Rationality is basically therapy [citation needed]. A common type of therapy is couples therapy. As such, you’d think that ‘couples rationality’ would exist. I guess it partially does (Double Crux, Againstness, “group rationality” when n=2, polyamory advocacy), but it seems less prevalent than you’d naively think. Maybe because rationalists tend to be young unmarried people? Still, it seems like a shame that it’s not more of a thing.
Therapy is a specific setting. You have a therapist and you have a client (or two). Most rationality technique on the other hand seem to be designed to be able to be done by a single person.
Rationality is basically therapy [citation needed]. A common type of therapy is couples therapy. As such, you’d think that ‘couples rationality’ would exist. I guess it partially does (Double Crux, Againstness, “group rationality” when n=2, polyamory advocacy), but it seems less prevalent than you’d naively think. Maybe because rationalists tend to be young unmarried people? Still, it seems like a shame that it’s not more of a thing.
Aumann’s agreement theorem: two agents acting rationally cannot agree to disagree.
Share Models, Not Beliefs
For bigger groups: Voting Theory Primer for Rationalists
Aumann’s agreement theorem is an extremely bad basis for any kind of couples therapy...
...if less than two of them are rationalists?
Literally no one is rational enough to actually reach Aumann agreement on anything but a simple toy problem. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JdK3kr4ug9kJvKzGy/probability-space-and-aumann-agreement
Therapy is a specific setting. You have a therapist and you have a client (or two). Most rationality technique on the other hand seem to be designed to be able to be done by a single person.