RolfAndreassen comments on The selfish reason to write something for Ada Lovelace Day - Less Wrong

11 Post author: sixes_and_sevens 10 October 2013 10:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 10 October 2013 11:07:56PM 15 points [-]

[W]hat other popular internet phenomena can be co-opted for this purpose.

The Internet is, of course, for porn, so... rationalist erotica?

Comment author: CronoDAS 13 October 2013 01:17:25AM 2 points [-]

Among the enhanced vampire senses is touch.

-- Luminosity, studiously avoiding having a sex scene in the narration

Comment author: Vaniver 11 October 2013 12:30:32AM 4 points [-]

Maybe Eliezer should start blogging about BDSM.

Comment author: Zaine 11 October 2013 01:11:38AM *  0 points [-]

I decided to delete the text of my first comment, as it dealt with what sex by rationalists would look like, rather than erotica fantasising rational decision making; the first is available upon request.

Minerva couldn't remember the last time she'd felt this nervous. She'd redone her hair knot at least twice now, and she still couldn't tear herself away from the mirror. Half of her wanted to be convinced it was out of respect for the man. That half was a dirty liar. Almost as dirty as her thoughts of the last hour.

A knock came at the door.

"Enter, please."

The way he derived partial transfiguration by extrapolating observable reality to its logical conclusions was just so sexy.

Comment author: DanielLC 11 October 2013 02:23:35AM 1 point [-]

You know, this is the third time I've seen Harry shipped with McGonagall.

Comment author: CronoDAS 13 October 2013 01:14:38AM -1 points [-]

Eliezer once threatened to ship Draco with McGonagall. I don't remember the context, though.

Comment author: Zaine 11 October 2013 04:10:31AM -1 points [-]

Never seriously, I hope. I have yet to stop laughing.

Comment author: DanielLC 11 October 2013 04:37:03AM 0 points [-]

The first one was just a joke about a ship nobody would ever seriously do. It was also the only one where Harry had any part in it.

The second one was pretty much just for humor, but it did make sense in context: Avpubynf Synzry jnf bevtvanyyl n snxr vqragvgl sbe fbzrbar gbb ybj pynff gb or n erfcrpgrq nypurzvfg. Ur riraghnyyl znqr gur cuvybfbcure'f fgbar nf n ubnk, naq cnffrq ba gur znagry. Gur pheerag Avpubynf Synzry vf Uneel Cbggre. ZpTbantnyy jnf jryy njner gung vg jbhyq or n znl qrprzore ebznapr, ohg fur gubhtug fur jnf gur lbhat bar.

Comment author: ygert 11 October 2013 07:33:33AM 0 points [-]

I think it is generally good practice to advertise what story is being spoiled by the rot13ed text. If people are unsure over what the spoilers are for, they may be stuck in a state of eternal uncertainty over whether or not it is safe to read the rot13ed text.

For reference, in this case it's a spoiler for abawba'f "Jurer va gur Jbeyq vf Uneel Cbggre?" gevybtl. (I rot13ed that, in case someone doesn't want to be spoiled even that tiniest of tiny bits on the story. (And let me tell you, the spoiled part not a major part of that story whatsoever) But the jokes on them: they can never read the rot13ed text, even if what is inside is not a spoiler for them, as they have no way of knowing whether or not it is.)

Comment author: DanielLC 11 October 2013 10:19:00PM -1 points [-]

I think it is generally good practice to advertise what story is being spoiled by the rot13ed text.

I would have, but I couldn't remember what story it was.

And let me tell you, the spoiled part not a major part of that story whatsoever

Yeah, but it might still be more fun to find out the context by reading the context, instead of just a summary for it.

Also, I couldn't remember exactly how much of a spoiler it was.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 11 October 2013 03:49:00PM *  0 points [-]

Hmm. What would this be? Some set of people rationally deciding to hook up when without an especially rational outlook they wouldn't? Alternately, optimizing a hookup?

How could this be written so as to actually showcase rationality (i.e. don't gratuitously add 'rationality' to everything that's not stupid)? Without killing the mood?

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 11 October 2013 04:17:30PM 6 points [-]

So that was intended for a joke, but ok, let's think. Some possibilities:

  • 50 Shades of Rationality - keep the sex scenes but upgrade the characters, HPMoR-style. I haven't read them, but presumably there's some excuse for a plot? So, make villains and heroes both awesomer. This does have the weakness that there's "separation of rationality and erotica" - it's about smart characters, and they have a lot of sex, but it's not necessarily smart sex, so to speak.

  • A sex scene that the characters have spent (at least) five minutes thinking about and preparing for. Does losing your virginity absolutely have to be a scramble of awkwardness, embarrassment, and rapid ejaculation? Not if the characters expend some effort ensuring otherwise. This is more explicitly rational; it's about how to actually accomplish a goal, the did-you-really-think-about-that-for-five-minutes question. We just make it sexual by setting the goal to "get laid" or "have really good sex".

  • In BDSM, there seems to be a conflict between the sub not currently being spanked, who wants to be; and the sub being spanked, who (to some extent) wants not to be. Precommitment, discounting, making decisions for yourself-in-the-future, sub-agents within yourself with differing agendas.

Obviously all depends on good writing; but really, anything with a plot - anything longer than five pages and more complicated than "Tab A went into slot B" - should have some room for rationality. The characters have to make some decisions, presumably, and that can be done well or badly.

Comment author: Vaniver 12 October 2013 04:44:35AM 1 point [-]

A sex scene that the characters have spent (at least) five minutes thinking about and preparing for. Does losing your virginity absolutely have to be a scramble of awkwardness, embarrassment, and rapid ejaculation? Not if the characters expend some effort ensuring otherwise. This is more explicitly rational; it's about how to actually accomplish a goal, the did-you-really-think-about-that-for-five-minutes question. We just make it sexual by setting the goal to "get laid" or "have really good sex".

Interesting thing to think about: many teens / young adults today have a vast amount of book knowledge about sex (from health classes and the internet) but normal amounts of actual experience, compared to historical populations. (I remember being tremendously amused by some erotica I read recently in which a character, receiving oral sex for the first time, thought "This isn't the best thing ever like in all the erotica I've read and porn I've watched; it's just pleasant. I sort of want to stay here all day.")

Comment author: ikrase 14 October 2013 05:36:25AM 0 points [-]

Seconding this. Will likely interest feminists.