This whole post is disturbing to me for several reasons, the least of which is the analysis of relationships—which, to me, have always been emotional, passionate moments—by talking like a machine about optimal universes and utilons. Even Spock wasn’t that cold. This is simply not what rationality means to me.
The most disturbing reason is seeing this post commit such fallacies of sexism as stereotyping and othering. Attempts to pigeonhole the mind-boggling diversity of romantic relationships into premade cookie-cutter recipes are at best doomed to failure and at worst show, if not something so drastic as objectification, at least a failure of empathy, since to the author it only extends to the “us”-group and not to the “them”-group.
analysis of relationships—which, to me, have always been emotional, passionate moments—by talking like a machine about optimal universes and utilons.
If explicit analysis of relationships would completely ruin the joy they bring you, then it is rational not to analyze them. However, for most people who’ve embarked on such analysis programs, this does not seem to be the case. The more important something is to you, the more vital it is to optimize for its good characteristics.
I sympathize with your distaste for taking apart love to see what it’s made from, but that’s the same frame of mind that refuses to put a value on human life, and thus ends up wasting large amounts of it by making scope-insensitive decisions. Refusing to analyze love might similarly waste large amounts of potential future love.
to the author it only extends to the “us”-group and not to the “them”-group.
The PUA experimenters here have noted that modifications of the standard methods may be necessary to appeal to the “rationalist” crowd. But I feel confident that none of them would claim Evolutionary Psychology doesn’t work on us. I think you see as a lack of empathy what Lukeprog sees as analyzing everyone equally—sort of the “don’t anthropomorphize humans” approach.
I sympathize with your distaste for taking apart love to see what it’s made from
More like distaste for trying to reduce love to something it’s not. You cannot reduce an abstract, complex facet of human experience to something simple and easily definable, otherwise you make yourself vulnerable to utopia plans that are doomed to fail.
People I showed lukeprog’s original post to were universal in their reaction: “Wow, talk about neckbeardery”.
As for PUA, I won’t comment on that. If all you care about is one-night stands, then I guess you can be cynical about that. Actual love is a different matter entirely.
This whole post is disturbing to me for several reasons, the least of which is the analysis of relationships—which, to me, have always been emotional, passionate moments—by talking like a machine about optimal universes and utilons. Even Spock wasn’t that cold. This is simply not what rationality means to me.
The most disturbing reason is seeing this post commit such fallacies of sexism as stereotyping and othering. Attempts to pigeonhole the mind-boggling diversity of romantic relationships into premade cookie-cutter recipes are at best doomed to failure and at worst show, if not something so drastic as objectification, at least a failure of empathy, since to the author it only extends to the “us”-group and not to the “them”-group.
Isn’t it too much of a convenient coincidence to say that it’s impossible and also immoral to rationally understand something?
If explicit analysis of relationships would completely ruin the joy they bring you, then it is rational not to analyze them. However, for most people who’ve embarked on such analysis programs, this does not seem to be the case. The more important something is to you, the more vital it is to optimize for its good characteristics.
I sympathize with your distaste for taking apart love to see what it’s made from, but that’s the same frame of mind that refuses to put a value on human life, and thus ends up wasting large amounts of it by making scope-insensitive decisions. Refusing to analyze love might similarly waste large amounts of potential future love.
The PUA experimenters here have noted that modifications of the standard methods may be necessary to appeal to the “rationalist” crowd. But I feel confident that none of them would claim Evolutionary Psychology doesn’t work on us. I think you see as a lack of empathy what Lukeprog sees as analyzing everyone equally—sort of the “don’t anthropomorphize humans” approach.
More like distaste for trying to reduce love to something it’s not. You cannot reduce an abstract, complex facet of human experience to something simple and easily definable, otherwise you make yourself vulnerable to utopia plans that are doomed to fail.
People I showed lukeprog’s original post to were universal in their reaction: “Wow, talk about neckbeardery”.
As for PUA, I won’t comment on that. If all you care about is one-night stands, then I guess you can be cynical about that. Actual love is a different matter entirely.
You got multiple people to use that sentence? In fact, I will be nearly as impressed if multiple people independently used the word “neckbeardery”.
I said “to the effect of”. I didn’t mean literally the same wording.
Where?
...I didn’t? Drat. Sorry.
This is what I get for not looking over my own comments before I post them. I’ll be more vigilant in the future.