Vaniver comments on Open Thread, October 27 - 31, 2013 - Less Wrong

2 Post author: mare-of-night 28 October 2013 12:59AM

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

Comments (382)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lmm 03 November 2013 12:34:33AM 0 points [-]

You've accurately summarized what I said. I think on reflection point a) is very dubious, so allow me to instead bite your bullet: I don't yet have a strong level of confidence that same-sex marriages are likely to work. (Which I don't see as a reason to make them illegal, but might be a reason to e.g. weight them less strongly when considering a couple's suitability to adopt).

I think we may need to taboo "work" here; if we're talking about suitability as an organizational leader here then that's a higher standard than just enjoying one's own sex life. I would supplement b) with the observation that we observe historical instances of gay people making major contributions to wider society - Turing, Wilde, Britten (British/Irish examples because I'm British/Irish).

But yeah, that's basically my position. Interested to see where you're going with this - is there such an "established (if unofficial) tradition of long-term, stable multi-adult relationships" that I'm just ignorant of?

Comment author: Vaniver 07 November 2013 05:31:26PM 1 point [-]

But yeah, that's basically my position. Interested to see where you're going with this - is there such an "established (if unofficial) tradition of long-term, stable multi-adult relationships" that I'm just ignorant of?

Um, polygamy? Concubinage? Both have long histories, and show up in cultures that are clearly functional.

Both of them are less gender egalitarian than modern polyamory, and it's not clear to me that there's ample real-world evidence of, say, Heinlein's idea of line marriages working out.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2013 08:08:28PM 3 points [-]

Clearly functional... but as functional? http://www.gwern.net/docs/2012-heinrich.pdf

The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolute wealth differences have expanded. Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 November 2013 08:33:12PM 2 points [-]

Clearly functional... but as functional?

I think it would be useful here to distinguish between what is/was/should be/might be the average and what is the acceptable range of deviation from that average.

A society where most men have one wife but some men have several is different from a society where most men have one wife and having several is illegal and socially unacceptable.

Comment author: Vaniver 07 November 2013 08:24:13PM 2 points [-]

Clearly functional... but as functional?

Probably not- I buy the arguments that the incentives generated by monogamy are better than the ones generated by polygamy, across society as a whole. (I am not yet convinced that serial monogamy enabled by permissive divorce laws is better than polygyny, but haven't investigated the issue seriously.) I meant more to exclude the idea that polygamy is only seen in, say, undeveloped societies.