3 ms·

The same is true of sex partners - inequality there will also make society less happy. I've personally observed far more people unhappy that they can't get laid

The same is true of sex partners - inequality there will also make society less happy. I've personally observed far more people unhappy that they can't get laid than that they don't make enough money. It's also widely accepted that this inequality can be regulated, for example by social norms discouraging female promiscuity. So I suppose you favor this also, in the interests of not being inconsistent?

fulafel 11y ago
I'd be interested to see studies! Certainly societal structures that result in many people going without sexual partners sound undesireable, and probably rarer than structures where there is high economic inequality? I don't have enough information to be confident that your suggestion would increase happiness. Then there's the value question of happiness vs other virtues (which I also intentionally didn't go into in my inequality vs happiness arguments).
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why do you think it's rare? Sweden is certainly a society of sexual inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0305528.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0305528.pdf Various studies on social networks have shown that virtually every society has high friendship inequality. Maybe friendships also don't generate happiness? Unfortunately good studies are hard to come by - I've never actually seen any. In virtually all cases, anchoring effects drown out the signal. But as a thought experiment, consider two individuals. One individual is a nerd in a frat house, watching a bunch of bros get laid while he's still a virgin. The other individual is an analyst on a prop desk (i.e., low level person at a bank), making maybe $70k/year while interacting with folks making $10M+. Which of these people do you think is more unhappy? Maybe I just love women a lot more than the average person, but I sure know which one would make me less happy.
pron 11y ago
True, which is why we'd rather talk about power than about happiness, which may be a very subjective matter, under the axiomatic assumption that we'd like to reduce gross power inequality as much as possible (which, of course, may conflict with other values that we try to balance).

fulafel 11y ago

I'd be interested to see studies! Certainly societal structures that result in many people going without sexual partners sound undesireable, and probably rarer than structures where there is high economic inequality? I don't have enough information to be confident that your suggestion would increase happiness. Then there's the value question of happiness vs other virtues (which I also intentionally didn't go into in my inequality vs happiness arguments).

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why do you think it's rare? Sweden is certainly a society of sexual inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0305528.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0305528.pdf Various studies on social networks have shown that virtually every society has high friendship inequality. Maybe friendships also don't generate happiness? Unfortunately good studies are hard to come by - I've never actually seen any. In virtually all cases, anchoring effects drown out the signal. But as a thought experiment, consider two individuals. One individual is a nerd in a frat house, watching a bunch of bros get laid while he's still a virgin. The other individual is an analyst on a prop desk (i.e., low level person at a bank), making maybe $70k/year while interacting with folks making $10M+. Which of these people do you think is more unhappy? Maybe I just love women a lot more than the average person, but I sure know which one would make me less happy.

pron 11y ago

True, which is why we'd rather talk about power than about happiness, which may be a very subjective matter, under the axiomatic assumption that we'd like to reduce gross power inequality as much as possible (which, of course, may conflict with other values that we try to balance).