= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe comments on Open thread, September 8-14, 2014 - 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 (295)
How is it rational to willfully keep others in ignorance of a risk they have every right to know about? The discomfort of honest disclosure is a minor inconvenience when compared to the disease.
A classic example of confusing is with ought...
You are right for the rationalist who gives substantial weight to the welfare of his or her lovers. But being rational doesn't necessarily imply you that care much about other people.
A rationalist that doesn't care about the welfare of their lovers and yet believes they have a duty to warn them about if they tested positive (but no duty to get tested in the first place, even if the cost is nonpositive)?
Are you advocating for prisoner defection?
In my game theory class I teach that rational people will defect in the prisoner's dilemma game, although I stress that you should try to change the game so it is no longer a prisoner's dilemma.
I hope you also talk about Parfit's hitchhiker, credible precommitment and morals (e.g. honor, honesty) as one of its aspects.
I spend a lot of time on credible threats and promises, but I don't do Parft's hitchhicker as it doesn't seem realistic.
Can this situation be modeled as a prisoner's dilemma in a useful way? There seem to be some important differences.
For example, if both 'prisoners' have the same strain of herpes, then the utility for mutual defection is positive for both participants. That is, they get the sex they were looking for, with no further herpes.
Not prisoner's dilemma, but successful coordination to which a decrease in the spread of HIV in the gay community is attributed: serosorting.
The base rate of HSV2 in US adults is ~20%. I would argue that if you're sexually active, and don't get an HSV test between partners (which is typically not part of the standard barrage of STD tests), you're maintaining the same sort of plausible deniability strategy as those who pay to not see the results of their apropos-of-nothing tests.
If you do think you have an ethical obligation to inform others of a risk like this, do when did you test yourself the last time for herpes?
If you must know, I'm a virgin. I have, however, engaged in erotic practices not involving genital contact.
If that wouldn't be the case, how often would you think you would test yourself?
I guess a minimum should be before and after each new partner, plus additional tests if I suspect infidelity.