Seems like it falls under applied rationality to me. Using what scientific knowledge we have to try to improve relationships. Not too sure the hypothesis is seaworthy, but the goal certainly seems laudable.
I am not too sure why the post has been downvoted so much, the comments give no indications of what’s *so* wrong about it.
To the extend that it uses scientific knowledge it doesn’t refer to any studies about pair bonding. And even the scientific knowledge that was in the first draft was questionable with getting testosterone wrong.
There are also good reason to have higher standards for this subject domain.
Why is this on lesswrong?
Seems like it falls under applied rationality to me. Using what scientific knowledge we have to try to improve relationships. Not too sure the hypothesis is seaworthy, but the goal certainly seems laudable.
I am not too sure why the post has been downvoted so much, the comments give no indications of what’s *so* wrong about it.
To the extend that it uses scientific knowledge it doesn’t refer to any studies about pair bonding. And even the scientific knowledge that was in the first draft was questionable with getting testosterone wrong.
There are also good reason to have higher standards for this subject domain.