I have two concerns about the practical implementation of this sort of thing:
It seems like there are cases where if a rule is being used then people could abuse it. For example, in job applications or admissions to medical schools. A better understanding of how the rule relates to what it predicts would be needed.
If X+Y predicts Z does that mean enhancing X and Y will up the probability of Z? Not necessarily, consider the example of happy marriages. Will having more sex make your relationship happier? Or does the rule work because happy couples tend to have more sex?
It is not true in every case that we equally value all true beliefs, and equally value all false beliefs. Certain rules might work better if we take into consideration a person’s race, sex, religion and nationality. But most people find this sort of thing unpalatable because it can lead to the systematic persecution of sub groups, even if it results in more true, and fewer false, beliefs overall. It also might be the case that some of these rules discriminate against groups of people in more subtle ways that won’t be immediately obvious.
Of course neither of these problems mean that there won’t be perfectly good cases where these rules would improve decision making a lot.
Well, unless the quality of the sex is causally linked to the quantity, such that having lots and lots of sex (past a certain threshold) makes each individual session disproportionately worse. This is true for a lot of people’s libidos.
To put it another way: it’s not the frequency of the motion in the ocean, but the amplitude of the waves.
Although I agree with you, I feel like I should point out that it is somewhat nonsensical for most relationships to be sub-optimal in this way. If both parties want to have more sex, and they can (otherwise the question wouldn’t really be valid), but they don’t, that’s a little weird, don’t you think?
We can talk about optimizing for other things (e.g. careers), but I don’t think that’s really the issue, since many couples, when explicitly told that they would be happier if they had more sex, just start having more sex, without sacrificing anything that they end up wanting back.
Although I agree with you, I feel like I should point out that it is somewhat nonsensical for most relationships to be sub-optimal in this way. If both parties want to have more sex, and they can (otherwise the question wouldn’t really be valid), but they don’t, that’s a little weird, don’t you think?
Weird certainly but this is a kind of weirdness that humans are notorious for. We are terrible happiness optimisers. In the case of sex specifically having more of it is not as simple as walking over to the bedroom. For males and females alike you can want to be having more sex, be aware that having more sex would benefit your relationship and still not be ‘in the mood’ for it. A more indirect approach to the problem of libido and desire is required—the sort of thing that humans are not naturally good at optimising.
I agree on every point. I also think part of this is simply that shared knowledge that is not common knowledge (until acknowledged between parties) is much more difficult to act upon.
I think that “okay, we’re going to have sex now, because it will make us happier” is a little like “okay, I’m going to the gym now, because it will make me feel better”, which may be the same thing you meant about being “in the mood”, but I think it’s even harder for sex, because we are perhaps less willing to see sex except as immediate gratification.
I’ve heard more than once that having more sex on a schedule in the hopes of having children is a miserable experience for couples with fertility problems.
I don’t know whether having more sex in the hopes of being happier (rather than because the people involved want sex more for the fun of it) could have similar side effects.
It’s fairly common for sex therapists to recommend that couples schedule sex and have sex at all (but not only) scheduled times, on the grounds that people may not be in the mood at first, but enjoy it anyway. While it may be a miserable experience for a few people, I doubt that it is miserable in general (and I’m not sure why it would be).
It’s certainly possible for people to have akrasia in regards to pleasure, and scheduling can help with that.
I think possible problems come in if a partner (possibly both partners in the case of fertility) really doesn’t want to at the moment, but is feeling pressured.
Yes, several of these models look like they’re likely to run into trouble of the Goodhart’s law type (“Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes”).
Not necessarily, consider the example of happy marriages. Will having more sex make your relationship happier?
Yes. Almost certainly. But there are plenty of other examples you could pick from where there is not causality involved (and some for which causality is negative).
I have two concerns about the practical implementation of this sort of thing:
It seems like there are cases where if a rule is being used then people could abuse it. For example, in job applications or admissions to medical schools. A better understanding of how the rule relates to what it predicts would be needed.
If X+Y predicts Z does that mean enhancing X and Y will up the probability of Z? Not necessarily, consider the example of happy marriages. Will having more sex make your relationship happier? Or does the rule work because happy couples tend to have more sex?
It is not true in every case that we equally value all true beliefs, and equally value all false beliefs. Certain rules might work better if we take into consideration a person’s race, sex, religion and nationality. But most people find this sort of thing unpalatable because it can lead to the systematic persecution of sub groups, even if it results in more true, and fewer false, beliefs overall. It also might be the case that some of these rules discriminate against groups of people in more subtle ways that won’t be immediately obvious.
Of course neither of these problems mean that there won’t be perfectly good cases where these rules would improve decision making a lot.
Obviously, yes.
True. One of my nodes for “relationship” is consensual; most definitely in that case it would make the relationship much less happy.
Well, unless the quality of the sex is causally linked to the quantity, such that having lots and lots of sex (past a certain threshold) makes each individual session disproportionately worse. This is true for a lot of people’s libidos.
To put it another way: it’s not the frequency of the motion in the ocean, but the amplitude of the waves.
But probably not true for the quantity of sex in almost all relationships, I would bet.
Although I agree with you, I feel like I should point out that it is somewhat nonsensical for most relationships to be sub-optimal in this way. If both parties want to have more sex, and they can (otherwise the question wouldn’t really be valid), but they don’t, that’s a little weird, don’t you think?
We can talk about optimizing for other things (e.g. careers), but I don’t think that’s really the issue, since many couples, when explicitly told that they would be happier if they had more sex, just start having more sex, without sacrificing anything that they end up wanting back.
Weird certainly but this is a kind of weirdness that humans are notorious for. We are terrible happiness optimisers. In the case of sex specifically having more of it is not as simple as walking over to the bedroom. For males and females alike you can want to be having more sex, be aware that having more sex would benefit your relationship and still not be ‘in the mood’ for it. A more indirect approach to the problem of libido and desire is required—the sort of thing that humans are not naturally good at optimising.
I agree on every point. I also think part of this is simply that shared knowledge that is not common knowledge (until acknowledged between parties) is much more difficult to act upon.
I think that “okay, we’re going to have sex now, because it will make us happier” is a little like “okay, I’m going to the gym now, because it will make me feel better”, which may be the same thing you meant about being “in the mood”, but I think it’s even harder for sex, because we are perhaps less willing to see sex except as immediate gratification.
I’ve heard more than once that having more sex on a schedule in the hopes of having children is a miserable experience for couples with fertility problems.
I don’t know whether having more sex in the hopes of being happier (rather than because the people involved want sex more for the fun of it) could have similar side effects.
It’s fairly common for sex therapists to recommend that couples schedule sex and have sex at all (but not only) scheduled times, on the grounds that people may not be in the mood at first, but enjoy it anyway. While it may be a miserable experience for a few people, I doubt that it is miserable in general (and I’m not sure why it would be).
It’s certainly possible for people to have akrasia in regards to pleasure, and scheduling can help with that.
I think possible problems come in if a partner (possibly both partners in the case of fertility) really doesn’t want to at the moment, but is feeling pressured.
Yes, several of these models look like they’re likely to run into trouble of the Goodhart’s law type (“Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes”).
I think it’s safe to say that having less sex will make the relationship less happy, so there is some causality involved.
What? Are you from the mythical land where every partnering has the same intensity of sex drive?
Yes. Almost certainly. But there are plenty of other examples you could pick from where there is not causality involved (and some for which causality is negative).
[quote]Will having more sex make your relationship happier? [/quote]
Having more sex will make ME happier. If my wife finds out though…