6 ms·

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand what the last few sentences of it meant, it kind of flew over my head: "So I guess this is kin

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand what the last few sentences of it meant, it kind of flew over my head: "So I guess this is kind of an argument in favor of humility, or against open-mindedness. If you have high openness to experience (and if you read this without a gun to your head, you probably do) you might wonder why so many people have low openness. Maybe this is part of why." What is "this is part of why" referring to, the entire article? I just don't really see how any of it would lead people to be less open minded

imgabe 5y ago
People might be less open to questioning certain things, because those things work well for them, and they work well because they aren't questioned. There is an adverse selection for questioning them. For example, let's say everyone in your society has an arranged marriage. The marriages produce children who then get arranged marriages themselves. This keeps the society going by providing a steady supply of new people. If someone starts to question it, they don't get an arranged marriage, and don't have any children. The questioner does not get promulgated. (Note this is not an argument for or against arranged marriage. There are obviously many ways to arrange society and raise children.)
norswap 5y ago
A big part of "the normal way" things are done is related to subtle (and by-design, unspoken) social reasons. If you are open-minded, you're open to considering that the normal ways things are done might not be the best way -- which it is not along all axes, but it does incur some advantages for reasons that must remain unspoken for the advantages to be incurred. This has two potentially bad consequences: (1) you might come to miss the advantages provided, and (2) you might erode the effectiveness of the deceitful mechanism. An easy example is open relationships. They're difficult to navigate and often end in drama. (Personal opinion: they're awesome but require a ton of emotional maturity, and some time, to make work.) The lie here is that romantic commitment is a sacred value -- in reality it's a way to bind yourself to avoid the instability and hurt that can easily result from open relationships. If you're not able to handle open relationships, your open-mindedness will have hurt you. And if you want to return to monogamy, your lack of belief in romantic commitment might be an impediment too. People get burned by their open-mindedness a few times, or see examples of people getting burned around them, and they shut that part down. It's the essence of conservatism: a belief that it's easier to break something that works than to improve things. (Forget politics, you can just think about this at the personal level.)
- cheschire 5y ago
  I'm fairly certain that not all marriages are based on fear of the potential pain of open relationships. Sure, some folks may be motivated along the lines you speak of, but there's plenty of us who got deep into it because we value the depth that comes from that one forever-friendship that is intimate on a level that can't be experience with the guys from the bar. So, yeah, careful about painting with too broad a brush there.
  - Jemaclus 5y ago
    > I'm fairly certain that not all marriages are based on fear of the potential pain of open relationships I don't think that's what the parent comment was saying. I read it as "being too open-minded can backfire on you, and here's an example of how," and not as "people only get married because they're afraid of open relationships," which is how I read your sentence. On the other hand, you assert that you "got deep into it because [you] value the depth that comes from that one forever-friendship that is intimate on a level that can't be experience[d] with the guys from the bar." But can't you have that relationship _without_ marriage? And so in that case, why marriage at all? And the obvious answer to that is that now we're back to OP's example of the unspoken plan to get married to bind the other more tightly to you, with the side effect (or perhaps main effect) of making separation painful and difficult, thereby increasing the chances of both of you staying in that forever-relationship. In other words, you don't _need_ to get married to have an intense forever-relationship with someone, but if you want safety and security and the knowledge that they won't (can't?) leave you, then you get married for all the reasons in OP's blog post.
    - norswap 5y ago
      I endorse this message!
  - hoseja 5y ago
    Marriages are based on agricultural tribal societies finding it more efficient to not have males compete for females too hard.
  - 5y ago
opportune 5y ago
This is part of why - it’s no good for society for too many people to question some of its fundamental precepts
taneq 5y ago
"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." - Lovecraft

imgabe 5y ago

People might be less open to questioning certain things, because those things work well for them, and they work well because they aren't questioned. There is an adverse selection for questioning them. For example, let's say everyone in your society has an arranged marriage. The marriages produce children who then get arranged marriages themselves. This keeps the society going by providing a steady supply of new people. If someone starts to question it, they don't get an arranged marriage, and don't have any children. The questioner does not get promulgated. (Note this is not an argument for or against arranged marriage. There are obviously many ways to arrange society and raise children.)

norswap 5y ago

A big part of "the normal way" things are done is related to subtle (and by-design, unspoken) social reasons. If you are open-minded, you're open to considering that the normal ways things are done might not be the best way -- which it is not along all axes, but it does incur some advantages for reasons that must remain unspoken for the advantages to be incurred. This has two potentially bad consequences: (1) you might come to miss the advantages provided, and (2) you might erode the effectiveness of the deceitful mechanism. An easy example is open relationships. They're difficult to navigate and often end in drama. (Personal opinion: they're awesome but require a ton of emotional maturity, and some time, to make work.) The lie here is that romantic commitment is a sacred value -- in reality it's a way to bind yourself to avoid the instability and hurt that can easily result from open relationships. If you're not able to handle open relationships, your open-mindedness will have hurt you. And if you want to return to monogamy, your lack of belief in romantic commitment might be an impediment too. People get burned by their open-mindedness a few times, or see examples of people getting burned around them, and they shut that part down. It's the essence of conservatism: a belief that it's easier to break something that works than to improve things. (Forget politics, you can just think about this at the personal level.)

cheschire 5y ago
I'm fairly certain that not all marriages are based on fear of the potential pain of open relationships. Sure, some folks may be motivated along the lines you speak of, but there's plenty of us who got deep into it because we value the depth that comes from that one forever-friendship that is intimate on a level that can't be experience with the guys from the bar. So, yeah, careful about painting with too broad a brush there.
- Jemaclus 5y ago
  > I'm fairly certain that not all marriages are based on fear of the potential pain of open relationships I don't think that's what the parent comment was saying. I read it as "being too open-minded can backfire on you, and here's an example of how," and not as "people only get married because they're afraid of open relationships," which is how I read your sentence. On the other hand, you assert that you "got deep into it because [you] value the depth that comes from that one forever-friendship that is intimate on a level that can't be experience[d] with the guys from the bar." But can't you have that relationship _without_ marriage? And so in that case, why marriage at all? And the obvious answer to that is that now we're back to OP's example of the unspoken plan to get married to bind the other more tightly to you, with the side effect (or perhaps main effect) of making separation painful and difficult, thereby increasing the chances of both of you staying in that forever-relationship. In other words, you don't _need_ to get married to have an intense forever-relationship with someone, but if you want safety and security and the knowledge that they won't (can't?) leave you, then you get married for all the reasons in OP's blog post.
  - norswap 5y ago
    I endorse this message!
- hoseja 5y ago
  Marriages are based on agricultural tribal societies finding it more efficient to not have males compete for females too hard.
- 5y ago

opportune 5y ago

This is part of why - it’s no good for society for too many people to question some of its fundamental precepts

taneq 5y ago

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." - Lovecraft