light downvoted but explaining why to give opportunity to reply and disagree. Meta level : - Lack of any explanation, just references some locally appreciated thing - yet it had already 8 upvotes which look like ingroup “I got that reference” instead of “This comment is beneficial to LW” - analogies are bad if you don’t give their boundaries. If I say “x is like y” without specifying along which properties or axis it’s generally low information.
on object level : - I don’t see polyamory as being much of an answer to “avoid monopolies on your emotional needs”. - It kinda maps to “diversify one’s investments” on a surface level but I’d say you expose yourself to more risk with polyamory than not, while diversifying is supposed to reduce risks.
Yep, see also polyamory kinda.
light downvoted but explaining why to give opportunity to reply and disagree.
Meta level :
- Lack of any explanation, just references some locally appreciated thing
- yet it had already 8 upvotes which look like ingroup “I got that reference” instead of “This comment is beneficial to LW”
- analogies are bad if you don’t give their boundaries. If I say “x is like y” without specifying along which properties or axis it’s generally low information.
on object level :
- I don’t see polyamory as being much of an answer to “avoid monopolies on your emotional needs”.
- It kinda maps to “diversify one’s investments” on a surface level but I’d say you expose yourself to more risk with polyamory than not, while diversifying is supposed to reduce risks.
Honestly yeah, good points.