14 ms·

Yikes, that's quite the binary distinction... Surely there is room between those subjective descriptions of people for "hey, I like this thing even though it's

Yikes, that's quite the binary distinction... Surely there is room between those subjective descriptions of people for "hey, I like this thing even though it's irrational, ok?" Let people live their lives and you do you. People aren't a "provider mannequin" just because they like to make their partner happy.

ben0x539 3y ago
Not marrying someone given such a huge values discrepancy sounds like the right move, though.
sneak 3y ago
People who make irrational choices about large financial purchases don’t make good long term life partners.
- oblio 3y ago
  Wait till you hear that car purchases are largely emotional and 99% of what we say about those decisions are post-facto rationalizations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Does it mean you can forget about rationality forever and stop trying to bring it to the world?
    - oblio 3y ago
      I wouldn't use those crusader stat points in my personal life. Unless other character incompatibilities are already apparent.
- Reubachi 3y ago
  As someone else already mentioned, did your last vehicle purchase involve you cost-analyzing every individual part of your car versus other cars in it's class? Of course not. I know that a 33k Mazda3 and a 33k Honda Civic are "similar", but neither of them are exactly worth the same 33 thousand dollars. But who cares, really? Ultimately, even a 33k purchase is a "throw" away. You're not gonna compare control arm thickness to find the better value, and you're not gonna examine where the materials came from.
serf 3y ago
acknowledgement of irrationality, especially one that isn't accompanied with a wish to better themselves away from that irrationality, would be a major red flag for me personally entering into a long-term relationship. there is also a great distinction between "Yeah I know another helping of chocolate syrup on my ice cream is a bad decision, but it'll make me feel good today.", and "You need to make a 10kUSD+ purchase on a totally arbitrary piece of jewelry that very well may have incited real human suffering and violence, even though I know that desire is irrational and poorly balanced." I would assume -- maybe incorrectly, I admit -- that this form of irrationality would follow the individual and subsequently the entire relationship. We all have different 'red flag dictionaries', so by all means people should live their lives; but I doubt I am alone in my assumptions.
- koonsolo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - KSteffensen 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - koonsolo 3y ago
      [dead]
  - oblio 3y ago
    > Looking for a woman which doesn't have irrationality? Well, good luck with that! ;) [1] > Nobody is perfect, and when choosing a life partner, you will also need to accept things that you might not like that much, but are still very small compared to all the things you do like. The casual misogynism [1] doesn't really add anything to the useful idea presented later in your comment.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I find myself increasingly alienated from the crowd here because of the daily misogyny, but I interpreted this more as "we are all irrational creatures."
atleastoptimal 3y ago
I understand the point your making with respect to most things. Wife wants 1.3x price carpet instead of x price carpet because it looks better. They discuss and compromise. Husband wants to go to 2y price vacation instead of y price, they compromise on 1.5y price. Bride wants z+50 people at wedding and groom wants z, etc. so on. The synthesis of love languages, consumer culture, the psychological musings of commitment, devotion, the pleasures of our immortality projects in monogamy, etc. is deeply ingrained into the human experience. It's a part of why we live, do things, work our psyches into powerful frenzies on the esteem and cares of others. I get that. It's wonderful, it's beautiful. However, I personally think the "rings must have a very expensive diamond" thing to be very silly. I know that it may be subjectively very important to the potential recipient, but that it seems to sometimes really be so inflexible feels murky in the "what normally tacit power dynamic in this relationship is this revealing?" sort of way. The only significant tangible difference between the diamond and moissanite is the mental totem: "It is a diamond, he bought a diamond for me. He wanted to buy something else but I wanted this and he got it". Which is a problem when it comes to that: that the recipient cannot budge on something so arbitrary. It feels more like the whispers of the DeBeers cultural brainwashing: "You don't deserve to have her if the sacrifice you made to purchase this wasn't big enough" If a woman gets X amount of utility from a diamond ring over an alternative, how would it be invalid if I said I got -X utility from having to purchase it? This is one of those hard to beat arguments where I know I'm not facing a purely rational point of view. I understand it, that's why I added the first paragraph of this response. It's one of those issues where I feel I'd need to have a Christopher Hitchens level of rhetorical skill to make any headway in my favor.

ben0x539 3y ago

Not marrying someone given such a huge values discrepancy sounds like the right move, though.

sneak 3y ago

People who make irrational choices about large financial purchases don’t make good long term life partners.

oblio 3y ago
Wait till you hear that car purchases are largely emotional and 99% of what we say about those decisions are post-facto rationalizations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fsflover 3y ago
  Does it mean you can forget about rationality forever and stop trying to bring it to the world?
  - oblio 3y ago
    I wouldn't use those crusader stat points in my personal life. Unless other character incompatibilities are already apparent.
Reubachi 3y ago
As someone else already mentioned, did your last vehicle purchase involve you cost-analyzing every individual part of your car versus other cars in it's class? Of course not. I know that a 33k Mazda3 and a 33k Honda Civic are "similar", but neither of them are exactly worth the same 33 thousand dollars. But who cares, really? Ultimately, even a 33k purchase is a "throw" away. You're not gonna compare control arm thickness to find the better value, and you're not gonna examine where the materials came from.

serf 3y ago

acknowledgement of irrationality, especially one that isn't accompanied with a wish to better themselves away from that irrationality, would be a major red flag for me personally entering into a long-term relationship. there is also a great distinction between "Yeah I know another helping of chocolate syrup on my ice cream is a bad decision, but it'll make me feel good today.", and "You need to make a 10kUSD+ purchase on a totally arbitrary piece of jewelry that very well may have incited real human suffering and violence, even though I know that desire is irrational and poorly balanced." I would assume -- maybe incorrectly, I admit -- that this form of irrationality would follow the individual and subsequently the entire relationship. We all have different 'red flag dictionaries', so by all means people should live their lives; but I doubt I am alone in my assumptions.

koonsolo 3y ago
[flagged]
- KSteffensen 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - koonsolo 3y ago
    [dead]
- oblio 3y ago
  > Looking for a woman which doesn't have irrationality? Well, good luck with that! ;) [1] > Nobody is perfect, and when choosing a life partner, you will also need to accept things that you might not like that much, but are still very small compared to all the things you do like. The casual misogynism [1] doesn't really add anything to the useful idea presented later in your comment.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I find myself increasingly alienated from the crowd here because of the daily misogyny, but I interpreted this more as "we are all irrational creatures."

atleastoptimal 3y ago

I understand the point your making with respect to most things. Wife wants 1.3x price carpet instead of x price carpet because it looks better. They discuss and compromise. Husband wants to go to 2y price vacation instead of y price, they compromise on 1.5y price. Bride wants z+50 people at wedding and groom wants z, etc. so on. The synthesis of love languages, consumer culture, the psychological musings of commitment, devotion, the pleasures of our immortality projects in monogamy, etc. is deeply ingrained into the human experience. It's a part of why we live, do things, work our psyches into powerful frenzies on the esteem and cares of others. I get that. It's wonderful, it's beautiful. However, I personally think the "rings must have a very expensive diamond" thing to be very silly. I know that it may be subjectively very important to the potential recipient, but that it seems to sometimes really be so inflexible feels murky in the "what normally tacit power dynamic in this relationship is this revealing?" sort of way. The only significant tangible difference between the diamond and moissanite is the mental totem: "It is a diamond, he bought a diamond for me. He wanted to buy something else but I wanted this and he got it". Which is a problem when it comes to that: that the recipient cannot budge on something so arbitrary. It feels more like the whispers of the DeBeers cultural brainwashing: "You don't deserve to have her if the sacrifice you made to purchase this wasn't big enough" If a woman gets X amount of utility from a diamond ring over an alternative, how would it be invalid if I said I got -X utility from having to purchase it? This is one of those hard to beat arguments where I know I'm not facing a purely rational point of view. I understand it, that's why I added the first paragraph of this response. It's one of those issues where I feel I'd need to have a Christopher Hitchens level of rhetorical skill to make any headway in my favor.