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.

Lumifer comments on Rational approach to finding life partners - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: c_edwards 16 August 2015 05:07PM

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

Comments (127)

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

Comment author: LessWrong 21 August 2015 03:05:48PM 4 points [-]

I don't see the point of getting married at all, especially when you're royally screwed once you're divorced.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 August 2015 03:18:21PM 2 points [-]

What is your estimate of the probability that you'll change your mind about that at some point during your lifetime? :-D

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 25 August 2015 02:02:37AM 4 points [-]

That presumably depends on how the relevant laws change (or not).

Comment author: Lumifer 25 August 2015 02:22:53AM 2 points [-]

I don't think this probability is driven by laws.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 25 August 2015 07:32:55AM 6 points [-]

The grand-parent's complaint was about being screwed by divorce, which is driven by divorce laws.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 August 2015 02:43:36PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 26 August 2015 04:24:17AM 0 points [-]

Don't tell me you're one of those hopeless "love conquers all and isn't subject to rational laws" romantics.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 05:49:19AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 26 August 2015 07:31:19AM 4 points [-]

As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people.

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?

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 02:26:29PM 0 points [-]

Ok, taboo "good person".

I mean entirely traditional old-fashioned virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness.

What if you're wrong?

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?

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2015 09:54:29AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 August 2015 02:24:03PM 1 point [-]

I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant

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).

Comment author: LessWrong 17 September 2015 12:10:14PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2015 03:22:13PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: LessWrong 17 September 2015 05:10:36PM 0 points [-]

You are privileging a particular viewpoint.

Explain this.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2015 05:19:39PM 0 points [-]

You are assuming that being not married is the default state of being and any deviations from it must be justified.

Comment author: LessWrong 21 August 2015 03:28:30PM 0 points [-]

I don't know. I don't think I'll ever get married or that there is even hope for me to get married.