= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on [Link] More ominous than a [Marriage] strike - 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 (90)
You're missing a large and important subset: people with value systems in which moderately large amounts of money are not as important as a variety of inner emotional states.
To give an example from a different sphere, let's assume that there is a riskless way to cheat on your taxes. There are people who will do it and people who won't. It is not particularly useful to describe the latter as not responding "to fairly significant incentives".
True, though I'd somewhat wrapped them more under "won't benefit", since the economic benefits would be outweighed by the emotional costs. At the same time and to state the obvious, people are aware of and overestimate the chances of future emotional states being positive.
And, obviously, neither partner need be or become "bitch" for a relationship to result in an overall positive experience, or less-positive-than-readily-possible experience, and humans do not seem to have good established tools for estimating future emotional states on this long of a timeframe.