Kate wants to increase her status by getting Joe to commit. She then becomes complacent, and then fat, lazy, and bitchy, and looses her respect for Joe since she was able to manipulate him. She never understands any of this, and accuse Joe of her shortcomings.
Joe never understands it either, and gets more remote, stressed, tired, workaholic, lonely, and subdued. They are both miserable.
And if anyone describes anything resembling this typical story to them, they immediately attack with accusations of political incorrectness, misogyny, discrimination, etc.
This bears on why I do not find Newcombs problem and similar of much interest:
Reality is so dominated by myriads of effects that models containing beeings like Omega or similar are far too unrealistic. Just collecting data and making simple models gets one much further.
It frustrates me to read this comment. There are some important insights in there that are being sullied by involvement in such a low status presentation. The comment is needlessly confrontational, in need of proof reading, and uses hyperbole where it does not help. It also misses the details of the situation, suggesting an “all I have is a hammer” understanding.
The social dynamics mentioned in the parent do occur and there is potential for detrimental psychological consequences for both parties of letting the status game become so unbalanced. The lack of self awareness proposed for Jack and Kate also ties in with the recent series on ‘luminosity’.
I hope Kim0 edits this comment to something that better conveys his message.
The main problem I have with “fat” is that it emphasizes applying stigma rather than acknowledging that the kind of situation mentioned encourages people to let themselves go even though that isn’t what they want (to want to) do.
Well, it also implies that she started out thin, which would be an obvious stereotype of the marriageable girl with the chance to be picky expressed in the OP. “Fatter” would have been better, if still mean.
It did work, in a way. But I did expend some effort trying to tease out the positive parts from the presentation. With only a minute’s worth of extra effort you could have made it work better and I would be lining up here to give you status and respect for your contribution. I know you (may believe and or assert that you) aren’t interested in status or respect here but if you care about the value are trying to ‘work’ here then you should be. You don’t want your beliefs to be associated with ‘the kind of things that only social outcasts would think’. That’s what will happen if you go around supporting things that you care about while also acting like a prat, due to similar dynamics to the ones you described.
More realistic:
Kate wants to increase her status by getting Joe to commit. She then becomes complacent, and then fat, lazy, and bitchy, and looses her respect for Joe since she was able to manipulate him. She never understands any of this, and accuse Joe of her shortcomings.
Joe never understands it either, and gets more remote, stressed, tired, workaholic, lonely, and subdued. They are both miserable.
And if anyone describes anything resembling this typical story to them, they immediately attack with accusations of political incorrectness, misogyny, discrimination, etc.
This bears on why I do not find Newcombs problem and similar of much interest:
Reality is so dominated by myriads of effects that models containing beeings like Omega or similar are far too unrealistic. Just collecting data and making simple models gets one much further.
It frustrates me to read this comment. There are some important insights in there that are being sullied by involvement in such a low status presentation. The comment is needlessly confrontational, in need of proof reading, and uses hyperbole where it does not help. It also misses the details of the situation, suggesting an “all I have is a hammer” understanding.
The social dynamics mentioned in the parent do occur and there is potential for detrimental psychological consequences for both parties of letting the status game become so unbalanced. The lack of self awareness proposed for Jack and Kate also ties in with the recent series on ‘luminosity’.
I hope Kim0 edits this comment to something that better conveys his message.
Looking at past comments it looks like he/she has some interesting ideas but isn’t very good at explaining them in a clear and respectful manner.
I would not have downvoted the comment if it didn’t include the word “fat”. That pushed it from “aggressive” to “just plain mean”.
The main problem I have with “fat” is that it emphasizes applying stigma rather than acknowledging that the kind of situation mentioned encourages people to let themselves go even though that isn’t what they want (to want to) do.
Well, it also implies that she started out thin, which would be an obvious stereotype of the marriageable girl with the chance to be picky expressed in the OP. “Fatter” would have been better, if still mean.
Good point, I hadn’t even thought of that implication.
You all are quite good at picking up the implications, which means my post worked.
It did work, in a way. But I did expend some effort trying to tease out the positive parts from the presentation. With only a minute’s worth of extra effort you could have made it work better and I would be lining up here to give you status and respect for your contribution. I know you (may believe and or assert that you) aren’t interested in status or respect here but if you care about the value are trying to ‘work’ here then you should be. You don’t want your beliefs to be associated with ‘the kind of things that only social outcasts would think’. That’s what will happen if you go around supporting things that you care about while also acting like a prat, due to similar dynamics to the ones you described.
If you intended the original comment as a test, you should have pointed out that it was a test. To do otherwise is quite rude.
I bet this is closer to what actually happened.
I’d take the other side of that bet at even odds* if it were actually possible to make a wager of this.
* Translation for Bayesians: I think that the probability that kim0 is simply an idiot is less than 0.5.