging students to go to office hours was arguing in favor of something associated with lower grades, how would you respond?
If someone proposed that encouraging students to go to office hours was leading to lower grades, I'd try to run a semester with little to no office hours notification/encouragement to see if it held up.
In this specific example, it's not inconceivable that the lack of office hours would make students more determined to focus during class and seek out other avenues that may prove more useful. I doubt it, but it's in the realm of reasonable possibility.
I felt like I was trying to help people get what they want, improving instrumental rationality. Long-terming frequently ends up in marriage, monogamous marriage even. More sex doesn't mean more partners (except when changing from 0 to 1, which is an important transition), and I don't understand why you think it does.
I personally think that being in a long-term relationship is a very good move for a human who wants to achieve higher levels of happiness. I have been in 4 over the last eight years, and will celebrate 3 years of the current one this Wednesday! :) I'm very glad about both of my longer relationships thus far (both 3 year long).
I most wanted to help Long-terming women and Long-terming men achieve their purposes, whom through the mild levels of autism, or high levels of influence of the PUA community, may have been mistakenly suffering about their prospects and endeavours.
I don't think that qualifies as promoting promiscuity. (note: I also do not object to promoting promiscuity)
Careful, this is a good way to get people addicted to superstimuli.
Yeah, good point. I'm feeling addicted to reading and replying to this post now, which obviously is decreasing the signal to noise ratio of the post itself and my and other's early comments. For the sake of my future self, and my addictive self, I'll refrain from any further commentaries. (Please if you, reading this, downvoted the one comment which I said eluded me, still explain why, I'm baffled).
I'll catch up with my Masters now. This semester of experimenting writing on Lesswrong was great. Thanks to everyone who read this :)
I think what diegocaleiro is saying is that these social and emotional factors are adaptations that evolved due to the biological dangers. Now that the biological dangers are mostly gone, the adaptations are unnecessary and even harmful. So inasfar as we can consciously influence the social and psychological factors, we would benefit from changing them to promote more sex.
So are the adaptations that make sex as pleasurable as it is.
Yes, but our goals are not the goals of evolution. I want to keep sex pleasurable; I don't want to keep it emotionally and socially complicated and discouraged.
See my more detailed discussion here.
Replied there.
Thanks Dan, you made the Evolutionary Heuristic Point very clear in this and other comments!
I think that the insofar is probably not, in fact, very far. The psychological mechanisms built up around sex predate the human species, they're not going to change so easily.
Plus, if increasing promiscuity doesn't make psychologically modern humans happier, why focus on changing the psychology of modern humans to like being more promiscuous? Aren't we privileging the question with respect to sex here? Why not spend that time and effort focusing on making people enjoy cheaper, more sustainably produced foods? How about changing our standards of humor so it's easier to satisfy people with cheesy sitcoms? Is making people more adapted to promiscuity the most helpful psychological alteration we could be making?
Well, other humans societies are known to be more relaxed and permissive about sex than the modern Western world. And that's without effective contraception. So we clearly can improve somewhat.
No. But down that road lies the argument of "invest all your effort in the single most efficient charity to the exclusion of everything else". Most people don't actually do this, so it makes sense to talk about other things too.
The suggestion here is that making people more adapted to promiscuity the most helpful alteration we could be making with regard to promiscuity. Maybe one of the most helpful alterations with regard to sex in general.
Really, since most of the societies I can think of are a lot more restrictive.
Most are, but some (few?) are more permissive. I can't remember the right examples, though; I could find them if you're not aware of any examples.
Does it make them happier? How do we know this actually constitutes an improvement?
ETA: We would have evolved different psychological mechanisms around sex if the biological and ecological conditions around it had been different millions of years ago, but those psychological mechanisms are adaptations for our genetic continuation, not our happiness. Just because we've got safer, lower consequence access to sex than in our ancestral environment, does not necessarily mean we'd be happier if we adapted to use that access to a fuller extent.
We don't want to go down the road of "invest your money in the Society for Prevention of Rare Diseases in Cute Puppies" either. Lots of people do that, but that doesn't make it sensible.
By listening to the people who tried it?
Possible selection bias.
There's a big difference between becoming polyamorous and simply increasing promiscuity. The people who wrote those are in stable relationships with people they're happy with. Neither was in such a relationship prior to polyhacking.
People have claimed that religion is part of human nature, too, and yet nowadays a very large fraction of the population in Europe and Japan is non-religious. How sure are you that the chain can still hold you? BTW, the regular LWers who wrote about switching to polyamory don't seem to regret that.
A large fraction of the population in Europe and Japan may not be members of organized religion, but (from personal experience in Europe, secondhand in Japan,) they still engage in plenty of tribal and faith-based reasoning.
This is something I do think can be changed, but with very great difficulty. Similarly the mechanisms around sex, but those are probably a great deal older, and likely even more entrenched.
You can see my other comment re: polyhacking. On an added note, I find it doubtful that the entire population would find it effective. Some people are dramatically more afflicted by sexual jealousy than others. Similarly, some people have reported a measure of success with bi-hacking, but when I tried it it simply didn't work.
I know that most educated people believe that, but I've never seen a good argument for it.
At any rate I am almost sure that there are microbes causing significant amounts of death and disability (especially disability because it is a lot easier for our civilization to ignore or deny a cause of disability than to ignore a cause of deaths) that almost no one recognizes as pathogenic. And I tend to believe that for some significant fraction of these "insufficiently recognized" pathogens the more sexual partners you have, and the more likely you'll get it. (There are dozens of viral and bacterial infections -- including near a dozen at least in the herpes family -- that remain in the body and are more common in more promiscuous populations.)
In other words, there seems to be a strong selection bias whereby people tend to look only at the pathogens that are recognized as pathogens by, e.g., doctors.
It might be however that these biological dangers from less-recognized sexually-transmitted pathogens are concentrated in people who are old or already sick.
Any professional biologists or medical researchers wish to chime in?
I'm not a medical professional either, but...
Except in the specific cases of microbes that target the immune response, wouldn't you expect to see things like an elevated white blood cell count in patients suffering from a pathogen, even if the specific pathogen was not well recognized or understood? In other words, you would see the symptom in a blood test even if you didn't know exactly how to look for the pathogen.
If the pathogen reproduces slowly (the pathogen that causes TB might be one such) or has some way of hiding from the immune system or is one of those viruses (e.g., the herpes family) that get into cells and tend to remain dormant for long intervals, then they can be very hard to detect and will certainly not show up in a WBC. I saw news reports earlier this year about evidence that some cases of obesity are caused by gut microbes not previously regarded by, e.g., doctors and society as being pathogenic.
The biggest biological danger of casual sex was (to women) unwanted pregnancy. It's now almost gone thanks to modern contraception.
STDs certainly exist, but they too have become rarer. Syphilis used to cause a lot of mortality and disability, and was mostly (not entirely) defeated by antibiotics. And with modern health care and social safety nets, if you do get sick, your outlook is much better than even a century ago.