4 ms·

> the collective learning of uncountable generations Wisdom in one context can be foolishness in another. To live a good life it is necessary to re-evaluate th

by kibwen 3y ago

> the collective learning of uncountable generations Wisdom in one context can be foolishness in another. To live a good life it is necessary to re-evaluate the actions of your forebears and determine if it is still applicable to your modern context. That doesn't make someone a "social iconoclast", it makes them wise. Our ancestors did the same thing to their ancestors. Homo sapiens is 300,000 years old, and our societies have changed a lot since then, and will continue to change. Note that I personally have no desire to be anything other than monogamous, but I know several people (both young and elderly) who are successfully polyamorous. I also know people who have catastrophically failed at polyamory; but then, of course, I also know people who have catastrophically failed at monogamy. As far as I'm concerned, normalizing polyamory will strengthen monogamy. It seems like some people out there just aren't cut out for monogamy, and in a monogamous world they inevitably become cheaters. Let the polyamorous people remove themselves from the monogamous dating pool and you will exclusively remove people who would otherwise be compelled to cheat.

orasis 3y ago
I like this take. Already you see specialization of dating apps toward different relationship styles, with Hinge more focused on Monogamy, Tinder on the casual/singles crowd, and Feeld for the nonmonogamous. I agree this is decidedly positive for the monogamous folks. There is now less risk of them connecting with and falling in love with someone who isn’t a good match.
rayiner 3y ago
In your example, there’s a group of people who aren’t cut out for monogamy and are a problem for society no matter what. But I think there’s a much larger group of people that could do it in a society that offers them strong support and reinforcement, who will fail and flounder in a society that leaves them free to make choices. In my culture, neither divorce nor cheating are socially acceptable. Now, I’m happily married to my wife. But I’m also aware that I had better do everything I can to make my marriage happy, because that’s it. My social standing would be devastated if I got divorced. People would be talking about me in hushed tones 12,000 miles away.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > In your example, there’s a group of people who aren’t cut out for monogamy and are a problem for society no matter what. To be clear, in my example, polyamorous people are only a problem for society because that society has decided that polyamorous people are a problem. I am advocating for basing our societal mores on reasonable consideration from first principles rather than simply tradition. > But I think there’s a much larger group of people that could do it in a society that offers them strong support and reinforcement, who will fail and flounder in a society that leaves them free to make choices. While it is certainly possible to argue against the notion of such-and-such freedom, this appears to be making the following argument: "it is possible to imagine that greater individual freedom will result in undesirable collective outcomes, therefore, all of our traditional restrictions on individual freedom are necessary and may not be challenged." I find this argument to be unconvincing. The support for this argument that you have given is of the general form: "I am incentivized to be a good husband because I would suffer socially if I were not; therefore, monogamy incentivizes positive relationships." I will counterargue that in a society where divorce is met with social ostracization, this disincentivizes being a good spouse, because you know that your partner is stuck with you even despite your bad behavior. My in-laws are proof of this: my mother-in-law refuses to divorce for religious reasons, despite the fact that my father-in-law is both abusive and a proven cheater. Her misery and guilt over her husband's infidelity does not benefit society in the least. And lest you think that this is a problem of society failing to properly ostracize the husband, rest assured that his children refuse to speak to him and he does not care in the slightest.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > To be clear, in my example, polyamorous people are only a problem for society because that society has decided that polyamorous people are a problem I’m pretty sure that no kid has thought to themselves “I wish my parents had a bunch of unstable relationships with many different people.” That’s not a social construct. Monogamy is one of the most universal practices, embraced by different, unrelated cultures that differ along many other dimensions. How did all those different societies reach the same arbitrary “decision?” > will counterargue that in a society where divorce is met with social ostracization, this disincentivizes being a good spouse, because you know that your partner is stuck with you even despite your bad behavior. Empirically, American subcultures in where divorce is taboo, such as Asians, Mormons, etc., are more successful—e.g. their kids have higher economic mobility—than other Americans. Indeed, divorce as a phenomenon has largely affected the lower classes. In affluent WASP circles divorce may not be as openly condemned the way it was, but it’s still taboo in a way that it isn’t among, say, Appalachians.
smsm42 3y ago
Reevaluate is fine, but I mostly see something like "oh it's all social construct" (somehow this implies it's worthless or even worse, oppressive) and that is considered enough to forego further consideration of comparative benefits. That's not evaluation, that's just hubristic dismissal.

by kibwen 3y ago

orasis 3y ago

I like this take. Already you see specialization of dating apps toward different relationship styles, with Hinge more focused on Monogamy, Tinder on the casual/singles crowd, and Feeld for the nonmonogamous. I agree this is decidedly positive for the monogamous folks. There is now less risk of them connecting with and falling in love with someone who isn’t a good match.

rayiner 3y ago

In your example, there’s a group of people who aren’t cut out for monogamy and are a problem for society no matter what. But I think there’s a much larger group of people that could do it in a society that offers them strong support and reinforcement, who will fail and flounder in a society that leaves them free to make choices. In my culture, neither divorce nor cheating are socially acceptable. Now, I’m happily married to my wife. But I’m also aware that I had better do everything I can to make my marriage happy, because that’s it. My social standing would be devastated if I got divorced. People would be talking about me in hushed tones 12,000 miles away.

kibwen 3y ago
> In your example, there’s a group of people who aren’t cut out for monogamy and are a problem for society no matter what. To be clear, in my example, polyamorous people are only a problem for society because that society has decided that polyamorous people are a problem. I am advocating for basing our societal mores on reasonable consideration from first principles rather than simply tradition. > But I think there’s a much larger group of people that could do it in a society that offers them strong support and reinforcement, who will fail and flounder in a society that leaves them free to make choices. While it is certainly possible to argue against the notion of such-and-such freedom, this appears to be making the following argument: "it is possible to imagine that greater individual freedom will result in undesirable collective outcomes, therefore, all of our traditional restrictions on individual freedom are necessary and may not be challenged." I find this argument to be unconvincing. The support for this argument that you have given is of the general form: "I am incentivized to be a good husband because I would suffer socially if I were not; therefore, monogamy incentivizes positive relationships." I will counterargue that in a society where divorce is met with social ostracization, this disincentivizes being a good spouse, because you know that your partner is stuck with you even despite your bad behavior. My in-laws are proof of this: my mother-in-law refuses to divorce for religious reasons, despite the fact that my father-in-law is both abusive and a proven cheater. Her misery and guilt over her husband's infidelity does not benefit society in the least. And lest you think that this is a problem of society failing to properly ostracize the husband, rest assured that his children refuse to speak to him and he does not care in the slightest.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > To be clear, in my example, polyamorous people are only a problem for society because that society has decided that polyamorous people are a problem I’m pretty sure that no kid has thought to themselves “I wish my parents had a bunch of unstable relationships with many different people.” That’s not a social construct. Monogamy is one of the most universal practices, embraced by different, unrelated cultures that differ along many other dimensions. How did all those different societies reach the same arbitrary “decision?” > will counterargue that in a society where divorce is met with social ostracization, this disincentivizes being a good spouse, because you know that your partner is stuck with you even despite your bad behavior. Empirically, American subcultures in where divorce is taboo, such as Asians, Mormons, etc., are more successful—e.g. their kids have higher economic mobility—than other Americans. Indeed, divorce as a phenomenon has largely affected the lower classes. In affluent WASP circles divorce may not be as openly condemned the way it was, but it’s still taboo in a way that it isn’t among, say, Appalachians.

smsm42 3y ago

Reevaluate is fine, but I mostly see something like "oh it's all social construct" (somehow this implies it's worthless or even worse, oppressive) and that is considered enough to forego further consideration of comparative benefits. That's not evaluation, that's just hubristic dismissal.