You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) - Less Wrong Discussion

20 [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:39AM

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

Comments (364)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 08:20:44AM *  13 points [-]

I've only ever seen one case of a man who'd previously had a rationalist mate going back to nonrationalist mates afterward.

I have dated rationalists and gone back. Rationalist subculture affiliations count very little to me. It doesn't make people all that rational and does make people more annoying when they are, in fact, being irrational. I do enjoy having some shared interests with those I date but honestly I'd assign more 'attraction' points for a fitness obsession, enjoyment of games (board games, cards) or, say, medical knowledge than "being a rationalist".

The reason why the gender skew of our culture is a mating problem for men is that once you go rationalist you don't go back.

That sounds like an argument that one shouldn't date a rationalist even when an attractive option is willing and available. You don't want to permanently degrade your future options for (possibly) short term pleasure with what is immediately before you.

"Go to the physics department, find a woman you consider attractive, point her at HPMOR, and see if anything develops" sounds like more useful advice to me.

If you say so yourself!

I don't know, if a woman had tried that with me she'd have found I didn't make it through to the end (didn't read the last batch after the pause before it). And she'd find that I argue with the author, rejecting some of the "rationalist" morals he promotes in the chapters that get preachy. If she is too enarmored of the work it could disqualify me!

For (straight) men who insist on dating externally, asking a woman whether she would prefer a certainty of $500 or a 15% chance at $1 million seems likely to be a surprisingly good filter on potential mates.

If I happen to marry (or otherwise have significant resource sharing with) a woman who is poor at this kind of decision making I'll first make sure she is willing to let me have final say on critical financial decisions. (Irrational and stubborn or egotistic about it is what would black-ball her.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 04:55:01PM 7 points [-]

Would it be useful to distinguish between rationalist subculture affiliation and habitually rational?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 05:10:54PM 2 points [-]

I think this is a useful distinction. I care much more about "habitually rational" than "subculture affiliation," when it comes to social interactions.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 04:57:00PM 1 point [-]

Would it be useful to distinguish between rationalist subculture affiliation and habitually rational?

Probably. In this case it is the subculture affiliation that matters---given the context of considering what strategies to use in response to the gender imbalance therein.

Comment author: Sarokrae 14 September 2012 07:15:00AM 5 points [-]

I think a statement more likely than "once you go rational you can't go back" is "once you go luminous you can't go back". I think my OH has expressed something along the lines of it just being too much effort when he considers dating someone who can't just tell him if they are having system 1 issues.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 September 2012 09:04:07AM 0 points [-]

I hate to No-True-Scotswoman you but I can't help but wonder exactly how rational she was - the cases I know have all been drawn from either East Coast or West Coast whole communities with corresponding personal transmission of skills.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 10:09:30AM *  10 points [-]

I hate to No-True-Scotswoman you but I can't help but wonder exactly how rational she was - the cases I know have all been drawn from either East Coast or West Coast whole communities with corresponding personal transmission of skills.

Enough that by my best estimate based on what exposure to and information that I have about those communities she could easily soar to high levels of status within either (take that either way). Probably collecting an arbitrary sized harem in a matter of weeks.

Rationalist skills are impressive and sometimes convenient for lovers to have but again, I'd be just as impressed with and drawn to an interested prospective mate with Taekwondo or Jujutsu skills who was willing to spar with me. I'm reasonably aware of what I look for in a companion and a lover and that which is required to be respected as a rationalist just doesn't happen to be near the top of the list.

I actually suspect there is an element of in group bias at play here---the same bias I see in my Christian friends and relatives who tell each other how much superior other Christians are as friends and romantic interests.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 11 September 2012 09:19:14PM 9 points [-]

I actually suspect there is an element of in group bias at play here---the same bias I see in my Christian friends and relatives who tell each other how much superior other Christians are as friends and romantic interests.

I've noticed a pretty strong in-group bias in myself WRT Less Wrong.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 11 September 2012 09:34:18AM 5 points [-]

You two are so cute when your argue!!!

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 11:30:24AM *  1 point [-]

Should rational men take into account when considering very long term relationships with women that the women are likely to remain physically and mentally healthy longer than the men are, with the effect being amplified if the woman is younger than the man? If that factor is considered, then independent good sense is very valuable.

To make it more specific, it's highly likely that in a very long term heterosexual relationship, the woman will be wrangling medical personnel for the man. Of course, it's also pretty likely that at some point, the man will wrangling medical personnel for the woman, just not as likely.

Numeracy level of both marriage partners has a large impact on lifetime savings