= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Rational approach to finding life partners - 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 (127)
What is your estimate of the probability that you'll change your mind about that at some point during your lifetime? :-D
That presumably depends on how the relevant laws change (or not).
I don't think this probability is driven by laws.
The grand-parent's complaint was about being screwed by divorce, which is driven by divorce laws.
Being unhappy about divorce laws post- or during divorce is a very different thing from having one's decision to marry being strongly influenced by divorce laws.
In fact, if you are researching divorce laws before your wedding, you probably should call that wedding off -- regardless of whether you'll find these laws reasonable or not.
Don't tell me you're one of those hopeless "love conquers all and isn't subject to rational laws" romantics.
Do I detect a subtle hint of disapproval in that sneering?
I expect much more from a spouse than just being a business partner bound by a long contract.
As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people. That makes divorce laws irrelevant.
Ok, taboo "good person". What kind of evidence do you expect to see to be sure that the person you're planning to marry is "good"? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
I mean entirely traditional old-fashioned virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness.
LOL. I wonder how you cross streets. Are you quite sure no one will run you down? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
There's a rather acute shortage of people with old-fashioned virtues these days.
A lot less then winding up in a divorce.
I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant, unless you define "good" so strongly that it's basically impossible to be justifiably confident that one is marrying a good person.
I'm talking on a personal level, not social. In the same way I would suggest that you not rob anyone and if you follow that suggestion, laws about robbery will be irrelevant to you (insert the usual disclaimers).
Yes, I understood that you meant individuals rather than society as a whole. And I am suggesting that a policy of only marrying good people is not sufficient to keep a person from having to care about divorce laws. Unless e.g. you define "good" in such a way as to imply "would never get divorced" or "would, if getting divorced, never have interests that sharply diverge from their ex-spouse's" or something, which I would think highly unreasonable and which would make it even more impossible to be sure of not marrying someone not-good.
... Oh, wait. Is what you're really suggesting a policy of never marrying at all? Because that (1) is probably the only way to be sure of not marrying anyone who isn't "good" and (2) would indeed make it very unlikely that one would need to care about divorce laws.
Isn't what you're saying completely contradictory to basic decision theory? A possibility of a personal catastrophe in the future should not be ignored. Marriage introduces that possibility and non-marriage doesn't have it.
You are privileging a particular viewpoint. Both paths have risks, costs and benefits.
Note that researching divorce laws before the wedding has a strong self-fulfilling prophecy flavour.
Explain this.
You are assuming that being not married is the default state of being and any deviations from it must be justified.
What? How?
I don't know. I don't think I'll ever get married or that there is even hope for me to get married.