patrissimo comments on Image vs. Impact: Can public commitment be counterproductive for achievement? - Less Wrong

45 Post author: patrissimo 28 May 2009 11:18PM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: patrissimo 12 June 2009 07:42:26PM 0 points [-]

Right, birth control is basically a conflict between genetic and human interests. Short-leash genetic control is situationally triggered and can be difficult for our conscious mind to admit / predict ahead of time. We think we will have self-control, but when the time comes, the short-leash modules trigger and convince us to have unprotected sex (to advance genetic interests). Making it as easy as possible to not give in to short-leash temptation is important for resisting it, which is why keeping condoms around is better than abstinence, and an IUD or injectable birth control is better yet.

Admittedly there is some rationality to the idea of not just ameliorating temptation but avoiding it. Also I suspect abstinencers have a different utility function than I do - they view sex as bad in and of itself and not just because of consequences like unwanted pregnancies. Their method makes more sense given that viewpoint. If it worked, at least.

Comment author: DSimon 21 July 2011 09:34:13PM 1 point [-]

We think we will have self-control, but when the time comes, the short-leash modules trigger and convince us to have unprotected sex (to advance genetic interests).

I'm not sure this makes sense as an evolutionary mechanism. Contraception hasn't been around long enough for it to be a selective pressure, has it?