Even if the only bad traits signaled by weirdness were those disliked by employers, that would still automatically make them relevant for potential spouses too. Unemployability, or even reduced employability, is normally a highly undesirable trait in a spouse.
Moreover, weirdness has many other bad consequences too. In all sorts of relations between people, including informal and non-commercial ones, weird behavior provokes rumors and ostracism, increases the probability of conflicts, makes finding friends and allies difficult, and typically binds one to very low status. It also signals higher probability of increasingly weird behavior in the future, which might result in all sorts of nasty situations, including legal problems and violent incidents. Since people typically expect to spend the larger part of their life with their chosen spouse, they are rational to err on the side of caution and break the deal as soon as any statistically sound heuristic raises alarm.
Of course, there are exceptions. On occasions, someone’s peculiar individual weirdness becomes fashionable for art and entertainment purposes, making it a ticket to high status and perhaps even wealth. Alternatively, a potential spouse might share one’s peculiar taste for weirdness and consider it a plus. But I don’t see how these exceptions, or any others I can think of, are relevant for the particular case we’re discussing, namely weirdness signaled by shifting the customary rules and rituals of marriage negotiation by means of an odd-looking legal innovation.
Weirdness isn’t a single thing, nor is it reliably that crippling.
There are a lot of married people in science fiction fandom. And a lot of employed people, though I believe a great many of them conceal their weirdness from their employers.
A few moderating factors for weirdness—you might have an advantage with mates whose weirdness matches yours. This is most obvious for sexual minorities.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
If there are really advantages to a particular non-standard marriage contract, then talking about wanting that contract is as much a test for finding a compatible mate as it is a debility.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
That is true, but you understate the case here. If there is a significant subculture where your particular weirdness is the norm, it’s a far more advantageous position than having a peculiar individual weirdness, not just because other individuals are around with whom you can establish social relations that won’t suffer from the weirdness signal, but also because its existence and public prominence demonstrates to the wider society that this particular sort of weirdness is compatible with, and in fact typically accompanied by, being a well-behaved, functional, and productive person. (This of course assuming that your subculture actually is like that; if the subculture attracts lots of deviants and the consequent bad press, it may well make things even worse.) Under these conditions, the relevant characteristic will no longer trigger people’s weirdness heuristics, and it will move under the entirely different category of minority taste—which can still have repercussions for one’s social relations and status, but far milder ones. I would say that the sci-fi fan subculture falls squarely into this category.
Your example of sexual minorities provides another illustration. Observe how those sexual minorities that have struggled successfully for improved status in recent decades have basically followed this public relations tactic: presenting themselves as groups of folks who are on average no less functional, productive, and well-behaved than the rest of society, and insisting that therefore their peculiar characteristics should not trigger people’s weirdness alarms. This is also why mentioning particular behaviors that are viewed negatively in the wider society, and arguably more prevalent in some such groups, is often taken as prima facie evidence of underhanded hostility against them—it threatens to reinforce the weirdness heuristics that are still turned against them in the minds of significant numbers of people.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
I don’t think any religious affiliation sends off significant weirdness signals in the modern North American culture, except out-and-out loony cults and a small number of denominations that, for various reasons, have a bad public image and thus give off a cultish vibe. Certainly, Reform Jews and Unitarians seem to me well within the standard perceptions of the bounds of normality.
Of course, there are plenty of religious folks who insist on marrying someone of the same religion, as well as atheist folks who couldn’t bear being married to someone religious, but such incompatibilities arise due to a simple acknowledgment of incompatible tastes, values, and goals, not because people’s weirdness heuristics get triggered.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
Yes—and this is only one of the many reasons why weirdness heuristics are on the whole statistically sound. When people offer you deals that seem weird, very much unlike the way things normally done in your culture, there is a non-negligible probability that you might get swindled in ways you’re not smart and knowledgeable enough to figure out.
Even if the only bad traits signaled by weirdness were those disliked by employers, that would still automatically make them relevant for potential spouses too. Unemployability, or even reduced employability, is normally a highly undesirable trait in a spouse.
Moreover, weirdness has many other bad consequences too. In all sorts of relations between people, including informal and non-commercial ones, weird behavior provokes rumors and ostracism, increases the probability of conflicts, makes finding friends and allies difficult, and typically binds one to very low status. It also signals higher probability of increasingly weird behavior in the future, which might result in all sorts of nasty situations, including legal problems and violent incidents. Since people typically expect to spend the larger part of their life with their chosen spouse, they are rational to err on the side of caution and break the deal as soon as any statistically sound heuristic raises alarm.
Of course, there are exceptions. On occasions, someone’s peculiar individual weirdness becomes fashionable for art and entertainment purposes, making it a ticket to high status and perhaps even wealth. Alternatively, a potential spouse might share one’s peculiar taste for weirdness and consider it a plus. But I don’t see how these exceptions, or any others I can think of, are relevant for the particular case we’re discussing, namely weirdness signaled by shifting the customary rules and rituals of marriage negotiation by means of an odd-looking legal innovation.
Weirdness isn’t a single thing, nor is it reliably that crippling.
There are a lot of married people in science fiction fandom. And a lot of employed people, though I believe a great many of them conceal their weirdness from their employers.
A few moderating factors for weirdness—you might have an advantage with mates whose weirdness matches yours. This is most obvious for sexual minorities.
Sub-cultures are a way for people to be weird together—they represent a local, variant sort of normal. This probably won’t have the same advantages as mainstream normal, but it’s less costly than being weird all by yourself.
Some weirdness is actually advantageous, or at least Reform Jews and Unitarians have higher incomes than the average.
If there are really advantages to a particular non-standard marriage contract, then talking about wanting that contract is as much a test for finding a compatible mate as it is a debility.
To my mind, the big risk of non-standard contract is that there’s likely to be much less information about its effects than there is for a standard contract.
NancyLebovitz:
That is true, but you understate the case here. If there is a significant subculture where your particular weirdness is the norm, it’s a far more advantageous position than having a peculiar individual weirdness, not just because other individuals are around with whom you can establish social relations that won’t suffer from the weirdness signal, but also because its existence and public prominence demonstrates to the wider society that this particular sort of weirdness is compatible with, and in fact typically accompanied by, being a well-behaved, functional, and productive person. (This of course assuming that your subculture actually is like that; if the subculture attracts lots of deviants and the consequent bad press, it may well make things even worse.) Under these conditions, the relevant characteristic will no longer trigger people’s weirdness heuristics, and it will move under the entirely different category of minority taste—which can still have repercussions for one’s social relations and status, but far milder ones. I would say that the sci-fi fan subculture falls squarely into this category.
Your example of sexual minorities provides another illustration. Observe how those sexual minorities that have struggled successfully for improved status in recent decades have basically followed this public relations tactic: presenting themselves as groups of folks who are on average no less functional, productive, and well-behaved than the rest of society, and insisting that therefore their peculiar characteristics should not trigger people’s weirdness alarms. This is also why mentioning particular behaviors that are viewed negatively in the wider society, and arguably more prevalent in some such groups, is often taken as prima facie evidence of underhanded hostility against them—it threatens to reinforce the weirdness heuristics that are still turned against them in the minds of significant numbers of people.
I don’t think any religious affiliation sends off significant weirdness signals in the modern North American culture, except out-and-out loony cults and a small number of denominations that, for various reasons, have a bad public image and thus give off a cultish vibe. Certainly, Reform Jews and Unitarians seem to me well within the standard perceptions of the bounds of normality.
Of course, there are plenty of religious folks who insist on marrying someone of the same religion, as well as atheist folks who couldn’t bear being married to someone religious, but such incompatibilities arise due to a simple acknowledgment of incompatible tastes, values, and goals, not because people’s weirdness heuristics get triggered.
Yes—and this is only one of the many reasons why weirdness heuristics are on the whole statistically sound. When people offer you deals that seem weird, very much unlike the way things normally done in your culture, there is a non-negligible probability that you might get swindled in ways you’re not smart and knowledgeable enough to figure out.