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.

MileyCyrus comments on What truths are actually taboo? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: sunflowers 16 April 2013 11:40PM

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

Comments (293)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 17 April 2013 12:29:47AM 14 points [-]

Most sexual relationships are between people who are settling for what they can get.

Comment author: sunflowers 17 April 2013 12:43:07AM 12 points [-]

Cynicism about love is taboo? Where have I been?

Comment author: evand 17 April 2013 12:58:45AM 14 points [-]

It's fine until you change a vague statement about "most" relationships (which obviously means outgroup-people's relationships) into a specific one about people in the conversation, or friends of people in the conversation, or other ingroup members. At which point, I'd say it's just offensive, not taboo. Offensive, hard to justify, based on the outside view when people with inside view information are around... yeah, probably instrumentally unwise to say most of the time, too.

Comment author: James_Miller 17 April 2013 12:56:53AM *  10 points [-]

settling for what they can get.

You mean optimizing.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 17 April 2013 01:17:08AM 14 points [-]

You mean optimizing.

Wouldn't satisficing be more correct?

Comment author: malcolmocean 17 April 2013 01:52:19AM 9 points [-]

Agreed. Although if you include the cost of searching, satisficing is the optimal solution.

Comment author: MixedNuts 17 April 2013 04:18:37PM 1 point [-]

As opposed to what?

Comment author: DanArmak 17 April 2013 07:36:59PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: MixedNuts 17 April 2013 10:01:50PM -1 points [-]

Yeah, that was pretty much the only thing I could think of. But given that people do not in fact have randomly assigned soulmates who are a much better match than anyone else, holding out for your soulmate is not a possible policy.

Another thing that would qualify is meeting everyone in the world (in reasonable age brackets and filtering by gender if appropriate, and maybe some amount of filtering on culture and interests still counts as not settling) to determine the best possible match, not because you can only be happy with them but because you refuse to settle for the infinitesimally inferior second-best match. But it's very unlikely that you'll be your first choice's first choice, forcing at least one of you to settle for an inferior match or remain single.

Gratuitous bragging: my calculations suggest that there are about ten thousand people in the world I'd be more or less as happy with as with my boyfriend. (It's not that lucky, I meet an incredibly skewed sample.) I have on average two more chances of finding another good match if we break up, and I'm not unhappy about this prospect, which makes "settling" a strange descriptor.

Comment author: Prismattic 18 April 2013 02:50:02AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: MugaSofer 18 April 2013 09:27:59PM *  -1 points [-]

Claiming that people did not have their mate selected by their subconscious and pheromones or whatever is not the same as saying they did not have them selected by random draw by ***ing cupid.