I think the best way to think about it is that the typical male’s sexual desire is axiomatic.
Jgray
Karma: 32
You’re absolutely right, I missed that poll. Thanks for pointing it out.
It has very hedged language: “strongly recommend considering refraining” which might technically make the poll totally silly but I imagine people voted on the view the poll was representing (I mean, technically who would vote against just ‘considering’ something?).
I don’t know how to initiate polls. Would love to see one broken down by gender and self-reported “status” in addition to the equivalent recommendation with gender-neutral language. It takes two for each instance of “sleeping around” after all.
I think everyone agrees OCB overstepped (he’s admitted as much) and people are of different opinion on how much blood they’re after.
This, along with the time article, are seen as proof of a “problem” that needs a “solution.”
This thread offers a potential solution. It asks the question: would you be willing to enforce a taboo against (most?) heterosexual relationships in the community in order to almost totally eliminate sexual misconduct?
The overwhelming response is a resounding no. It doesn’t appeal to anyone. Totally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There’s a continuum: uncomfortable/awkward, inappropriate (misconduct), harassment, assault .
In the US at least, assault is criminal so that’s the bare minimum amount of enforcement and done at the federal/legal level. OCB was accused of something between misconduct and harassments I think. I think everyone agrees that harassment and assault is bad. We would like to eliminate all misconduct but what is and isn’t appropriate really becomes subjective quick. And as we’ve seen from this thread there is no appetite to project people from the merely uncomfortable.
So I don’t think there is any “solution” because this isn’t a problem that can be “solved.” Yes, we can always “do better” because the issue can never really 100% go away. The conversation should revolve around what the community’s preferred trade-offs are.
I’m sure some people find hot tubs a bit awkward and I’m sure most people (at least outside of EA) would find “cuddle puddles” a little strange. You’ll never be able to please everyone, you gotta just live your life.
we gatekeeping romantic attraction now?
I agree with your points on poly culture. However, I find the suggestion that guys need “a good reason” to hit on women a bit bizarre.
meta af
“Subtle harms” sounds like an escalation from “awkwardness or uncomfortability” but if we’re talking about consensual adults acting in good faith I’d say these “subtle harms” are an inescapable consequence of normal social interaction.
It’s certainly true that “Failed attempts at sleeping with someone can often lead to awkwardness or uncomfortability.” However, this is also true of successful attempts. “No attempts” isn’t a reasonable solution.
If there is a taboo the EA community would benefit from breaking it’s the notion that something being awkward/uncomfortable is evidence, in and of itself, that something that has transpired is bad, or someone did something wrong. Well intentioned people acting in good faith can often lead to awkward situations even when nobody did anything explicitly wrong.
There’s obviously a continuum of behaviors from very benign to potentially very serious, it’s very difficult to escape nuance in these cases. Life isn’t always so simple.
It’s really quite simple.
You need to make sure you never make anyone around you at all uneasy or uncomfortable.
OP easily solved this in 2020 by “not being edgy anymore.” Perhaps you could change your personality like OP and not be an extrovert anymore. Ideally do not speak unless spoken to, and only then if it’s because your silence is making others uncomfortable.
I do think perspective is important. Worth it’s own thread imo.
100%
This would not have been a remotely controversial statement in a community like this 20 years ago.
The fact that this was downvoted several times without any counter argument is a pretty clear signal that we’ve reached the end of rational discussion here.
To me, “better left alone” and “sacred” are two sides of the same coin.
Why would it not be fine for topics to be off limit for discussion?
The first principle of EA discusses the need for a “‘scout mindset’ - seeking the truth, rather than to defend our current ideas.”
You may be aware that at one point the idea the earth revolves around the Sun was taboo.
What is taboo varies widely over time and by culture. Even the idea that having an open honest discussion about anything could ever be construed as “causing harm” (beside from being a terrible one imo) is a very new concept and one that would have been universally dismissed maybe even 15 years ago.
At any rate, it sounds like you are fine with topics being absolutely off limits to discuss. This is a bit of a surprising admission to me considering the core principles of EA but you are, apparently, certainly not alone in this belief.
So you firstly admit there is reasonable evidence to support the “variability hypothesis.”
Three paragraphs later, you describe the implications of this reasonable hypothesis as “sexist.”
But if someone believes this “reasonable” hypothesis, and assumes you are, on average, (very) marginally less likely to be of 97%+ IQ, well that is no more sexist than assuming you’re likely to be much shorter than a man having never met you.
I mean, I guess some dude with a 97% percentile IQ assumes he’s smarter than 97% of people he meets. More likely he interacts with smarter people, so this is like 10% of the people he’s meeting. So he thinks some dude has a 10% chance of being smarter than him but you have only an 8.5% chance, and this discrepancy causes you mental anguish?
Brah, imagine being a white guy who can jump.
Alternatively, walk into a car dealership. If you have a 97% iq, 100% of people will underestimate your intelligence, whether male of female.
So are you saying “within our current historical and social context” yeppers, too toxic to consider for cost-benefit analysis? This is a totally acceptable answer—just means Hanania is right and we can end the convo here.
So are you saying you disagree with Hanania’s conceptualization of rationalism? Are subjections being off-limits to cost-benefit analysis fine with you? Sounds like again the answer is yes.
Strongly downvoted.
This doesn’t appear to be a good faith response. It doesn’t address any of the ideas presented, just takes issue with OP “selectively quoting” and being Anon, which based on your contemptuous and dismissive response seems totally understandable to me .
You would, could, and should have done better with an honest response of an upvote and a comment, “yep, these ideas are way too taboo for us to touch.”
“Eugenics or ‘human biodiversity’ isn’t a new idea and is incredibly toxic to most people.”
>right, calling an idea “toxic” is literally the same thing as calling it “taboo.” Hanania argues rationalism is the belief that “fewer topics...should be considered taboo...and not subject to cost-benefit anaysis.”
It sounds like your argument isn’t explicitly saying that you consider this topic off limits personally, but rather too many others view it as taboo so as a practical matter you will lose more people than you’ll gain (or lose the right people, gain the wrong people).
This sounds like a cop-out to me. Do you feel these ideas, in and of themselves, are too “toxic” to justify a cost benefit-analysis or is your argument simply that the ideas are currently too unpopular to consider for practical reasons?
I totally agree with the gist of your comment t but as far as gendered differences go physical strength/size is almost certainly larger than differences in sex drive. That absolutely implies the probability a woman feels physically threatened by a man is much, much higher than the probability a man feels physically threatened by a woman.