Do you consider that an example of unethical behavior? I don't.

You're right that this doesn't seem quite unethical, but it is awfully creepy and I'm not sure how to pull my intuitions apart there. Sitting across from someone who is faking affection and smiles and pleasantries so as to manipulate my behavior would cause me to avoid them like the plague.

In professional environments I find this happens all the time, and when the fake friendliness is discovered as such, the effect reverses considerably. If it's terribly important to something's being effective that the person you're doing it to doesn't know what's going on, it's probably bad.

If A means not B, then selecting for A is the same thing as selecting against B.

If A means "with probability 90% not B", then if B is a serious problem, it is worth checking both A and not B. Maybe even checking not B first, to avoid halo effect from A.

In my experience, some people treat dating as a negative selection process with thousand requirements that no one passes, because thousand criteria are simply too much. (Assuming independent results, even with probability 99% of passing each test, less than one person in 20 000 passes all thousand criteria. In real life, the criteria are often positively correlated, but on the other hand the probability is way less than 99%.) And those people usually defend it by taking each criterium out of the context and saying: "What's wrong about wanting my boyfriend/girlfriend to be interested in opera/programming?" Well, nothing wrong per se, but if you have thousand criteria like this, good luck finding a person who fulfills them all (and is also interested in you).

The solution is to separate those criteria into two groups: "must have" and "nice to have". (And if nine hundred of the thousand criteria are in the first group, you are doing it wrong.) First, filter people by the "must have" criteria. What remains is your dating pool. Some of those will be never interested in you, but you will find that out by trying. Now use the "nice to have" criteria for a utility function, and go seduce someone with a high utility. (And as a parallel process, try to increase your market value.) At the end, you may find someone who has all "must have" and some of the "nice to have" traits; and you may be happy with them.

Hello everyone!

Name: Tuesday Next Age: 19 Gender: Female

I am an undergraduate student studying political science, with a focus on international relations. I have always been interested in rationalism and finding the reasons for things.

I am an atheist, but this is more a consequence of growing up in a relatively nonreligious household. I did experiment with paganism and witchcraft for several years, a rather frightening (in retrospect) display of cognitive dissonance as I at once believed in science and some pretty unscientific things.

Luckily I was able to to learn from experience, and it soon become obvious that what I believed in simply didn't work. I think I wanted to believe in witchcraft both as a method of teenage rebellion and to exert some control over my life. However I was unable to delude myself.

I tried to interest myself in philosophy many times, but often became frustrated by the long debates that seemed divorced from reality. One example is the idea of free will. Since I was a child (I have a memory of trying, when I was in elementary school, of trying to explain this to my parents without success) I have had a conception of reality and free will that seemed fairly reasonable to me and I never understood what all the fuss was about.

It went something like this: The way things did turn out is the only way things could have turned out, given the exact pre-existing circumstances. In particular, when one person makes a decision they presumably do so for a reason, whether that reason is rational or not; if that decision is not predetermined by the situation and the person, then it is random. If a decision is random, this is not free will because the choice is not a result of a person's decision; rather it is a result of some random phenomenon involving the word "quantum."

But since no two situations are alike, and it is impossible for anyone to know everything, let alone extrapolate from knowledge of the present to figure out what the future will be, there is no practical effect from this determinism. In short, we act as if we have free will and we cannot predict the future. It is the same thing with reality. Whether it is "real" or not is irrelevant.

The practical consequences of this, for me at least, are that arguing about whether we have free will or not misses the point. We may be able to predict the "future" of a simple computer program by knowing all the conditions of the present, but cannot do the same for the real world; it is too complex.

I finally found this articulated, to my great relief that I was not crazy for believing it, in Daniel Dennet's "Freedom Evolves." This is what got me interested in philosophy again.

I am also interested in how to change minds (including my own). I have always had fairly strong (and, in retrospect, irrational) political beliefs. When I took an Economics course, I found many of my political beliefs changing significantly.

I even found myself arguing with a friend (who like me is fairly liberal), and he later praised me for successfully defending a point of view he knew I disagreed with. (The argument in question was about a global minimum wage law; I was opposed.) I found this disconcerting as I was in fact arguing what I honestly believed, though I do have a tendency to play "Devil's Advocate" and argue against what I believe.

This forced me to confront the fact that some of my political views had actually changed. Later, when I challenged some of the basic assumptions that Economics class made, like the idea that markets can be "perfect," I found myself reassessing my political views again. I am trying to get in the habit of doing this to avoid becoming dogmatic.

Anyway, I think that's enough for now; if anyone has any questions I would be happy to address them.

--Tuesday