Issues like these motivated the development, at MIT in the 1960s, of a “Dateless Decision Theory”, intended to provide a rigorous answer to questions like, If I’m single, should I do something about it, or just get on with serving the greater good? But the UN banned it after the publication of studies alleging that the accumulation of DDT in the intellectual food chain had a net negative effect on human reproductive fitness.
So … that’s what happened to Love and Life Just Before the Singularity. It never made sense to me to remove something that innocuous from the public web, but it all fits if that was the work of a global conspiracy!
This is extremely troubling news. With a shadowy world government agency clamping down on serious argument about no-mating strategies, one has to wonder how much the public discourse has been skewed by them. And would it be a good idea to attempt to replicate any of the suppressed research? There is a tricky tradeoff here between figuring out the truth about this critical question, and not rising to the attention of the suppressing agency.
Effective Altruists, you have a new purpose! Spend your money on increasing your reproductive fitness and impregnating/getting-impregnated!
I’m sure some important considerations would be the genetic interaction between altruistic traits—whether they are actually indeed inherited, as well as the heritability of effectiveness associated traits.
I think EAhub or some other established platform would be a good platform to signal EA cred and avoid creepers taking advantage of it. That way people can’t just say “I’m an EA, wanna fuck?”
“Beware, demon!” he intoned hollowly. “I am not without defenses.” “Oh yeah? Name three.” -- Robert Asprin, Another Fine Myth
Name 3 EA charities you’ve donated to!
Or maybe, it would motivate creepers to do good! Sucks for us singles who prefer pseudoanonymity on LW/EA-forums though.
Chances are, you with a girlfriend and you without a girlfriend are very nearly two different people. Which do you think has a better shot at saving the world?
(I don’t mean to answer the question for you—I don’t know you that well.)
When my last relationship was going well, I was far more centered, far more emotionally stable. I was definitely at least an SD above my current state as far as non-effortful nonverbal status signaling—that is, I probably came off better in social situations, whether or not she was with me.
Interesting. I signal less and am less social overall when in a serious relationship. Probably because I predominantly view social interaction as a way of finding a partner.
I signal less and am less social overall when in a serious relationship.
Oddly enough, that’s part of what I’m talking about.
Outside of a relationship, the immediate, hedonic stakes are higher in any social interaction (for you apparently, and also for me—I don’t mean to speak for/about any others). The other party can sense this, and it makes you seem low-status. If the interaction seems less intrinsically important to you—if you’re not going to take a large hedonic hit depending on how the conversation goes—this makes you seem more high-status.
(HT: Eliezer, who articulated the distinction between hedonically valuing social approval and valuing it for its utility during a panel at the Singularity Summit)
Girlfriends are basically fungible. If you can’t get a full one with the resources that you assign to leisure, why not get a 1/X fraction of a girlfriend from X number of girlfriends?
With this strategy your expected girlfriend value is rather low. If saving the world is that important to you, go after the pool of women that are seduced with tales of how you are out there saving the world.
I think I’ll save the world first, then worry about a girlfriend.
Plus, the available dating pool should be that much larger with that accomplishment on my resume.
Issues like these motivated the development, at MIT in the 1960s, of a “Dateless Decision Theory”, intended to provide a rigorous answer to questions like, If I’m single, should I do something about it, or just get on with serving the greater good? But the UN banned it after the publication of studies alleging that the accumulation of DDT in the intellectual food chain had a net negative effect on human reproductive fitness.
So … that’s what happened to Love and Life Just Before the Singularity. It never made sense to me to remove something that innocuous from the public web, but it all fits if that was the work of a global conspiracy!
This is extremely troubling news. With a shadowy world government agency clamping down on serious argument about no-mating strategies, one has to wonder how much the public discourse has been skewed by them. And would it be a good idea to attempt to replicate any of the suppressed research? There is a tricky tradeoff here between figuring out the truth about this critical question, and not rising to the attention of the suppressing agency.
Effective Altruists, you have a new purpose! Spend your money on increasing your reproductive fitness and impregnating/getting-impregnated!
I’m sure some important considerations would be the genetic interaction between altruistic traits—whether they are actually indeed inherited, as well as the heritability of effectiveness associated traits.
Also, ability to cooperate to solve problems and manage their family in evidence based ways would be important considerations.
I think EAhub or some other established platform would be a good platform to signal EA cred and avoid creepers taking advantage of it. That way people can’t just say “I’m an EA, wanna fuck?”
Name 3 EA charities you’ve donated to!
Or maybe, it would motivate creepers to do good! Sucks for us singles who prefer pseudoanonymity on LW/EA-forums though.
Chances are, you with a girlfriend and you without a girlfriend are very nearly two different people. Which do you think has a better shot at saving the world?
(I don’t mean to answer the question for you—I don’t know you that well.)
With a girlfriend, I care more about saving the world.
Without a girlfriend, I have more time to actually save it.
The best of both world is… polyandry?
More different than that:
When my last relationship was going well, I was far more centered, far more emotionally stable. I was definitely at least an SD above my current state as far as non-effortful nonverbal status signaling—that is, I probably came off better in social situations, whether or not she was with me.
Interesting. I signal less and am less social overall when in a serious relationship. Probably because I predominantly view social interaction as a way of finding a partner.
Oddly enough, that’s part of what I’m talking about.
Outside of a relationship, the immediate, hedonic stakes are higher in any social interaction (for you apparently, and also for me—I don’t mean to speak for/about any others). The other party can sense this, and it makes you seem low-status. If the interaction seems less intrinsically important to you—if you’re not going to take a large hedonic hit depending on how the conversation goes—this makes you seem more high-status.
(HT: Eliezer, who articulated the distinction between hedonically valuing social approval and valuing it for its utility during a panel at the Singularity Summit)
Of course if you fail, you die alone.
Girlfriends are basically fungible. If you can’t get a full one with the resources that you assign to leisure, why not get a 1/X fraction of a girlfriend from X number of girlfriends?
With this strategy your expected girlfriend value is rather low. If saving the world is that important to you, go after the pool of women that are seduced with tales of how you are out there saving the world.