You don't touch too much on the ways by which you form relationships, but if the approaches described in the "Use Science" section are indicative of what you always do, I'm appalled.
It surprises me that your "rational" approach to getting women involves being largely dishonest about who you are to them. Why avoid talking about politics, math, programming, and religion if that's what you enjoy talking about? If she doesn't, then maybe you shouldn't be together. If forming a satisfying relationship is truly your goal I don't think this is the best way. It seems to me that your "rational approach" is more about tricking both of you into thinking you like each other so that you can enjoy each other's company for a night.
And for that matter, for someone who is a prominent member of a blog devoted to improving the art of human rationality, you seem perfectly willing to discard rationality and abuse women's inherent biases when it serves your sexual interests.
Edit: I no longer endorse a number of the things I have said in this thread. Particularly bad comments have been retracted.
The wildly manipulative nature of your methods is, indeed, "appall[ing.]"
It's notable that the impetus for this exercise was a perceived suboptimal situation based on little more evidence than a perceived "spark of intimacy" on the part of your partner, hardly anything falsifiable (and even further, you make no mention of consulting said partner about the seeming negative value judgment inherent in your dismissal of monogamy, which is by no means a given -- that's just bad practice). The discussion that builds the guiding premise for this hoopla is reduced to a fait accompli and not given adequate bearing in a balanced "rational" decision. It seems deceptive not only to your partner, then, but also to your audience to cloak your "rational" endeavors under the guise of maximizing mutual utility when the real compelling interest here is your own, and, I would argue, not the quality of any future relationship(s), but the ease and quantity, rather than quality, of acquaintanceship and sex.
There are also significant issues of rhetoric, particularly with the uses of "own," "data," and "quality," but they hardly seem to carry bearing without significant explanation; this essay contains yawing gaps of information.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You don't touch too much on the ways by which you form relationships, but if the approaches described in the "Use Science" section are indicative of what you always do, I'm appalled.
It surprises me that your "rational" approach to getting women involves being largely dishonest about who you are to them. Why avoid talking about politics, math, programming, and religion if that's what you enjoy talking about? If she doesn't, then maybe you shouldn't be together. If forming a satisfying relationship is truly your goal I don't think this is the best way. It seems to me that your "rational approach" is more about tricking both of you into thinking you like each other so that you can enjoy each other's company for a night.
And for that matter, for someone who is a prominent member of a blog devoted to improving the art of human rationality, you seem perfectly willing to discard rationality and abuse women's inherent biases when it serves your sexual interests.
Edit: I no longer endorse a number of the things I have said in this thread. Particularly bad comments have been retracted.
The wildly manipulative nature of your methods is, indeed, "appall[ing.]"
It's notable that the impetus for this exercise was a perceived suboptimal situation based on little more evidence than a perceived "spark of intimacy" on the part of your partner, hardly anything falsifiable (and even further, you make no mention of consulting said partner about the seeming negative value judgment inherent in your dismissal of monogamy, which is by no means a given -- that's just bad practice). The discussion that builds the guiding premise for this hoopla is reduced to a fait accompli and not given adequate bearing in a balanced "rational" decision. It seems deceptive not only to your partner, then, but also to your audience to cloak your "rational" endeavors under the guise of maximizing mutual utility when the real compelling interest here is your own, and, I would argue, not the quality of any future relationship(s), but the ease and quantity, rather than quality, of acquaintanceship and sex.
There are also significant issues of rhetoric, particularly with the uses of "own," "data," and "quality," but they hardly seem to carry bearing without significant explanation; this essay contains yawing gaps of information.
Downvote.