QuestionTime comments on Open Thread: June 2009 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Cyan 01 June 2009 06:46PM

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

Comments (142)

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

Comment author: QuestionTime 02 June 2009 04:16:53PM *  0 points [-]

Alicorn, Thanks for responding - see my "Added" to the original comment.

She seems to take a fairly reasonable approach to dealing with / working around her emotional issues and tries hard not to let me suffer because of them.

The atheism / theism divide could be much worse. I'm not sure her beliefs even have net-negative consequences. At present, the main issue is that we each have important beliefs that we don't think we can share. RE: children, we could probably both accept me having the right to be honest about my beliefs but not pushing them, or going into detail unless they really want to hear it or reached 18.

She doesn't generally do things that are obviously and profoundly instrumentally stupid, but its probably fair to worry about whether she might in the future. She'd need some money to spend on her friends more lavishly than I would, and to give to inefficient charities, but it seems unlikely she'd want to spend more than I could indulge.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 June 2009 04:32:44PM 2 points [-]

At present, the main issue is that we each have important beliefs that we don't think we can share.

Being able to share differing beliefs has more to do with whether you can both remain civil about important things than whether you agree. I regularly and enthusiastically pick apart minute disagreements between myself and my friends, and would feel as though something were lacking if I couldn't - but we can switch topics from politics to polenta when someone gets fed up and there are no hard feelings. If you can't do that with your girlfriend, that indicates a deeper-running incompatibility than merely disagreeing on rationality. Even if you agreed on all the big issues, it would be miraculous for you to make it through life without ever arguing, and being able to argue without it having it destroy your relationship is an essential skill.

Comment author: QuestionTime 02 June 2009 06:23:51PM 0 points [-]

A big part of the issue is that I'm not sure whether in depth discussions of my views will a) convince her, or b) help her live a good and happy life, or c) the relationship between a) and b).

Regardless, I'll need to push a little more conversation of LWish topics before doing anything crazy like getting married. She realizes this as well.

Comment author: QuestionTime 02 June 2009 05:42:04PM *  0 points [-]

Let me explain that sentence a bit more. As you know, preference utilitarianism comes with quite a bit of bullet-swallowing and while I may be less hard core than some, I swallow bullets she seems very hesitant to. Perhaps equally or more importantly, like most people, she doesn't seem to like to taste the bullets, i.e. ponder uncomfortable thoughts, accept uncertainty, etc. I, on the other hand, seem to take some perverse pleasure in thinking and talking about such topics. From her perspective, I sometimes "analyze things e.g. a poem, a play, the proper emotional response to situation X, to death to the point of being distracted from their inherent value."

Comment author: dclayh 04 June 2009 05:18:14AM *  3 points [-]

For me, any (serious) talk of "overanalyzing" or "overthinking" things would be a huge red flag. But maybe I'm unusual in that.

Comment author: Alicorn 04 June 2009 05:23:21AM *  0 points [-]

Using the word "overanalysis" isn't always a red flag for unwillingness to analyze where appropriate. Sometimes it just means recognizing that it is not worth six hours of nutrition research and blind taste tests to decide what cereal is the optimal breakfast. In a pinch, you can just grab the generic crisped rice or a prettily-packaged granola and call it good.

Comment author: dclayh 04 June 2009 05:43:50AM *  5 points [-]

Of course. To clarify a bit, it's obviously possible to give things more thought than they deserve. But someone who habitually makes accusations of overthinking, to my mind, is indicating a contempt for thought itself, which is about the most horrible quality I can think of. (I believe I first came to this conclusion when I read this webcomic, though on looking back at it I'm not sure.)

Comment author: saturn 05 June 2009 08:04:21AM *  0 points [-]

Some people just aren't very good at getting right answers through deliberate reasoning, but can get by using implicit reasoning. Combine that with the typical mind fallacy and you get someone who sees "overthinking" everywhere they look. But I think the problem here isn't so much about these implicit reasoners, but rather about contemptuous people in general, with contemptuous implicit reasoners as a special case.