Better the devil you know than the Jesus you don’t

Mozel tov, may your love enemy forever crawl on his belly

Yeah, I feel that. I tried to find a happy middle ground with my add-ons, but the reality is that the game evolved with the expectation that (at mid-to-high levels of play) you use them. That sucks the fun out of it for me when I know the game itself is pushing me to plug in extra crunchy stuff. Sometimes I just wanna be a cool panda monk. And just hanging in Goldshire isn’t really the experience I want, either.

In regards to ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder), one of its hallmarks is challenges in starting or maintaining relationships. Doesn’t mean they don’t have them, just that they’re really really bad at beginning and keeping them. Meanwhile, those with ASPD are unlikely to consider the viewpoint of another person due to their impaired empathy and struggle to acknowledge others’ inner lives. I don’t think a sufferer would even consider having a conversation about this with another person.

Narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, often includes the pursuit of higher status by getting close to those with desirable attributes or characteristics. Unlike those with ASPD, people with NPD don’t display an impaired ability to empathize or consider others’ mental states (though they do struggle with relating to anyone else’s experiences).

A narcissist would have zero qualms in telling someone the conditions under which they would abandon them; it would reinforce their (perceived) superior value and demonstrate their power over the other person. Of course, I doubt they would love hearing their partner’s evaluation of them, and this would probably be a mostly one-sided conversation (as I imagine it often is in real life, should it happen).

But yeah, I think it’s safe to say that if you’re a climber who thinks so highly of yourself that you can put hard and fast digits on your loved ones, you’re at least a pre-narcissist.

All I’m saying is, much like using a litany of addons for World of Warcraft, that it’s possible to optimize yourself out of happiness. I don’t trust myself (or anyone else) enough to say what “percent” better someone would need to be to ditch a long-standing partnership, and anyone who does is probably a narcissist.

No shame in that! It is actually pretty well-written, and it has some engaging points. I’m not “anti-rationalism” or anti-this-guy or anything like that. LessWrong did more for global altruism than I ever will.

I’m just pointing out that a person who has dedicated their entire public persona to an ideology (or lack of one) is probably not joking when they start evaluating romantic partners with supposedly objective percentages.

I wouldn’t call 10% of the time “often,” but let’s entertain the idea that it’s a popular concept regardless. We’ll say 100% of people are like this. And they’re constantly trying to trade up. What does that look like? Would most relationships be based on mutual trust and compassion, or would they be cynical cycles of mercenary evaluation?

Meanwhile, though you seem very rational, even the most rational person isn’t free from their subjective experience or perception. It begs the question: how much do you trust your partners’ assessment of you, or themselves, to stay the same for years to come? I can promise it will not. In this paradigm of value-over-commitment, all relationships (even poly ones) are doomed to fail.

When you make a proper commitment to someone (or multiple someones), you’re not shirking the negative possibilities by leaving your “trade-up threshold” unsaid. You’re saying, “I accept the good with the bad.”

And no, I’m not saying people should stick with an abusive partner or someone they don’t like or love. I’m saying that the “trade-up” model is an oversimplified view that places the onus of being “good enough” on another person while shedding the fundamental responsibilities of growing both as individuals and together.

Sure, “happily ever after” is a fantasy, but working toward a lifelong partnership isn’t—unless, of course, you’ve got one foot out the door from day one.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to poke at your anxieties! I was remarking on the arbitrary nature of the original post.

While you’re probably right that Eliezer is open to dating poly people, the post in question definitely appears to take a monogamous stance—that is, the question of whether to exchange one person for another of “higher value.”

Saying that you’re cool if

one my partners meets someone else they want to date at least as much as me, they do

is different from

I’d trade up if I found somebody 10%/25%/125% better than you

which is what the original post said.

If they meet someone they want to date more than you, why would they keep you around? You’re 75% less ideal. What are you bringing to the table, besides a lower average score for the polycule?

Yudkowsky is well-known for his work in AI. He occasionally makes jokes, but it’s usually about AI (not relationships). I know that on his profile, it says something like “when I don’t use punctuation, it’s a joke,” akin to Reddit’s /s.

And yeah, he left off a period on the first post, though not the other two. But that said, he rarely makes multi-part jokes. It’s pretty clear to me, having read his posts and articles for a while, that he means this.

To further clarify that this is a “rationalist” of the highest order, consider that he wrote a half-a-million-plus word fanfic of Harry Potter, but with Harry studying science instead of magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

I also choose this guy’s wife.

No, I know this dude’s deal, he is 100% for real (or trying to get a reaction, but that’s not satire on its own). His posts are often like this.

“Is this normal?”

No, it is not normal to state what percent-better-person you would leave your romantic partner for. It’s cynical and narcissistic.

What if your partner is in an accident that changes how they look or live? Now that they’re X% “less” than what you signed on for, you can just dip?

Like I get being upfront about stuff, but this is just transactional. It’s not about your commitment to another person, it’s about maximizing your return on investment.

Born to Die by MDC

In Español, my name is El Tigre Chino!