= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
J_Taylor comments on More "Stupid" Questions - 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 (495)
Some fraction of the population is naturally poly, some naturally mono, some can go either way depending on circumstances. In the general population many naturally poly people are 'conformed' into being mono the same way they might be conformed into being religious. Thus 'people who want to be poly can be' would reasonably be expected to correlate with elements of the Correct Contrarian Cluster, and you would expect to find more polyamorous atheists or (he predicted more boldly) polyamorous endorsers of no-collapse quantum mechanics than in the general population, even outside LW. There are also specifically cognitive-rationality skills like 'resist Asch's conformity' and 'be Munchkin', and community effects like 'Be around people who will listen with interest to long chains of reasoning instead of immediately shunning you.'
When you say 'naturally', are you referring to genetics, prenatal environment, or something else?
How should I know?
You could've read some papers on the topic for example. (I'm answering this because it is after all in the stupid questions thread)
Fair enough.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement:
I was curious what was meant by this.
It's likely that Eliezer isn't tending towards either side of the nature vs. nurture debate, and as such isn't claiming that nature or nurture is doing the work in generating preferences.