Brillyant comments on Good movies for rationalists? - Less Wrong

0 Post author: roland 09 November 2013 08:00AM

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

Comments (66)

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

Comment author: Brillyant 12 November 2013 08:02:21PM *  1 point [-]

Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.

Yes. Though it seems to me language, and humans' capacity for it, is what I am ultimately suggesting is at issue with regard to movies influencing our expectations about what romantic love is like in the long term.

As soon as the idealization was recordable -- able to be communicated to a non-participant in whatever form the sexual relationship took -- then I think the map started to include errors in transmission about how to optimize for long-term fulfillment in romantic relationships. To the extent people had access to the errant map and used it as the primary (or sole) resource for doing long term love right, they were vulnerable to doing it wrong. Movies are just this concept on steroids, and only humans can make movies.

No doubt nature couldn't care less about whether we're fulfilled long-term...as long as we're good at short-term mating and preparing Jr. to be good at it too, then our replicators are probably happy as clams.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 November 2013 04:13:52PM 1 point [-]

I think you're conflating "sexual" and "romantic".

Comment author: Brillyant 13 November 2013 09:48:14PM 1 point [-]

I guess. Though I'm not sure there is much harm in doing so in this context.