= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
katydee comments on Link: Toward Non-Stupid, Non-Blank-Slatey Polyandry - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (32)
That seems like a biased way to formulate the implicit question. Might it not be the case that many people overinvest in attractiveness?
No idea why your comment got downvoted, you raise a valid point. And apart from the issue of over- or underinvesting, for some people the ROI doesn't seem high or even positive.
I never said the number had to be positive. It's a complex topic, though, so I couldn't say with tremendous confidence that the number is negative - it's not a pure positional game, but has elements of positive, zero, and negative-sum games.
I would expect that the number of women (and men) who overinvest in attractiveness is positive. Ditto the number who underinvest. Both questions are interesting, imho.