In any case, as we discussed below, my original interpretation was that this is about the general desirability of [X]. I also obviously implied I’ve heard strong reasons against [X] but few convincing ones in its favour.
Woman: Yay I want to get married with the man I love! Does anyone have any advice?
Man: Marriage is a bad idea. I can’t see why anyone would want that.
Woman: I’m allowed to want things! You are being mean.
Man: Don’t try and chain the poor guy with whom I suddenly identify!
Woman: I hate you and my fear of instability and falling out of love that you now represent! I want to wear a wedding dress and a pretty ring on my hand!
I would say that “I’m surprised that you’re planning on [X], considering [list of drawbacks]” would work at least as well.
I was surprised at Alicorn (who’s generally a calm poster) saying that she was allowed to want things. It seemed weirdly out of line with the discussion. When I saw the beginning of the thread again, “why in the world” jumped out at me as aggressive.
Something that’s showing more clearly to me on another reread is that you genuinely didn’t see what you might have done that was problematic.
I’m wondering if there’s something odd going on at your end—I don’t think you usually misread things the way you misread Alicorn’s original request.
It could be a cultural or language barrier, the same phrase “why in the world would you X” has a literal Slovenian equivalent that I now however think seems to carry very different connotations. Much more surprise and much less disapproval than in English.
This phrase might have set of the conversation on the wrong foot, since later on seemingly unprovoked hostility and evasiveness may have caused me to respond by hardening up and even escalating.
It is also possible that since I have recently had irl discussions regarding marriage I may have just thrown out some arguments at Alicorn that where originality crafted for someone else. If that was the case then we both became pretty emotional in the discussion because of its relevance to our personal lives. :/
Taking out “in the world” tones it down, in the same way that taking the spikes out of a club tones it down. “Why would anyone...” is still a rhetorical question asserting that anyone who does is a dolt. You do the same in another comment: “Why would anyone make a lifetime commitment?”
Clearly, many people do get engaged, do get married, do make lifetime commitments. A majority of people, even, at least here in the West; I do not know how it is in Slovenia. (The disadvantageous tax regime you have in Slovenia was done away with long ago in the UK: married couples can elect to be taxed as separate individuals.) But saying “Why would anyone do such a thing” does not invite discussion, it shuts it off. If you actually wanted to know people’s reasons, you would actually ask them, and listen to the answers.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
I was interested in the following:
Why do so few people who want to get married question the wisdom of such a step considering its high costs and dubious benefits (in comparison to say cohabitation)?
Why do people in general want to get married? (this is different from the question of whether it is rational to marry)
Is it rational for most people who marry to do so?
I was not specifically interested in why Alicorn wanted to get married. I did want to provoke, maybe even shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts.
When I got married, I thought about this a little, and I concluded that marriage (but not cohabitation) would:
Create a partner with a non-betrayal stance towards me (i.e. would not defect against me in a one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma game).
Signal to others that I and partner had a non-betrayal stance towards each other.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer. I do think that many people go into marriage without thinking of these considerations, and I think that is a mistake. In other words, I think that the answer to your third question is no. But that depends on society’s tolerance of cohabitation, which wasn’t always society’s attitude.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer.
I can think this is because it is an act that is supposed to entail the following:
shared reproductive interests
shared financial interests
at least some pair bonding (Oxytocin makes you love your kdis and love your romantic partner, in extreme cases enough to be willing to sacrifice yourself)
To me, those things are implied by the “non-betrayal” stance. Agreement on childbearing, shared financial interest, and pair bonding (i.e. shared emotional interest) are consequences of the fundamental agreement not to betray. As you note, each of those could be achieved without marriage—but most people act as if this were not possible. I’m just as confused as you.
That is different from noting the incidental benefits of legal marriage—if I die without a will, my wife gets my property. To achieve the same effect without marriage, I’d have to actually create a will. And so on for all the legal rights I want my wife to have (e.g. de facto legal guardian if I am incapacitated). But I want my wife to have those rights because of the non-betrayal stance, and if that wasn’t our relationship, I wouldn’t want her to have those rights.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
Ask as if you did not already have a presumption about what the answer should be. Telling people they’re idiots unless they agree with you will only convince them you are someone they do not want to talk to.
Your latest reformulation is better—the key substitution is “do” instead of “would”. The second and third bullet points are absolutely fine, but in the first and in the final paragraph you’re still sticking your own oar in with “considering its high costs and dubious benefits” and “shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts”. There are, as it happens, people who have thought carefully about what arrangement they want to make on these matters, and without having to be told about cached thoughts either, but you will never hear them with that approach.
Better?
In any case, as we discussed below, my original interpretation was that this is about the general desirability of [X]. I also obviously implied I’ve heard strong reasons against [X] but few convincing ones in its favour.
This whole conversation was such a cliché.
Woman: Yay I want to get married with the man I love! Does anyone have any advice?
Man: Marriage is a bad idea. I can’t see why anyone would want that.
Woman: I’m allowed to want things! You are being mean.
Man: Don’t try and chain the poor guy with whom I suddenly identify!
Woman: I hate you and my fear of instability and falling out of love that you now represent! I want to wear a wedding dress and a pretty ring on my hand!
Man: I’m sorry.
Woman: Apology accepted.
Now I’m wondering what would’ve happened if my boyfriend had made the post.
I find this sexist! But true.
In any case it was sweet sweet drama.(^_^)
It’s better.
I would say that “I’m surprised that you’re planning on [X], considering [list of drawbacks]” would work at least as well.
I was surprised at Alicorn (who’s generally a calm poster) saying that she was allowed to want things. It seemed weirdly out of line with the discussion. When I saw the beginning of the thread again, “why in the world” jumped out at me as aggressive.
Something that’s showing more clearly to me on another reread is that you genuinely didn’t see what you might have done that was problematic.
I’m wondering if there’s something odd going on at your end—I don’t think you usually misread things the way you misread Alicorn’s original request.
It could be a cultural or language barrier, the same phrase “why in the world would you X” has a literal Slovenian equivalent that I now however think seems to carry very different connotations. Much more surprise and much less disapproval than in English.
This phrase might have set of the conversation on the wrong foot, since later on seemingly unprovoked hostility and evasiveness may have caused me to respond by hardening up and even escalating.
It is also possible that since I have recently had irl discussions regarding marriage I may have just thrown out some arguments at Alicorn that where originality crafted for someone else. If that was the case then we both became pretty emotional in the discussion because of its relevance to our personal lives. :/
No.
Taking out “in the world” tones it down, in the same way that taking the spikes out of a club tones it down. “Why would anyone...” is still a rhetorical question asserting that anyone who does is a dolt. You do the same in another comment: “Why would anyone make a lifetime commitment?”
Clearly, many people do get engaged, do get married, do make lifetime commitments. A majority of people, even, at least here in the West; I do not know how it is in Slovenia. (The disadvantageous tax regime you have in Slovenia was done away with long ago in the UK: married couples can elect to be taxed as separate individuals.) But saying “Why would anyone do such a thing” does not invite discussion, it shuts it off. If you actually wanted to know people’s reasons, you would actually ask them, and listen to the answers.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
I was interested in the following:
Why do so few people who want to get married question the wisdom of such a step considering its high costs and dubious benefits (in comparison to say cohabitation)?
Why do people in general want to get married? (this is different from the question of whether it is rational to marry)
Is it rational for most people who marry to do so?
I was not specifically interested in why Alicorn wanted to get married. I did want to provoke, maybe even shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts.
When I got married, I thought about this a little, and I concluded that marriage (but not cohabitation) would:
Create a partner with a non-betrayal stance towards me (i.e. would not defect against me in a one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma game).
Signal to others that I and partner had a non-betrayal stance towards each other.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer. I do think that many people go into marriage without thinking of these considerations, and I think that is a mistake. In other words, I think that the answer to your third question is no. But that depends on society’s tolerance of cohabitation, which wasn’t always society’s attitude.
I can think this is because it is an act that is supposed to entail the following:
shared reproductive interests
shared financial interests
at least some pair bonding (Oxytocin makes you love your kdis and love your romantic partner, in extreme cases enough to be willing to sacrifice yourself)
To me, those things are implied by the “non-betrayal” stance. Agreement on childbearing, shared financial interest, and pair bonding (i.e. shared emotional interest) are consequences of the fundamental agreement not to betray. As you note, each of those could be achieved without marriage—but most people act as if this were not possible. I’m just as confused as you.
That is different from noting the incidental benefits of legal marriage—if I die without a will, my wife gets my property. To achieve the same effect without marriage, I’d have to actually create a will. And so on for all the legal rights I want my wife to have (e.g. de facto legal guardian if I am incapacitated). But I want my wife to have those rights because of the non-betrayal stance, and if that wasn’t our relationship, I wouldn’t want her to have those rights.
Ask as if you did not already have a presumption about what the answer should be. Telling people they’re idiots unless they agree with you will only convince them you are someone they do not want to talk to.
Your latest reformulation is better—the key substitution is “do” instead of “would”. The second and third bullet points are absolutely fine, but in the first and in the final paragraph you’re still sticking your own oar in with “considering its high costs and dubious benefits” and “shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts”. There are, as it happens, people who have thought carefully about what arrangement they want to make on these matters, and without having to be told about cached thoughts either, but you will never hear them with that approach.