I decided a few weeks ago that upon getting married I will sign a pre-nup which specifies that all of my children will receive paternity testing without exception. This constrains my options in a way that prevents goal distortion in myself and certain types of mistrust in the hypothetical husband.
Potential disadvantage: doing so signals that you’re the sort of person who would benefit from such an agreement; i.e. someone who considers them-self vulnerable to goal distortion, and/or likely to be not trusted by their partner.
Right. The intended signal is “I am so sure that I will not cheat (at least with the particular result of a child) that I don’t mind guaranteeing I’ll get caught if I do”.
The phrase between parentheses is a critical issue, since it is extremely easy—and, in fact, the default—to cheat without producing illegitimate offspring, thus making the prenup fairly worthless.
It’s actually likely to make things worse, since swearing that “I will not cheat and get pregnant” is going to bring one’s attention to the backdoor—i.e. that you never promised not to cheat outright. It looks like a classical and extremely clumsy deception.
Unless, that is, you’d be happy with your husband being suspicious of you at the same time he is confident that his child is really his.
It seems like a reasonable way to signal fidelity in advance. Guys can do paternity tests pretty easily these days—if they have doubts—though… and girls realise that. So, maybe this doesn’t buy you that much—in practice.
If there are to be doubts they will probably begin before birth—when testing is not practical. Testing after the doubts begin seems to be a pretty likely outcome.
Also, I figure the guy is going to want to be the one who administers any paternity testing. A test administered by the girl leaves some opportunity for deception by switching samples.
Testing to resolve uncertainty over paternity seems like a good case of humans consciously and deliberately caring about the welfare of their genes. Some seem to think that evolution’s motivation for a man to reproduce his genes comes is in the form of sexual desire and pleasure—but for many, this is just not so.
I think the legal details of this will need to be worked out but this is certainly very interesting! In theory, such a move ought to make you a more desirable wife and ought to prevent certain types of mistrust in the hypothetical husband. I doubt both of these would pan out in practice though, unless you are fairly certain to restrict your pool of potential husbands to the ultra-rationalists (who probably barely even exist in practice), or to guys who would a priori have preferred paternity testing, even before you bring it up to them.
I don’t understand how that would make sense. What happens if you renege on such a contract, and how does it change things relative to the normal situation anyway? Even without any contract, if your husband wants to test the kid no matter what, he can dispute paternity until the test is done and the evidence is there. The details of course vary between jurisdictions, but I think this should be the case pretty much everywhere.
(Also, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure if contracts of this sort would be enforceable in any case. From what I’ve red, prenups are ruled unconscionable fairly easily, and I can easily imagine a judge finding this sort of thing ethically fishy. But I’m just speculating here; if someone more knowledgeable is around, it would be interesting to hear from them.)
Even if it’s unenforceable, it changes the dynamic of raising the question. In the normal state, asking for a paternity test could reasonably cause offense—“Are you saying I cheated?”. Writing up the contract makes the test the default, and then not wanting the test would be suspicious—“What, now you change your mind? You said you’d test them all.”
Yes, but would be the advantage of formalizing such a deal in a prenup, rather than just committing yourself to it verbally and informally? Why waste the money for the lawyer fees?
Even with a typical husband, I doubt you are in any danger of having typical children. I based my prediction on “Typical people are boring!” Full Stop.
Haha, when I googled LW for “goal distortion” I didn’t expect the first hit to be Alicorn! :) I was thinking that Justin should write a post, but he’s busy all the time. Problem is, he’s thought about it more than anyone else, I think. Merrrrr.
I decided a few weeks ago that upon getting married I will sign a pre-nup which specifies that all of my children will receive paternity testing without exception. This constrains my options in a way that prevents goal distortion in myself and certain types of mistrust in the hypothetical husband.
Potential disadvantage: doing so signals that you’re the sort of person who would benefit from such an agreement; i.e. someone who considers them-self vulnerable to goal distortion, and/or likely to be not trusted by their partner.
Alternately it signals that one is sufficiently immune that ensuring a means will exist for their partner to measure this will be beneficial.
Right. The intended signal is “I am so sure that I will not cheat (at least with the particular result of a child) that I don’t mind guaranteeing I’ll get caught if I do”.
The phrase between parentheses is a critical issue, since it is extremely easy—and, in fact, the default—to cheat without producing illegitimate offspring, thus making the prenup fairly worthless.
It’s actually likely to make things worse, since swearing that “I will not cheat and get pregnant” is going to bring one’s attention to the backdoor—i.e. that you never promised not to cheat outright. It looks like a classical and extremely clumsy deception.
Unless, that is, you’d be happy with your husband being suspicious of you at the same time he is confident that his child is really his.
Of course I would also promise not to cheat outright; this just doesn’t have the convenience of being so easily verifiable.
It seems like a reasonable way to signal fidelity in advance. Guys can do paternity tests pretty easily these days—if they have doubts—though… and girls realise that. So, maybe this doesn’t buy you that much—in practice.
The point is not to wait until there are doubts. Getting to the point of actionably strong doubts is half the problem.
If there are to be doubts they will probably begin before birth—when testing is not practical. Testing after the doubts begin seems to be a pretty likely outcome.
Also, I figure the guy is going to want to be the one who administers any paternity testing. A test administered by the girl leaves some opportunity for deception by switching samples.
Testing to resolve uncertainty over paternity seems like a good case of humans consciously and deliberately caring about the welfare of their genes. Some seem to think that evolution’s motivation for a man to reproduce his genes comes is in the form of sexual desire and pleasure—but for many, this is just not so.
I think the legal details of this will need to be worked out but this is certainly very interesting! In theory, such a move ought to make you a more desirable wife and ought to prevent certain types of mistrust in the hypothetical husband. I doubt both of these would pan out in practice though, unless you are fairly certain to restrict your pool of potential husbands to the ultra-rationalists (who probably barely even exist in practice), or to guys who would a priori have preferred paternity testing, even before you bring it up to them.
I don’t understand how that would make sense. What happens if you renege on such a contract, and how does it change things relative to the normal situation anyway? Even without any contract, if your husband wants to test the kid no matter what, he can dispute paternity until the test is done and the evidence is there. The details of course vary between jurisdictions, but I think this should be the case pretty much everywhere.
(Also, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure if contracts of this sort would be enforceable in any case. From what I’ve red, prenups are ruled unconscionable fairly easily, and I can easily imagine a judge finding this sort of thing ethically fishy. But I’m just speculating here; if someone more knowledgeable is around, it would be interesting to hear from them.)
Even if it’s unenforceable, it changes the dynamic of raising the question. In the normal state, asking for a paternity test could reasonably cause offense—“Are you saying I cheated?”. Writing up the contract makes the test the default, and then not wanting the test would be suspicious—“What, now you change your mind? You said you’d test them all.”
Yes, but would be the advantage of formalizing such a deal in a prenup, rather than just committing yourself to it verbally and informally? Why waste the money for the lawyer fees?
There is a realistic chance that I will forget having said any given thing I say.
Using lawyers as the most expensive kind of diary ever is… actually not as bad as how they’re ordinarily used, in fact.
Expensive signaling?
Probably not a good idea. It’ll weird any potential husband out. See Vladimir’s comment above.
Sigh … Rationalists are still a long way away from winning …
It wouldn’t weird me out, but I am not at all typical. Though I doubt Alicorn’s hypothetical husband would be typical either.
Typical people are boring! Why would I want to marry one? Then I might have typical children. Ew.
I find this comment adorable, and wish I could upvote it more than once.
Even with a typical husband, I doubt you are in any danger of having typical children. I based my prediction on “Typical people are boring!” Full Stop.
I would be surprised but all right with it. I am I think more “typical” than most LWers.
I like the idea.
Curious: how are prenup violations enforced? I assume with predefined monetary penalties settled at divorce.
Haha, when I googled LW for “goal distortion” I didn’t expect the first hit to be Alicorn! :) I was thinking that Justin should write a post, but he’s busy all the time. Problem is, he’s thought about it more than anyone else, I think. Merrrrr.