5 ms·

US CDC are the ones who put out the pair bonding study - and there’s lots of other research. https://www.quora.com/Does-having-lots-of-sexual-partners-affect-o

US CDC are the ones who put out the pair bonding study - and there’s lots of other research. https://www.quora.com/Does-having-lots-of-sexual-partners-affect-one-s-ability-to-pair-bond-with-a-spouse-later-If-so-what-should-society-try-to-do-about-it https://www.quora.com/Does-having-lots-of-sexual-partners-af...

morelisp 3y ago
I would prefer to read some review of the research which does not describe actual human beings as "sloppy seconds".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aatd86 3y ago
  I don't think the issue is necessarily "sloppy seconds" but more the fact that people have a tendency to compare experiences... That can put a strain on relationships. You shouldn't be made to feel you have to compete against their former flings in all the different aspects. Should be working on your own couple ideally regardless of other people. 23 partners sends a bad signal.
  - programzeta 3y ago
    Being unwilling to even try talk through your emotions with the /person who you are going to marry/ is absolutely a bad signal and deal breaker.
    - aatd86 3y ago
      Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely.
      - scns 3y ago
        And you know that because you talked to every person ever changing partners? Snark semi intended.
        aatd86 3y ago
        So I can't give a hunch/conjecture from my observations? Not very scientific... (snark semi-intended :P)
        scns 3y ago
        Sure, you can. > Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely. I oversaw the last two words, apologies. Without them the sentence would be logically wrong, the worst kind of wrong ;) They signal that it's up for debate, sorry. Logic pedant out.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      I'm unconvinced that "talking through your emotions" makes sense or is wise. Both "talking" and "emotions" developed in central nervous systems at times far removed from each other, and there's little reason to believe that those software systems are connected... or even compatible.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Talking is important especially for those that aren’t able to have internal dialog. That type of talking is thinking out loud for them.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        People without internal dialogues (I'm one myself), don't require "thinking out loud" at all. Internal dialogues aren't even thinking... it's when this particular faculty of your mind, the "rehearsal simulator" is overactive. Functioning correctly, you can bounce questions off of a fictionalized version of someone and get back replies that can be a useful prediction of what they might say when confronted in reality. Those whose rehearsal simulators malfunction end up simulating themselves, who then goes on to start jabbering constantly, like some documentary narrator on crack, until they can no longer think at all. We (those of us who can actually think) have a pretty good idea how this faculty even works. The principle seems rather similar to the LLMs we've all been talking about... it just predicts the most likely word that comes next, with some pseudo-random seed to start it all off. People with the "internal dialogue" only seem able to "think" of things, once everyone has talked about it enough that it amounts to training their LLM with it. When people without internal dialogues try to explain a new idea to them, they tend to respond in ways that indicate their thinking is much like how the LLMs function. Irrational, confused, denialism. I don't particularly trust self-reporting, but maybe MRIs can empirically measure whether someone has an internal dialogue or not? I would be curious to see the IQ differences between the two groups. It's probably a massive gap. The rehearsal simulator starves the rest of your brain of resources while active. If you ever learned to turn yours off, you'd probably never want it turned back on again. For instance, someone who does the internal dialogue thing may not even be able to correctly report their emotions. They may not recognize them at all. Instead, that little LLM in their skull is just "hallucinating" for them, coming up with plausible sentences for how someone might feel, based on training data they've accumulated over the years, but having absolutely nothing to do with their emotional state. Anyone who accepts their self-reported emotional state as correct can be very confused by it... visibly, they're in one emotional state, but verbally they're reporting something completely different. There's no reason to suspect dishonest reporting, but also no real way to reconcile the contradictions.
postmodest 3y ago
The fact that the answerer quotes John McIlhenny, noted Christian abstinence-only prominent, tells me more about that answerer than the questioner. In my experience, the real answer is that The Pill means that women have more choice now and don't have to cleave themselves to the first man who colonizes them, and now that it's baked into society, women aren't going to put up with men who can't provide the social interaction reward that all people want. In my parents day, you just had to tough it out because you had kids (and you were probably terrible at it, lookin'at you mom and dad) but these days people can grow into finctional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's.
postmodest 3y ago
The fact that the answerer quotes John McIlhenny, noted Christian abstinence-only prominent, tells me more about that answerer than the questioner. In my experience, the real answer is that The Pill means that women have more choice now and don't have to cleave themselves to the first man who colonizes them, and now that it's baked into society, women aren't going to put up with men who can't provide the social interaction reward that all people want. In my parents day, you just had to tough it out because you had kids (and you were probably terrible at it, lookin'at you mom and dad) but these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's.
- scns 3y ago
  > these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's. Some (many?) won't. Adult means taking responsibility for your own actions to me. In "archaic" societies, girls become women at the onset of their period. Boys have to undergo painful rituals to become a man. No puberty problems or teenage suicides in sight because these young humans have their place in the tribe and are treated like the young adults they are. No artificial age barriers (18/21). The brain is actually done at myelinizing at 25.
  - heavenlyblue 3y ago
    You mean kids just kill themselves if they can't cope and then people like you rationalise it as "they were not good enough anyway"?
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  > these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's. Leaving the rest of the conversation aside, I find this perspective shocking. Becoming a "functional adult" cannot happen in late 30s, or we're all screwed.
jMyles 3y ago
...surely by now, we can stop pointing the US CDC as an arbiter of any scientific rigor or insight?
- cpursley 3y ago
  That’s a fair argument. They are ultimately a political organization, even if well intended.

morelisp 3y ago

I would prefer to read some review of the research which does not describe actual human beings as "sloppy seconds".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aatd86 3y ago
I don't think the issue is necessarily "sloppy seconds" but more the fact that people have a tendency to compare experiences... That can put a strain on relationships. You shouldn't be made to feel you have to compete against their former flings in all the different aspects. Should be working on your own couple ideally regardless of other people. 23 partners sends a bad signal.
- programzeta 3y ago
  Being unwilling to even try talk through your emotions with the /person who you are going to marry/ is absolutely a bad signal and deal breaker.
  - aatd86 3y ago
    Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely.
    - scns 3y ago
      And you know that because you talked to every person ever changing partners? Snark semi intended.
      - aatd86 3y ago
        So I can't give a hunch/conjecture from my observations? Not very scientific... (snark semi-intended :P)
        scns 3y ago
        Sure, you can. > Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely. I oversaw the last two words, apologies. Without them the sentence would be logically wrong, the worst kind of wrong ;) They signal that it's up for debate, sorry. Logic pedant out.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    I'm unconvinced that "talking through your emotions" makes sense or is wise. Both "talking" and "emotions" developed in central nervous systems at times far removed from each other, and there's little reason to believe that those software systems are connected... or even compatible.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Talking is important especially for those that aren’t able to have internal dialog. That type of talking is thinking out loud for them.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        People without internal dialogues (I'm one myself), don't require "thinking out loud" at all. Internal dialogues aren't even thinking... it's when this particular faculty of your mind, the "rehearsal simulator" is overactive. Functioning correctly, you can bounce questions off of a fictionalized version of someone and get back replies that can be a useful prediction of what they might say when confronted in reality. Those whose rehearsal simulators malfunction end up simulating themselves, who then goes on to start jabbering constantly, like some documentary narrator on crack, until they can no longer think at all. We (those of us who can actually think) have a pretty good idea how this faculty even works. The principle seems rather similar to the LLMs we've all been talking about... it just predicts the most likely word that comes next, with some pseudo-random seed to start it all off. People with the "internal dialogue" only seem able to "think" of things, once everyone has talked about it enough that it amounts to training their LLM with it. When people without internal dialogues try to explain a new idea to them, they tend to respond in ways that indicate their thinking is much like how the LLMs function. Irrational, confused, denialism. I don't particularly trust self-reporting, but maybe MRIs can empirically measure whether someone has an internal dialogue or not? I would be curious to see the IQ differences between the two groups. It's probably a massive gap. The rehearsal simulator starves the rest of your brain of resources while active. If you ever learned to turn yours off, you'd probably never want it turned back on again. For instance, someone who does the internal dialogue thing may not even be able to correctly report their emotions. They may not recognize them at all. Instead, that little LLM in their skull is just "hallucinating" for them, coming up with plausible sentences for how someone might feel, based on training data they've accumulated over the years, but having absolutely nothing to do with their emotional state. Anyone who accepts their self-reported emotional state as correct can be very confused by it... visibly, they're in one emotional state, but verbally they're reporting something completely different. There's no reason to suspect dishonest reporting, but also no real way to reconcile the contradictions.

postmodest 3y ago

The fact that the answerer quotes John McIlhenny, noted Christian abstinence-only prominent, tells me more about that answerer than the questioner. In my experience, the real answer is that The Pill means that women have more choice now and don't have to cleave themselves to the first man who colonizes them, and now that it's baked into society, women aren't going to put up with men who can't provide the social interaction reward that all people want. In my parents day, you just had to tough it out because you had kids (and you were probably terrible at it, lookin'at you mom and dad) but these days people can grow into finctional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's.

postmodest 3y ago

The fact that the answerer quotes John McIlhenny, noted Christian abstinence-only prominent, tells me more about that answerer than the questioner. In my experience, the real answer is that The Pill means that women have more choice now and don't have to cleave themselves to the first man who colonizes them, and now that it's baked into society, women aren't going to put up with men who can't provide the social interaction reward that all people want. In my parents day, you just had to tough it out because you had kids (and you were probably terrible at it, lookin'at you mom and dad) but these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's.

scns 3y ago
> these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's. Some (many?) won't. Adult means taking responsibility for your own actions to me. In "archaic" societies, girls become women at the onset of their period. Boys have to undergo painful rituals to become a man. No puberty problems or teenage suicides in sight because these young humans have their place in the tribe and are treated like the young adults they are. No artificial age barriers (18/21). The brain is actually done at myelinizing at 25.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  You mean kids just kill themselves if they can't cope and then people like you rationalise it as "they were not good enough anyway"?
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
> these days people can grow into functional adults first, which might not happen until their late 30's. Leaving the rest of the conversation aside, I find this perspective shocking. Becoming a "functional adult" cannot happen in late 30s, or we're all screwed.

jMyles 3y ago

...surely by now, we can stop pointing the US CDC as an arbiter of any scientific rigor or insight?

cpursley 3y ago
That’s a fair argument. They are ultimately a political organization, even if well intended.