= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on White Lies - 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 (893)
Demand by rational men for rational women exceeds supply, even taking into account that some of the women have harems. If you're one of the lucky men, or a woman, be aware of your privilege and don't criticize men who lack it.
I think the set of women you can be honest with in a relationship is much larger than the set of women who are full on CFAR style rationalists.
My experience is more like "real honesty, in or out of a relationship, only works with the upper echelon of CFAR style rationalists" though admittedly exposure to the naked, sharp gears of my own intellect may have more Lovecraftian results than it would in the population average.
Honest about carefully selected safe topics? Or about the weird ones?
I agree with the point in your first sentence, but I'm not sure I follow what your advice is in the second sentence.
Are you suggesting that my criticism comes from having rational women to date, whereas Chris (at the time of the anecdote) did not, and so was forced to date an irrational woman, for which I was criticising him?
Those are three wrong things, it seems to me:
I don't find it to be the case that rational women occur in abundance in my dating pool;
No one (presumably) forced Chris to date the young lady in question;
I wasn't criticising him for his dating choices; if I was criticising anything, it was his advice that we accept such behavior in our partners / friends, and expressing the view that I, personally, would not accept such behavior.
P.S.
Really?
That surprises you? Do you think rational women wouldn't want harems?
Scott tells us that polyamory seems like a suboptimal way to get sex, and I assume this holds true even for women - technically. But sex is not fungible.
Um... sure, that surprises me a bit. Also that they have the harems, even given wanting them.
I don't really know what you are saying in your second paragraph. Please explain?
...What?! You're surprised that rational people who are in demand can get what they want?
I may try to explain the second part later, but in my current condition I don't get your confusion.
Depending on what "what they want" is, yeah, I might be surprised.
I mean, clarify for me, what are we talking about here? "Polyamory is relatively common in rational circles, and poly relationships in said circles often/sometimes/commonly consist of (i.e., are circumscribed by) one woman who is dating several men"?
That doesn't entitle any irrational woman to date any rational man. Men are allowed to stay single, you know.
It's better to be single than to date someone irrational.
If everyone thought like that, I'd never get a date (and neither would anyone else, of course).
Perhaps (though I'm not sure*), but even if so, that's no great loss, because getting a date isn't good in itself, it's only good if it's with someone with whom you're compatible, and rationality is critically important for that.
Also, this would have the effect of making rationality a more desirable trait, and irrationality a more costly one.
.*It's definitely not true for everyone, as there are relationships in which both partners are rational.