= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Calibrate your self-assessments - LessWrong
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 (117)
"\> 70% of single individuals of a suitable mating age in the world" is both a grossly conservative estimate and satisfies any remotely reasonable usage of 'most people' in the context.
Did you just try to spin that as an insult to those in my reference class? If I recall correctly all but two of the twenty participants were as of that time in at least one relationship. The lesson that should be taken is that even those who are already successful can serve to benefit from recalibrating their aversion to rejection downwards towards the optimal level.
That's certainly what you can expect in the extreme case. More often, however, people simply end up with fewer experiences with fewer people and must be satisfied with relationship arrangements that are perhaps less than they could have been. Or, at the least, must counter the aversive emotions that may otherwise have been an inconvenience while going after what they want despite their inhibitions.
If I were take the narrow group of my own friends and acquaintances and your suggested symptom "forever alone" the experiment would be biased in the other direction. Very few are single and an absolutely sickening proportion has gone and got themselves outright married.
[emphasis added]
Selection bias much?
There certainly could be, in such a class. Mind you I'd extend the 70% estimate to include all other individuals too - it'd just be slightly less of an understatement.
Any actual basis to the notion that >70% of people are overly cautious for their own good, considering the risk of status loss (real or perceived), and the fact that they are also over-confident about the success rate?
I'd say that for well over 70% of people worldwide, what you said about environment of evolutionary adaptedness, still applies.
Speaking of which. Almost everyone gone through 'environment of social adaptation' in the learning sense, i.e. daycare then school, and the late stages of it are similar enough to 'environment of evolutionary adaptedness' - with the striving for status, small number of apparent mating opportunities, potentials for scary punishments - the products of conditioning by which can all provide ample food for evolutionary psychologists, and ample set of strange biases. The people who didn't go through school, are small and biased sample; the cultures where there is no school are naturally living in something even more similar to supposed 'environment of evolutionary adaptedness'.
It does seem that the sexual attraction, as a novel feeling, confuses the hell out of brain when it first appears, especially in puritan cultures. Kids even do certain thing, that involves looking at pictures of women (or imagining) , and being afraid that someone would walk in and catch them. That, plus Pavlov's conditioning, already provides ample explanation in terms of well studied, uncontroversial phenomena. It may not be as intellectually engaging as imagining what cavemen were like, but that's uncontroversial theory which is well tested, and predicts social anxiety of men around women in many cultures; EP can only predict additional anxiety on top of this. I've seen enough of different people of different nations, with different approach to talking to women, to know that significant anxiety is not universal. Keep in mind that i am from former soviet union, in which many people of different nations with diverse cultures and religions were moved around.