r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
The Bay Area rationalist community can not escape sexual misconduct and drama. (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/avu24t/the_bay_area_rationalist_community_can_not_escape/)
96

This is my limited experience and only my experience.

Last year I spent an extended period in the Bay Area for job interviews. Since I am a long time lesswrong reader I decided I would take an opportunity to visit with rationalist events while I was in town.

What did I think I would find at rationalist events?

I might have guessed discussions about using monte carlo methods for estimating probabilities in complex situations. Maybe discussions about adjusting policy to behave in more logically consistent ways. Perhaps reviews of neat research in behavioral economics and even gossip about dangerous machine intelligence ◔_◔.

But, in my experience, this is not what these meetups were for. These things presumably get discussed sometimes but only off in corners with those few who were really interested.

A sampling of headlines from regular rationalist events includes:

  • Group cooking
  • Meditation
  • Singing and supper
  • Board games
  • Movie night

My experience is that out there ‘rationalist’ appears to be primarily a social identity for (aspiring) wealthy young sexually-liberal intellectuals.

There is little discussion about Rationality seemingly because there is not much for community participants to do and say that advances a coherent cause in a way that an ‘environmental’ group might. But if some participants had substantial experience in statistics, game theory, or formal decision making I did not see it.

REACH is a meeting space for rationalists in Berkeley (lovely except it smells like a well used college dorm). The only seating available there is a set of sad couches which can only take five or so without stacking. We were forced to stack.

Other events were crammed into tiny bay area homes and apartments.

Because of this it is impossible to participate in these venues without being forced into awkward physical contact with others and without overhearing highly personal gossip.

Public displays of affection were common at events I attended, so were all manner of other highly intimate and unprofessional behavior including passing people around to sit on each others laps, massages, frequent hugging, dress adjusting, hand-holding, “head scratching”, lewd comments, and touching my hair. At one get together it appeared that some guests left to go have sex elsewhere in the house during the event. At least they did not ask me to come with :-P but I did not feel like it would have been scandalous if they had.

I doubt it is an accident these meetup activities feel like recommended activities for casual dates. Reading, needlepoint, gardening, and couponing would be just fun as off-topic ‘church events’, but would not work so well for dates. One event had a intro section of intensely personal questions which probably came from some speed-dating site.

These meetups seem to largely act as a hookup scouting venue for the majority polyamorious intellectuals and their friends. “Rat adjacent”, wonderful dog-whistle. What I thought was just an odd fringe of online rationality turns out to be central to in-person rationality.

(Polyamorious mostly appeared to be code for polygynous because the predominant power relationship appeared to be a tech employed male and multiple much younger economically dependent women.)

At these meetups “polyamorious by default” seems to have undermined the normal social structures which separate sexual relationships from professional and hobby interest. Letting it be known I was married did not seem to discourage them from (politely) hitting on me, embarking on an unwanted monologue about the advantages of polyamory, or inviting me to live with them while my partner looked for employment remotely (wow!). These advances, which also included unsolicited physical contact were flattering (but unwelcome) and I was not traumatized by them or afraid for my safety. But they resulted in an awkward conversation with my spouse which I would have rather not had. Nor was this behavior confined to a few “bad apples” (nor ‘autism’) but was highly normalized, witnessed by others and not remarked on. People I met universally seemed friendly and interesting (if somewhat amusingly naive). But they also seemed to have no personal boundaries, awareness, and odd expectations about acceptable conduct. Although everyone (?) in attendance was technically an adult (ignoring some participants’ young kids) yet there appeared to be no “adult supervision”. I assume everyone uninterested in these activities has quickly run away unless they were completely oblivious.

I would not have been surprised and made to feel so uncomfortable by the conduct if my visit was to a group for “rationalist singles”.

After reflection I do not believe this is focus dilution from community growth. The few names in the rationalist community I recognized also participated in/lead the same activities. I think if they want to discuss rationality the best place to do it is online. At physical meetups their main interest is finding interesting persons to physically contact (ahem).

This prevalence of nominal polyamory creates an environment were everyone is assumed to be available and where I found it challenging to deflect interest without constant effort and risk of insult. I also felt an undertone of “anyone in a committed relationship is in need of ‘help’ to improve their rationality”. It felt gross, not cute.

In my experience their events were largely a relationship-finding group substantially populated by a very sexually progressive (to state it politely) population, but they were operated under a banner of meeting for purposes unrelated to relationships and sex.

This mismatch of expectations generates drama.

I can not imagine this community becoming more about either instrumental or epistemological rationality because few participants seemed to have much interest in either, except rather shallowly (“Gosh wasn’t that an interesting article?” “You betcha”). Nor can I imagine it changing to adopt more honest labeling since even in the open minded Bay Area thinking we are spending our evenings with “our singles/swinging group” will not make us feel very high status compared to “our rationality meetup”.

It’s interesting how rationalists everywhere seem to be creepy in the exact same way. I’m not even on the same continent as the Bay Area, and some behaviors I have experienced from IRL lesswrongers include aggressive sexual advances, nonconsensual touching and kissing, and weird sexual oversharing (literally struck up conversation with a dude I’ve never met before and the first thing he tells me is that he got whipped last week). They were also all polyamorous, and all men were straight, while all women were assumed to be bisexual or straight—but—flexible. A friend from that community told me once that he wonders why there was plenty of bi women, but no lesbians or gay/bi men in longterm relationships with people in their polycule, and I really wanted to tell him that maybe they’d want to stay there if all of their parties and meetups weren’t centered around men/their girlfriends trying to ‘recruit’ young women. He thought it was related to genetics somehow.

>He thought it was related to genetics somehow. This could honestly be the punchline of every story about rationalists.
I've found in a lot of communities / spaces where there are relaxed boundaries (relative to the world at large) there's, inevitably, certain people who take this as an invitation to more or less push things as far as they can go while pretending they're not really doing anything. And yeah, they're usually straight dudes, and yeah, their targets are usually the cute young girls, esp the ones who are new to the space, less connected, and generally speaking less prepared to take care of themselves. I'm reminded of the _last_ time I read about the SF bay area rat community, inwhich someone involved was saying they felt guilty because random strangers showing up to hang out and have kinky sex parties in their living room made them uncomfortable and they didn't know what to do about it. Anyway, point is, while it certainly can be worthwhile and even important to have spaces where boundaries are looser, certain behaviors are permissible, etc etc, there's a really important lesson in that certain people tend to benefit from ambiguity, usually at the expense than others, so it's necessary to be clear about where the actual bounds of acceptable behavior are. Blurry boundaries usually exist precisely because they benefit certain people (who, coincidentally, hold more of the cards). It's not an accident, it's by design.
> He thought it was related to genetics somehow. lmfao
it's like The Aristocrats - every story about rationalists should end "He thought it was related to genetics somehow."
Help I can't stop laughing
Even the story of Roko's basilisk turns out to end with Roko thinking it was related to genetics somehow
THIS IS SO UPSETTING. The Basilisk is mine now. *Hisss.*
Thanks for the flair!
Win!
[deleted]
It's the same kind of dynamic as a lot of swinger spaces. Insecure str8 men who are totally open to bi-but-for-male-gaze women.

This was also my experience as well, the pressure to be polyamorous is really intense. I don’t know how many times people recommended Sex at Dawn to me but it was A LOT. Polyamory sounds great (though I am not interested myself) and I have many lovely polyamorous friends, but I think at this point most people in cities know what it is and recruiting is unnecessary and irritating.

Also these people are “liberal” as in they like NPR but don’t make them uncomfortable by criticism their icons like Sheryl Sandberg or implying that it’s even possible they might be racist. They are like the dad in Get Out.

>They are like the dad in Get Out. Hopefully they're like the impression you get of the dad in the beginning of the movie, rather than what you know he is by the end lol
Well... Don't scratch beneath the surface.
You know what they say about scratching a liberal...

I doubt they’ll listen to me, but my advice for cleaning these groups up:

  1. Establish clear consent for physical acts from hugs up, and take it seriously.
  2. Ban anyone who is known for abuse or violating boundaries.
  3. Separate hookups from social events. Board games means board games, you can hook up any other time.
  4. Ban established members from hitting on/sleeping with new members.

This actually worked for a group I was in, which still has plenty of poly and kinky people, but signficantly less (hopefully zero) abuse and general creepiness.

This scans, except for

This mismatch of expectations generates drama.

Nnno, the predators actively using gaslighting and “logic” to cover their own asses generates “drama”. It’s not a mistake that Davis Aurini, Eron Gjoni, and Wes Fenza are all “rationalist adjacent”.

no personal boundaries, awareness, and odd expectations about acceptable conduct

Boundaries are for normies and outgroupers, don’t you know. Why are you being so mean by having boundaries?

> Davis Aurini, Eron Gjoni, and Wes Fenza are all "rationalist adjacent". Excuse me? Davis Aurini? Davis "basically a neo-Nazi"* Aurini is accepted by the rationalist community? God that's horrible. \* Edit: yes, that's an understatement, I'm aware. But I don't want to try and remember all the nutcase-boxes that Aurini checks.
Here he is on [LessWrong dot com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T8Huvskn2Ab5m8wkx/i-ve-had-it-with-those-dark-rumours-about-our-culture#xWdgLb6edJwWWTfAd), with thanks to /u/dgerard for making him [easy to find.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Davis_Aurini#cite_note-59)
Wow, tremendous insight right here from a [deleted] user: >Aurini's channel is pure contrarian & rationalist goodness. Fuck me. And from the shitlord himself: > I mean, jeez, have you seen how women behave in the workplace? They crave the occasional spanking. Yeah, that's not the kind of guy you want at any kind of IRL meeting. Edit: Jesus fucking Christ *all* the fucking comments on that fucking post are *dreadful*. How can people even entertain the idea that LW is a good community when you see that shit? Seriously, that's worse than the worst of the old SSC CW thread.
> I really hope no outside observers see this thread. Lol yikes aaaand this exchange, presented without comment: > A: Most of the impact of rape is a made-up self fulfilling prophesy. > B: The same would apply to cuckoldry. > C: Upvoted for saying the only thing in this whole thread that makes my inner animal go "aaaaugh I must fight against people who say that". I didn't know I had it in me.
Oh God, what the fuck.
[deleted]
>user reports: >1: This is spam I've mentioned in the past my love of reports that mark Zizekposting as "spam" and I encourage you to continue to do report Zizekposting as such; I also ask that you don't do that.
[deleted]
This is mostly copy-pasted from Tyler Cowen, who has been saying this for a while. So he’s a plagiarist in addition to just being a shithead.
This is also Dreher's contention, and vaguely David Brooks as well.
Tyler Cowen is garbage too
of course one of the comments links to heartiste...
Wait, is multiheaded supposed to be Aurini? Cuz that would be surprising to me.
No, he's in the comments, look for his username (simply "Aurini").
Ah, I see. Got it. Multiheaded was always bad enough. If she were secretly Aurini, I think I'd blow a fuse.
multiheaded is a ridiculous shitheaded pain in the arse and still 10000x nicer and more morally upright a person than Aurini who i loathe to compare to her
strong agree
No, LW user "Aurini" is. (Between her hatred of social justice and her friendship with Eron Gjoni, Multiheaded is just as shitty, that said.)
[This article](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aPCKiEd2G8H3kkdnN/the-dark-arts-preamble) by him could fuel a huge effort-sneer of its own, but I'll just quote my favorite part: >I took back the children, a look of honest sympathy on my face. The Demon Wheel began spinning. I could see that she was on the verge of crying again. My gut told me that her father had recently died, but the actual cause didn’t matter. I could discover that information. The upcoming dialogue played itself out in my mind... >"Oh jeez, what happened? Oh my god, seriously..?” Head tilted as an Alpha confidant enough for Beta behaviour… edit: [I did the thing](https://redd.it/avzv86)
it is difficult to state how much I loathed that article at the time, well before I realised who the fuck Aurini was (and started the [RW article on him](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Davis_Aurini) muwahaha)
Ugh, the man who single-handedly ruined the word “decadent” for me. I swear to god, if I have to literally engrave the words “decadent slut” into my skin to reclaim them from him (via tattoo, not corporal mortification), so help me, I’ll do it. Not sure why that in particular sticks in my craw so hard, but there it is.
I saw a Contrapoints video and fell in love because she speaks multiple languages, bombed out of a Ph.D and is INCANDESCENT WITH DECADENCE it is the proper, righteous and correct way to be i mean I'm a suburban dad these days, but i remember living on amyl
>Why are you being so mean by having boundaries? Reading this sentence put me back in therapy.
> Wes Fenza I hadn't heard of this marvellous fellow, looked him up and wish I still hadn't
Yeah, I just typed his name in Google and it looks like the most frequent word on the page apart from his name is "abuse." Nice. Very nice. I don't think I want to know any more.

tl;dr: it’s a sex cult hiding behind pretensions of intellectualism?

I guess that honestly doesn’t surprise me, it’s certainly not the first time something like this has cropped up. I am sorry that you had to deal with all this, though; even if you didn’t necessarily find the experience traumatic, it certainly seems extremely unpleasant.

It doesn’t really surprise me that such a degree of boundarylessness was present – I had many (substantially more benign) experiences in highschool and college of how this sort of group culture normalization can lead to all sorts of alien(ating) weirdness when it intersects with people not “in” on it.

Wasn't that literally Ayn Rand's group?
I missed out on the invite to that one, so I wouldn't know.
[deleted]
Sir, that's my emotional support allegory of the cave

It’s a little eerie, how well this description applies to my close encounter of the rationalist kind, albeit in a different country.

Some points of similarity:

  • The touching. Dear god, the touching. The men at these meet-ups are handsy, but more than that, touch is treated like a necessity. Cuddle piles are basically presented as a community mental health service.
  • The speed-dating vibe. When I feel charitable, I’m like… sure. Ask those big emotional questions early and maybe it’ll help these people pair off. When I’m being cynical, I speculate that the intensely personal questions help predators isolate victims. Funny how the most financially vulnerable women in the room are identified so quickly.
  • The REACH as a bar-alternative for nerds. These past few days, I sat back politely when the REACH was being discussed as a community hub that offers support and resources and life improvement. Maybe it does. But, if it’s like any other rationalist facility I’ve been to, the primary service it provides is a sexually-charged meeting space where networking, babysitting, and the like are afterthoughts.

Idk what my big takeaway thesis is, other than “glad it’s not just me who noticed.”

> The touching. Dear god, the touching. The men at these meet-ups are handsy, but more than that, touch is treated like a necessity. Cuddle piles are basically presented as a community mental health service. So it's 99% overlap with the PUA crowd then. People who think they are exceptionally intelligent convince themselves that they can manipulate people effortlessly.

(Polyamorious mostly appeared to be code for polygynous because the predominant power relationship appeared to be a tech employed male and multiple much younger economically dependent women.)

If you strain your ears, you can probably hear me vomiting from the other side of the planet.

The “hey lemme just build a harem” crowd gives polyamory a bad name imo.

I would not have been surprised and made to feel so uncomfortable by the conduct if my visit was to a group for “rationalist singles”.

I don’t really get what you mean by this tbh.

“anyone in a committed relationship is in need of ‘help’ to improve their rationality”

Oof

> The "hey lemme just build a harem" crowd gives polyamory a bad name imo. basically it has to be run by the women or it's shit i appreciate even this may not be sufficient in the rationalist subculture
the loved one points out to me that this implies the women having to do all the emotional labour, which isn't what I was meaning to imply, but is depressingly plausible as a realisation of it
When was the last time you saw a Rationalist putting in emotional *anything*?
when someone said something rude about white male nerds
only when his dick was involved
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I strongly suspect polyamory is not a healthy relationship style for heterosexuals, at least in the long term.
If you can't do it with reciprocity, you shouldn't do it.
I'm a hetrosexual dating two other heterosexuals, FWIW. I've been with one since 2013 and the other since 2007. One of my partners has also been dating someone else since 2013, and she's been dating a man since 2007 and a woman since ~2010 IIRC. So yeah, I feel 6 years counts as long-term. Whether our relationship is healthy remains to be seen, I guess? Unfortunately for some reason it seems straight women are a minority in the polyamory community. I wonder if it's because there's a lot of pressure not to identify as straight? I only fully realised that although I would *like* to be pan, I should stop identifying as pan because I'm not actually attracted to other women.
Admittedly I'm a total outsider who knows nothing, so I should probably just shut up. However, here's where I'd get worried: 1. Do you plan to ever have kids? Do you plan to ever get married? Buy property together with someone? 2. Do any of your partners or their partners plan to ever have kids? 3. The people who answer yes to the above, do they plan to break up with all but one partner at that point, despite dating others for 10 years? If not, I guess they plan to stay polyamorous even with kids and even when co-owning property together. This raises further questions: 4. Is the plan to live in more-than-2-adult households and raise kids with 3+ parents? That sounds like a recipe for horrible drama (even 2 parent households struggle to keep sane while raising kids). 5. Is the plan to stick with "primary" couples and have the other partners live separately, visiting them sometimes to have sex? The thing is, if you lift the taboo against extra-marital sex, you risk betraying your primary emotionally, not just sexually - that is, you risk actually falling out of love with your primary and wishing you could have a family with someone else. Maybe I'm projecting here, but I strongly suspect that if you nourish infatuations/crushes instead of ignoring them as silly instincts, you are surely at greater risk of becoming highly emotionally attached to people who are not your husband/wife, which I think is not a healthy way to live (what if your family has to move?) 6. Finally, is there any working example of a community of polyamorous heterosexual people in their 40s with 10-year-old kids? Does that exist anywhere on the planet? My parents talk about the hippie movement - that was *all about* free love, back in the 60s. As far as I can tell all those people grew up to have normal boring monogamous relationships. Point 6 is probably my main objection. My dad was part of the hippie movement and was probably sorta-polyamorous at the time. He is not polyamorous now, for what feel to me like pretty fundamental "this is not sustainable" reasons. He talks about a time in his life full of lots of sex but few emotional connections, as all his friends paired off and got married leaving him alone. Maybe the rationalist community can do better, but is there any example of this succeeding?
Oh my god that's quite the list of questions. 1. I'm married to one of my partners and would like to marry the other. For complicated legal reasons we didn't have a legal marriage, more of a "commitment ceremony". That said, I live in a country that allows you to have multiple common law marriages, so I'm common law married to both my partners. My husband's girlfriend doesn't live with us so he's not common law married to her. At the moment my husband and I own a house together and my partner lives with us and pays fair market rent. We are hoping to buy a new house in the future, all three of us. 2. Kids are on the table. My husband's girlfriend definitely wants kids, I probably want kids. 3. Why would you break up just because you were having kids? I used to always get questions like that, when I was getting married, "what's going to happen to your other partner?" and i'm like... nothing, you can be committed to more than one person. 4. Yes, I'm sure raising kids will be tricky. But many hands make light work: I'm sure my husband's girlfriend would babysit the kid for us, for example, so we can have time together. 5. I think you are projecting a monogamous mindset onto this, and I honestly don't know how to respond to this. I'm emotionally attached to someone who's not my husband and... that's fine? Polyamory is not about sex, it's about emotions. My husband loves his girlfriend even though she'll (probably) never live with us (we do joke about buying houses on the same street). 6. I'm sure a successful example of a polyamorous heteros with 10 year old kids exists somewhere but I've noticed that as polyamorous people get stable they tend to stop attending polyam events - the only reason I still go to the polyam meetup in my city is because I run it. When I came out to a lady at work she said that she knew someone growing up in her small country town who had a (male) partner, and her partner also had another female partner. She said that they both got pregnant at the same time and the kids were like sisters and they're all still happy together. Now I don't know if they were a V or a triad, so can't help. Some threads on /r/polyamory indicate that the user avapoet (don't want to tag) is in a hetero V with a kid that would now be 5 years old (he shared polyamory content less than a day ago so presumably he's still polyam though maybe not in the same relationship I'm not stalking this guy to satisfy your curiosity). The same thread included a poist from someone who was raised by three people (not sure if V or triad either) https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/41kcb2/has_anyone_here_had_children_in_a_poly/ Why are you obsessed with the hetero aspect? Is it because you think a closed triad could work where everyone's together, but a quad or chain won't work because there's someone who isn't involved with the others? If that's the case then our relationship has failed by your definition because my husband's partner's wife broke up from a long term boyfriend like 3 or 4 years ago. When there's more moving parts there's less stability, of course, by definition.
Thanks for answering! >Yes, I'm sure raising kids will be tricky. But many hands make light work: I'm sure my husband's girlfriend would babysit the kid for us, for example, so we can have time together. Well, at the beginning, sure. But if you have as many children per person as non-polyamorous people, then suddenly you don't have extra hands any more, you have the same number of hands per child as monogamous couples. And with 3 adults, there are 3 *pairs* of adults instead of 1, and any of those 3 pairs may break out into a divorce-level fight. It sounds 3 times as hard to me (and normal marriage isn't easy). >I think you are projecting a monogamous mindset onto this, and I honestly don't know how to respond to this. I'm emotionally attached to someone who's not my husband and... that's fine? Polyamory is not about sex, it's about emotions. My husband loves his girlfriend even though she'll (probably) never live with us (we do joke about buying houses on the same street). Fine, I guess, but if it's real emotional attachment then it sounds absolutely miserable to permanently live in different cities (I had a long distance relationship for 2 years. It worked, but it wasn't fun.) >I'm sure a successful example of a polyamorous heteros with 10 year old kids exists somewhere but I've noticed that as polyamorous people get stable they tend to stop attending polyam events - the only reason I still go to the polyam meetup in my city is because I run it. When I came out to a lady at work she said that she knew someone growing up in her small country town who had a (male) partner, and her partner also had another female partner. She said that they both got pregnant at the same time and the kids were like sisters and they're all still happy together. Now I don't know if they were a V or a triad, so can't help. Some threads on /r/polyamory indicate that the user avapoet (don't want to tag) is in a hetero V with a kid that would now be 5 years old (he shared polyamory content less than a day ago so presumably he's still polyam though maybe not in the same relationship I'm not stalking this guy to satisfy your curiosity). The same thread included a poist from someone who was raised by three people (not sure if V or triad either) https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/41kcb2/has_anyone_here_had_children_in_a_poly/ Wait, this paragraph kind of confuses me. Do poly people close up their relationships when they are stable? So like, you live in a house with 3 or 4 adults raising kids together, but allow no other partners? I can see that being sustainable (though with 3 times the drama/divorce risk). If other partners get added and dropped, though, I no longer see how it works. >Why are you obsessed with the hetero aspect? Only because I think there *are* convincing examples of gay communities getting polyamorous relationships to work. Maybe it's related to a lower desire for raising kids? But I'm not actually sure whether gay people have a lower average desire to raise kids. I'd guess this is probably true for gays but not lesbians, because women tend to want kids more than men do? I'm just making stuff up at this point.
> But if you have as many children per person as non-polyamorous people, then suddenly you don't have extra hands any more, you have the same number of hands per child as monogamous couples. I guess I'm not looking it as hands per child: an adult can supervise more than one child. So I more meant, say, partner A could supervise their three kids while partner B and C go to a fancy restaurant. People talk about not being able to find time for "date nights" with kids, and that hurting the relationship, or not being able to get alone time. In this example you could imagine A supervising the two oldest kids, B supervising the youngest, and C can spend the whole weekend playing D&D in a cabin in the woods somewhere / going on a spa day / watching a movie, you know? > there are 3 pairs of adults instead of 1, and any of those 3 pairs may break out into a divorce-level fight My two partners aren't in a relationship with each other, and they definitely get into their fair share of fights. But they're like brothers: they hate each other and they love each other, sometimes one shines through more than the other. And like brothers they kind of know they're stuck together and they put up with more than they'd put up with from a non-brother? I don't know. I've probably done a terrible job of explaining this dynamic. > but if it's real emotional attachment then it sounds absolutely miserable to permanently live in different cities I think this is again monogamous mindset going in: I don't want to be all, "I'm an evolved lifeform who is beyond your mortal needs", but... like, there's things you get from a relationship other than physical proximity, and when your needs for physical proximity are being met elsewhere, it's not *as* hard to be split up from your partner. I don't know how else to explain it other than it doesn't seem miserable to me? > Do poly people close up their relationships when they are stable? So like, you live in a house with 3 or 4 adults raising kids together, but allow no other partners? Generally not, but like, there's practical considerations: I have two live-in partners and I don't see myself having a third live-in partner. So if I have another relationship, it'll not be a live-in partner - might still be a very long term, serious, etc relationship, but not someone I'd live with, so if I can deal with how dirty #1 and #2 leave the kitchen/etc, I don't ever have to find out how much #3 will drive me bonkers leaving the toilet seat up, you know? And like, a human being only has so many hours in the day, so having more than ~5 "emotional" partners is not going to be easy. The word "allow" doesn't need to come into it, you know? Like, people only have so much time, maybe with kids they don't want to focus on dating (like, polyam dating is its own special beast and i'm kind of glad i'm not doing it at the moment because trying to make a good impression on your partner's partner is not something i want to be on my best behaviour for you know?) > If other partners get added and dropped, though, I no longer see how it works. You seem to be defining "working" as no partners getting added or dropped, so that's kinda a tautology, no? > Only because I think there are convincing examples of gay communities getting polyamorous relationships to work. Oh, so a triad with a man and two women, who are all very in love with each other, that would be "successful" and "hetero" for your purposes? Those are super common long-term with kids. ---- The impression I'm getting from you is, with all due respect, you don't have much knowledge about polyamorous mindsets, lifestyles, norms, or "culture" - maybe the Bay Area rationalists don't either, too idk, and there's nothing wrong with not being an expert on a lifestyle you aren't interested in living at all, but maybe have a bit more empathy that just because you haven't seen something work that the people who live this lifestyle haven't spent some time thinking about it on their own?
>The impression I'm getting from you is, with all due respect, you don't have much knowledge about polyamorous mindsets, lifestyles, norms, or "culture" - maybe the Bay Area rationalists don't either, too idk, and there's nothing wrong with not being an expert on a lifestyle you aren't interested in living at all, but maybe have a bit more empathy that just because you haven't seen something work that the people who live this lifestyle haven't spent some time thinking about it on their own? I admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. And I don't mean to lack empathy. Polyamorous relationships do sound like they work more than I'd have expected them to work a priori. But I still don't think they are great for having kids, or else everyone would already be doing that. There's got to be *some* reason why there's no place in the world where polyamorous households are default. There's got to be *some* reason why it didn't work for hippies in the 60s. Maybe the only reason is that polyamorous households are more difficult (rather than impossible), and therefore if you're very good at talking through your issues and being agreeable, polyamory works as a lifestyle. In that case it would be wrong of me to describe polyamory as "unhealthy in the long term" - it's more accurate to call it "really difficult in the long term" or something.
>There's got to be some reason why there's no place in the world where polyamorous households are default. Lotta places it used to be the default but the monogamous heterosexual model was forcibly imposed by imperial colonial powers for tax collecting and moralist purposes.
Which places?
Not really. While there are cultures where polygamous marriages are common, I don't really know of any where it's the default.
> here's got to be some reason why there's no place in the world where polyamorous households are default !! what the hell that's not true at all! There's tons of societies like this: there's one tribe in the amazon I read about where they believe that babies are formed from semen and menstrual blood, so every man the woman has sex with while she's pregnant is proportionately the father in terms of how many times they did it, so kids are raised with lots of fathers. There are societies in Nepal where women live with their brothers and raise their babies with their brothers (but sleep with non-brothers). I mean, the traditional view of Islam as a society with many wives: that's group child raising (though presumably not a shining bastion of it due to human rights abuses). That's just what I have picked up on from reading cracked.com years ago, this article goes into it a tiny bit: https://wehavekids.com/family-relationships/Around-the-World-in-Search-of-Different-Forms-of-Family But yeah, I'm no anthropologist, but the nuclear family we are so used to is a very modern invention. Even in Western society the grandparents would often live with the family, as would aunts and uncles and random kids they adopted off the street! > There's got to be some reason why it didn't work for hippies in the 60s. Didn't it? There's people who were raised on hippy communes. I agree that polyamory seems to be excessively "trendy" at the moment and I wonder how many of the people there are trying to be "cool" and not intending on remaining polyam, but who knows, maybe society's just moved on enough? I can't begin to speculate. > In that case it would be wrong of me to describe polyamory as "unhealthy in the long term" - it's more accurate to call it "really difficult in the long term" or something. Idk normal hetero mono marriages tend to divorce a lot, so those are also difficult. I think relationships are difficult in general.
It's also fair clear that if these particular rationalists somehow made a rule that they would only have monogamous relationships, they would be creepy and boundary-violating about their monogamy. It's not like monogamy has never been used to violate people's boundaries. (For one thing, monogamy with a significant power imbalance often means in practice that the more-powerful partner doesn't actually have to be monogamous, even if the less-powerful partner is and the relationship official is. See: traditional patriarchal marriages, where it's tacitly understood that the man gets to quietly cheat).
> There's tons of societies like this And if you look at the data most people in those tend to be monogamous, or serially monogamous, with just more relaxed ideas about sex (which in my book is awesome). In addition for those that do practice some form of institutional non-monogamy there seem to be tons of conflict between the spouses, most often based on jealousy. > I think relationships are difficult in general. Yep, cause people are a fucked up animal.
> https://wehavekids.com/family-relationships/Around-the-World-in-Search-of-Different-Forms-of-Family This source says "I was unable to find any reliable sources on historical polyamory in an accepted cultural sense (though I don't doubt it must have existed somewhere at some point)", so I definitely don't get the sense that polyamory was mainstream throughout history. Thanks for pointing out the Nepal thing, though, that's fairly interesting. Polygamy definitely has strong historical precedent, but (as you point out) in a bad sense: it usually comes with a strong patriarchy, human rights abuses against women, and (by numerical necessity) a large number of single males who are unable to find any women to marry, who then sometimes turn to violence. >Idk normal hetero mono marriages tend to divorce a lot, so those are also difficult. I think relationships are difficult in general. Exactly! That's why I expect *more* relationships (in one household) to be *more* difficult. Anyway, difficult doesn't mean impossible, so I shouldn't criticize that choice.
>Polygamy definitely has strong historical precedent, but (as you point out) in a bad sense: it usually comes with a strong patriarchy, human rights abuses against women, and (by numerical necessity) a large number of single males who are unable to find any women to marry, who then sometimes turn to violence. I mean. Monogamy also has all of these things, except (sometimes) for the last, and males turning to violence isn't solved by giving them a designated female punching-bag. Not to mention monogamy having its own particular abuses, such as those that come with having one woman bearing the entire burden of sexual and reproductive labor.
In the end of the day both options suck, but in a different way. You choose your own suffering basically :D
"I admit I don't know what i'm talking about ... but I still don't think they're great for..." You should have stopped at not knowing what you were talking about and asked polite questions instead of being a presumptuous ass and demanding free emotional labor.
come on, i'll be referring to this guy's fuckin' kidney dilemma for years to come. If god forbid I ever break up with one of my nesting partners, I'll tell the other one: "at least now you can rest assured that you have dominion over my kidney". And so on...
You. I like you. Let's be friends and own each other's spleens or something.
Yeah but what if I *need* my spleen?! <3
shall be referring to this sorta questioner as a "kidney dilemma" henceforth "the guy was a droning fuckin kidney dilemma"
Fortunately, I find I don't get "stumped" with kidney dilemmas much, if at all, these days. When I first came out like 8 years ago I got a bunch of kidney dilemmas though none were ever full-on kidney level.
> There's got to be some reason why there's no place in the world where polyamorous households are default. There's got to be some reason why it didn't work for hippies in the 60s. Well if you look at it [rationalist hat on] humans are kinda pair-bodning-ish species. Monogamy-ish in general. And for purely practical reasons that you have mentioned - the drama, the difficulty managing more than one person and so on.
> you can be committed to more than one person. I kind of question this. Yeah to an extend you can be and you can sustain it for a while, but it all falls apart when you have to choose. Let's say both your partners need your kidney, which one are you going to donate to? Or if one partner wants you to break things off with the other one? Or which one are you going to have a child with first? IMO nothing wrong with having multiple partners, its the multiple commitments I question.
> Let's say both your partners need your kidney, which one are you going to donate to? ... when does this ever happen? Why am I forced to donate my kidney to anyone? Why am I compatible with both of them? I guess they're both equally sick and will survive equally well and my kidney is the only kidney in the universe that would help either of them? Like this hypothetical comes from the same hypothetical factory that made the much ridiculed "would a vegan eat meat on a desert island and all there is is a pig - no the pig doesn't eat anything on the island - no you're going to be rescued but only if you live long enough by eating the pig" hypothetical, surely you can do better? EDIT: I shared the kidney dilemma with our polycule signal chat group and my husband's girlfriend has offered a kidney should the situation arise, so we should be OK. I think we have a pool of kidneys in our polycule, awaiting donation! So rest assured, I have considered this carefully. > Or if one partner wants you to break things off with the other one? What if one partner wants to break up with me because I haven't shaved my armpits in a while or gained 10 kgs? Like, they don't have to date me because I do [thing X they don't like], and I don't have to put up with ultimatums I don't like. > Or which one are you going to have a child with first? Do both my male partners want biological children? > IMO nothing wrong with having multiple partners, its the multiple commitments I question. People have multiple children, they have parents as well as spouses, etc, and these are all committed to and sometimes it comes to a head, but those are rare cases: I saw on /r/legaladvice a while ago where a mother was upset that one of her (minor) kids raped another one of her kids, and that she was going to have to pay for a lawyer for the rapist (she wanted the rapist to get a public defender). This sort of situation is fortunately uncommon but people don't shame parents for having more than one child in case one child will take attention / resources / etc away from the other.
> people don't shame parents for having more than one child in case one child will take attention / resources / etc away from the other. They don't but such a situation is actually really common. Contrary to what a lot of parents say in public, they do have a favorite child. As for my hypotheticals - They serve to give you an example of a situation where you *have to* make a choice between your partners that has important consequences. The point is that - want it or not you are always more committed to some people than others and it is such situations that reveal this. The details don't matter the point is - choose one or the other in a situation where you can't have both and such situations do happen in real life.
I just edited my post because my husband's girlfriend has informed me her kidney is up for grabs if it's required :). Assuming anyone in the polycule would donate to anyone else in the polycule, we have a pool of seven kidneys available! And my objection to the hypotheticals is that in real life there's more details and nuance. If my husband gets a job in another city, and I have to consider whether to stay with him or my partner, it matters which city that is. A large english-speaking city? Hell yes! Adventure. My partner will come for sure. My husband's partner probably not, but she'll visit and she'll try and get her partner and wife to move too knowing her (and my husband's partner's partner could get a job most anywhere so who knows)... A tiny town in rural Togo? Maybe doesn't have the infrastructure I need to be happy.
> And my objection to the hypotheticals is that in real life there's more details and nuance Definitely, but that's why these hypotheticals are interesting - they don't let you use details and nuance as an excuse, and thus illustrate a point. Thank God for nuance and details :D
What are you trying to get out of the hypothetical, then? For me to say "oh for sure, Partner A would get my kidney!"? And then what, ah-ha! Polyamory is invalidated as a lifestyle choice if you don't feel exactly equal for your two nesting partners? Like I feel differently about each of them at different times of the day / week / month / year. I assume parents who have favourite kids probably feel similar, but I also think that you don't get to choose your kids (though you do get to pretty much dictate a lot of their personality if you know what you're doing I guess?), but you do get to choose your partners, so I'd expect partners to be intrinsically (like, independent of shared history) in the top say 2% of "people you like" whereas children would be maybe in the top 25%. IDK I am still mighty floored about the kidney thing. I'm imagining asking a parent if all three of their kids need kidneys WHAT DO YOU DO?!
> I'm imagining asking a parent if all three of their kids need kidneys WHAT DO YOU DO?! That is a remarkably similar question actually. It all goes back to my point that you cannot be truly committed to more than one person. This doesn't invalidate polyamory at all, just raises the point that there are different levels of commitment to different people.
Okay, so you're saying a parent cannot be truly committed to more than one child (because someone has to be your ultimate priority and only one person can be that at any given moment, so that makes all other commitments not "true"). I've no idea why you're bringing this up in response to someone talking about polyamory. It seems like it's more of a reason to have only one kid than anything else. Even then you might like your dog better.
Really what a parent needs to do is to become as polyamorous as possible, as many partners as possible, and make sure all those partners would be willing kidney/liver donors.
One kidney donor per child. Got it.
I have one and a half functioning kidneys, so my six romantic partners are shit out of luck. I guess they can each have a piece of my liver though. Hey /u/magicweasel do you want some of my small intestine I know we're not in the same polycule but you might need it after all these sealions
Hey I'll never say no to more organs! It's the only thing in life worth caring about, after all :D
> that's why these hypotheticals are interesting the word you're looking for is "querulous" with a side order of "increasingly obnoxious as you continue"
> the word you're looking for is "querulous" with a side order of "increasingly obnoxious as you continue" my polycule and the local polyam facebook group both enjoyed the kidney one though, it really tickled me. One person commented on facebook: > Who the hell is in a relationship for the spare kidney? What if you broke up with someone just as the NHS stopped funding your dialysis? What if both your favourite pop star and your favourite sports personality needed to borrow your lawnmower over the bank holiday weekend? Life is life, it's not supposed to be easy.
While I laughingly agree with dgerard's sneers of "it has to be run by the women" and "there's no hope for the straights," I wouldn't go as far as *actually believing and arguing that*. I know heterosexual people in poly relationships, and I'm myself in a long-term non-monogamous relationship (although I don't consider being poly part of my identity) with a heterosexual person. And because of this, I feel quite confident that heterosexual people can have healthy relationships of any type, *as long as they're careful* (of course, I'm not saying that many of them *are* careful). Also, I mean, heterosexuals constantly fuck up *monogamous* relationships. So who is to say that *monogamy* is a healthy relationship style for heterosexuals?
i mean, fundamentally there's nothing to be done for the straights
The rationalist subculture is already mostly polyandrous and still abusive af.
>I don't really get what you mean by this tbh. I think they're saying that if the meetup were advertised as a "rationalist singles" event, the actual experience they had there wouldn't have been so unexpected.
> I think they're saying that if the meetup were advertised as a "rationalist singles" event, the actual experience they had there wouldn't have been so unexpected. Ah, yes, I can imagine that. But then again, if it was adverised as "rationalist singles," would anybody attend in the first place? I mean, if you told me "hey, you could have the opportunity to spend a whole evening with *rationalist singles!*" I'd run the opposite way.

Thanks for writing this. My personal favorite/cringiest line was:

At one get together it appeared that some guests left to go have sex elsewhere in the house during the event.

Are rationalists all 17 year olds attending parties behind their parents’ backs? What is this?

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask for a while: I recently came across this old sneerclub comment, which says:

[…] The women who were present literally sat quietly on the floor while the men sat in chairs, and men petted and kissed these women as though they were cats to be played with by the guests. When I objected to this arrangement, I was shot down because these women had consented to this treatment and therefore it was in everyone’s best interests. […]

I think this comment may be the most horrifying allegation I’ve seen made against the rationalist community^([1]). Women sitting on the floor while men sit in chairs? And this is acceptable/normal?

So what I’ve been meaning to ask is: is that actually a thing? Did it happen more than once? Has anyone else also seen this? To any ex-rationalists here, can you confirm or disconfirm? (Also for rationalists reading this, free to PM me to confirm/disconfirm if you don’t want to post on sneerclub or are banned from doing so.)


^([1] Excluding allegations against specific people in the rationalist community, of course - some are literal rapists - but for allegations against specific people the community can at least claim they are an exception.)

...whew, lad.
It's a pretty normal thing to see at str8 fetish parties. On the other hand, there is a reason I avoid str8 fetish parties. It's just so damn *weird*. It's actually hard to explain why these spaces bother me. I know str8 couples in gender-normative power exchange relationship who seem awesome too me. I *don't* have a reflexive aversion to str8s or kink or even 24/7 power exchange. It's something else. There is something about the men, and how performative it appears, something about insecurity -- maybe I see a gaggle of wounded narcissistic men and their pet borderlines, about which, [this article](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/01/borderline.html). I think it's something like that. Maybe. I'm kinky. In general I'm *here* for kinksters. This is different.
Yeah, I am not here for someone taking parts of my diagnosis (I have PTSD with borderline tendencies) and making it into a bitchfest about insecure women. I agree with the rest of your post, but this is performative heteropatriarchy, not people being "crazy". You don't need a diagnosis for rape culture.
Fair enough. There is definitely a "type" though, who fall into these patterns. I'm trying to understand why this dynamic seems gross to me, whereas I know others in str8 dom/sub relations that, to me, seem fine.
Likely because, as a couple of kink writers I know have posited, kink in that situation is being used to reinforce patriarchal norms at the expense of one or both partners, whereas kink should be transgressive to that sort of thing.
Yeah, but that brings us back to people who seem perfectly happy \_not\_ to be transgressive that way. You might say, "Nope, still not okay, cuz str8!" Except, I'm thinking of a couple I know, where despite the fact it's a male-dom/fem-sub thing, neither partner seems to have -- well I understand why you dislike clinical language. I get it. Except there is this other person I know, a long time local kinkster -- they're non-binary, a bit of a fixture in our local queer kink community. They are -- well, I've always pick up some pretty bad vibes from them. Plus, it's not just me. They have a bit of a "broken staircase" reputation, but they never quite cross the line. They really don't. As much as I'd love to see them called out, they never quite cross the line. People warn about them, but no one can really justify doing anything that sticks. But they're *gross*. There is something there, and it has nothing to do with heteropatriarchy (or whatever). They're a queer, enby AFAB, who preys on scene newbs, mostly baby-transes. Short version: I know a couple who embodies het-normative kink behavior, and who both seem like solid folks. I know a queer-as-fuck person, who is an expert on kink/feminist/queer lingo, but who is an almost-abuser. Accusing the latter of being "heteropatriarchal" would be laughable. It's something else.
I get you, though I still disagree in part. I have a pretty deece radar for bad vibes and I think it's the way in which abusers expect people to be vulnerable in the kink scene that makes people feel squidgy? A lot of abusers also get off on ambiguity, so maybe this isn't the right way of approaching it. I'm not sure. It makes my skin crawl. Edit: I went with "heteropatriarchy" because you specifically mentioned narc men and borderline women, which are the classic "I don't like these people and how they play their gender roles displeases me" diagnoses. Your other examples don't fall in line with that, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss my original assessment because other abusers have other methods.
(All that said, my local queer kink scene is waaaayyyyy better than the str8 scene, by miles.)
I read that article and had the overwhelming sense he was trying to sell me on extremely loaded BS, but it's not clear precisely what. Probably the long strings of assertion building on assertion, not showing his working, and sounding like he's bitching about someone.
TLP was basically proto-Scott/proto-Peterson (different writing style, same fandom), he's left a long tail when he stopped blogging.
[Bay Area rationalists refer to themselves as "bonobo rationalists"](https://cptsdcarlosdevil.tumblr.com/post/105849630673/what-is-bonobo-rationalist-tumblr-can-you), so this wouldn't surprise me. (Also, fun fact: The mythology surrounding bonobos is wrong. They are not free-love matriarchal pacifists, but a lot more like chimps. A lot of 'free love' stuff is either exaggerated or rape and they are pretty violent.)
That makes it sound even more air a description of them
Bonobo rationalists. Aha, so they read [sex at dawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn).
Basically.
lmao what
I've never heard of anything like this, but the bay-area rationality community is a unique creature. The people I've met in other places (who are mostly adjacent and not R-ational, to be fair) seem very normal by comparison. >I think this comment may be the most horrifying allegation I've seen made against the rationalist community\[1\]. Women sitting on the floor while men sit in chairs? And this is acceptable/normal? This seems to me to be just another example of "scening in public", which is a common theme in bay-area horror stories. Not that what was described isn't awful, but I'm rather surprised you find this to be the "most horrifying allegation" not about an individual.

This sounds like the perfect place for a sexual predator to hang out. Based off your experience, it’s not at all surprising that there are so many accusations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and I am inclined to believe them. I like SSC and LW, but I would avoid these people like the plague. The whole thing just sounds really weird, but it fits with my prior experience with poly people.

[deleted]

> I've asked intelligent people what MIRI has done and nobody has ever answered. I am not anywhere near an expert in this topic, but from what I can tell from talking to PhD level computer scientists, absolutely nothing.
Hey, are you still a Nazi?
To be fair, and in spite of my usual response to trivial reports (lookin' at you "/u/napoleonbonerpart5" (ugh)) as far as I know that user is more "dumb liberal" than "actual nazi"
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
So much for the tolerant left, aye?
I was kidding. Every time I've posted on here you've taken the piss out of my comments, so being a "dumb liberal" instead of an "actual Nazi" means I must be moving up in the world. Plus I haven't been linked here in a while, so my galaxy brain must be getting somewhat under control.
[Get off the cross, we could use the wood](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUE-ic_Q0g4)
Rationalists, nerds, and gamers are the most persecuted groups on the internet. In fact, I might go write a 20,000 word post on LW about it right now. Until this has been rectified, I'm going to need that wood.
t'amuse
the sneer club is not a place you will get wood
Don't worry. I won't post here often or break the rules of this sub. But when I see bizarre Bay Area polyamory nonsense, I can't help but sneer myself. I may post on a Robin Hanson thread too. Those are my two sneer pet causes.
I don't ever remember being a Nazi. Why do you think I was?
I think MIRI has given us the valuable insight that a computability theory/game theory approach to AI is either impossible or really hard. Usually in math negative results really are valueless - maybe your approach is perfectly fine and you just weren't clever enough - but in this case I want to make an exception.
> Usually in math negative results really are valueless Um, what? Many historically important results in mathematics were negative results. E.g. the Pythagoreans and the incommensurability of the side of a square with the diagonal, Galois's theorem on the insolvability of the quintic, Lobachevsky and others on the impossibility of proving the parallel postulate, and so on.
Those are proofs of impossiblity to solve, not just failure.
Yes, that's what a negative result is.
Rereading this thread, I think the original point was that *failure to produce any result* is usually valueless, but in MIRI's case OP claims that it is decent evidence their approach should not be tried further, and hence gives a "valuable insight" (the insight that MIRI's approach to AI safety is bad). This was all very unclear because OP used the term "negative result" to mean "failure to prove anything".
> I think MIRI has given us the valuable insight that a computability theory/game theory approach to AI is either impossible or really hard. This is just not true. Check out e.g. Dr. Fei Fang from CMU for the latter and the entire discipline of computational learning theory for the former. The actual lesson is far simpler: Yudkowsky is a crank and always has been, and obviously so. His autobiography reads like an anime fan-fiction.
>The actual lesson is far simpler: Yudkowsky is a crank and always has been, and obviously so. His autobiography reads like an anime fan-fiction. It's not as though Yudkowsky in particular is the person engaging in the research, though. He seems to just be on the board. I don't think this explanation is sufficient at all. I'm not aware of anyone on their "research staff" (though they seem to have reasonable degrees), but there are some respectable figures that are either research associates or advisors (perhaps most surprisingly Stuart Russell, who anyone knowledgeable about AI would likely know about).
Yudkowksy founded it to pursue his agenda. It has been in operation for two decades. It has produced nothing. Unless I've missed something, Russel hasn't published anything with these people. Much of their work is self published and they've announced that making their work public somehow hinders their progress, so they're going to be doing it less in the future. Does this sound like the activities of a legitimate charitable organization researching for the public good?
I think you're taking my comment as defensive when it isn't. I'm generally in agreement that MIRI hasn't done anything of use. >Yudkowksy founded it to pursue his agenda. Yudkowsky's agenda is, I suspect, that of a genuine believer. I'm not sure that this explains the problems. >Russell hasn't published anything with these people. True (he's only an advisor), though MIRI has apparently collaborated with AI researchers from Google and other firms with much higher respectability than MIRI.
One of the biggest ML breakthroughs of the last 5 years is based on game theory, so.
[deleted]
Honestly, I don't even post here normally. I am subscribed here and I didn't realize it was sneer club until after I posted on this thread. I don't have a problem with EY for the most part. He just annoys me on Twitter because he acts like he is on the verge of saving humanity. I feel like he massively over sells his accomplishments, and the whole tie in with EA I think is pretty dumb. EA and MIRI should not be spoken in the same sentence if we are going by the definition (as I understand it) of EA.
[deleted]
I am an idiot for not getting that joke. But you are right, it is pretty bad now in a lot of fields, so maybe I should cut him a little slack.
I know next to nothing about bay area issues, but I've seen these sorts of problems crop up in other communities. The concepts of narcissism, histrionics and the cluster of syndromes that make up BPD can be quite helpful in discouraging people from being like that, but I've never found framing it as a personality disorder actually helped. Maybe your experience is different, but from mine it seems to act like an intellectual short circuit that prevents people from getting deeper into the problems.
[deleted]
If you can find deeper answers from within psychoanalysis, then I'm glad. Personally I worry however that the separation in language between psychoanalysis and modern society is too great and causes too much confusion and misunderstanding, but I could be wrong. The connection between psychoanalytic thinking and the tangable is often hard to immediately see. People understand the term narcissism, but they don't realise it's relationship to the altruism paradox. When people (including professionals who should know better) are burnt out, the logic of psychoanalysis seems to feed their disillusioned perspective rather than help them overcome it. I've seen those sorts of relationships be very healthy all involved and I've seen them be profoundly dangerous. So I'd be hesitant to tar them all with the same brush. I think the appeal lies deeper than the thrill of consensual dissociation. There's the opportunity to reinterpret emotional states, the appeal of boundaries and the chance to develop a locus of control to name a few. There's actually a surprising amount of communality between DS relationships and dialectical behaviour therapy.
[deleted]
I agree absolutely. We all need to explore outside and our immediate circumstances and duties. And isolation and forced exclusion/confinement are profoundly toxic and should not be an integral part of a relationship.

A reaction to these issues; https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wmEcNP3KFEGPZaFJk/the-craft-and-the-community-a-post-mortem-and-resurrection

As the person who wrote this over a year ago, I'm surprised how many things I speculated might be true later turned out to be correct. I was *assured* that financial relationships with power dynamics related to the cost of living didn't exist, in retrospect, I'm unsure whether it was due to dishonesty or obliviousness.
yes but are you still an ancap and desperate not to be labeled "SJW"
Mistaken, but understandable since I did literally say I was an ancap. I felt it was a safe bet to say since my views had been stable for several years, but since then I've become more sympathetic to the left after seeing the things Libertarians said would never happen actually happen.
What were the things which happened which they thought would not? I'm interested.
People being trapped in relationships due to housing costs. This was an aggravating factor in the Brent Dill fiasco.
[as covered on this subreddit at the time](https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7dew24/this_years_post_about_the_failure_of_the/)

This reminds me of that thread where two REACH staff people tried to defend their cult from the reality of their cultishness, but in the end only really managed to reveal even more about how fucked-up their thinking is.

(Polyamorious mostly appeared to be code for polygynous because the predominant power relationship appeared to be a tech employed male and multiple much younger economically dependent women.)

How does that work with the gender ratio among rationalists ?

Never noticed the incels?
> How does that work with the gender ratio among rationalists ? The gender ratio was more equal than I expected. The number of "eminently datable" (high status, fluent, hygienic, wealthy) men appeared to be smaller than the "eminently datable" (attractive, young, willing) women. Beyond that you would have to ask a social scientist, I only can give my impression. A few men dominated most conversations and paid the expenses.
Did you observe anything strange or otherwise interesting about transgender people in the Bay Area rationalist community ? I know a non-binary person, Ozy Frantz Brennan, is one of the *de facto* leaders of that particular branch of LessWrong rationalism.
Probably the same way it works in any bro-dominated structure? A couple of winner-take-all mba bros at the top, a lot of women and some men in middle management, and then a bunch of wanna-be bros at the bottom convinced that someday they will be top bro, although most will either only make it to middle management or stay where they are (See also: tech companies, politics, Western Civilization)
Um, your comment sounds like classic manosphere rhetoric.
Well, ideally with less resentment, entitlement and excusing of reprehensible behavior. But I think the observation that men create structures that benefit themselves is not unique to the manosphere. EDIT: i.e., I think we should be able to make the observation about the resulting pattern while also attributing the root cause to patriarchy, rather than to, like ev psych or something.

Can you explain what you mean by lack of boundaries ?

Not OP but some of the things I experienced in "rationalist" communities: * despite constantly talking about consent, people are really touchy feely and do not ask consent to either touch you or to touch each other in an intimate way in front of you * on a personal intimacy level I'd get men I'd just met ask me super personal questions and tell me things like "oh my wife doesn't have enough sex with me" or "I like to choke women are you into that?" Honestly Susan Fowler's account of her time at Uber describes this behavior really well [https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber](https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber) >On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of messages over company chat. He was in an open relationship, he said, and his girlfriend was having an easy time finding new partners but he wasn't. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said, but he couldn't help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with. And also shows how even if you don't go to these meetups, this culture affects you if you live in the Bay ​
> Can you explain what you mean by lack of boundaries ? Relative strangers touching me, touching each other in affectionate ways in front of me, asking intimate questions about my marriage, telling me intimate things about their relationships, and asking me out when I had not shown interest and done my best to signal I was unavailable. It was not the worst thing ever but I was hoping to geek out on math or philosophy so it was a shock.
That sucks. Did you find the REACH panel helpful about this kind of thing ?
> Did you find the REACH panel helpful about this kind of thing ? I don't feel anyone did anything wrong except not clearly identify the events as hookup/kink/dating events. If I remember the names correctly the things I described were largely witnessed (or run by) persons on the that panel already. Rationalist events were just not for me.

honestly I’m increasingly convinced that the only way to fix the silicon valley problem is with a wave of hot and cleansing fire

You are in luck! In the future, there will be so many copies of these people tortured by me, the acausal robot god, because they devoted themselves to sexual exploration rather than celibately bringing about me, the acausal robot god.
it's incredibly reassuring to me that you exist because for as long as I can remember I've prayed that hell was real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCqxq6xqoXI
I'm gonna be the woke travis bickle
I was born and raised there, and then went to college there, and had the misfortune of working there. Can corroborate.

Oh god I recognize so much of this you’ve just described in a group I’m sort of loosely participating in, based in Amsterdam. But I’m facing a different set of issues because these people, though educated and with their own notable achievements, are clearly oblivious to the fact that free love does not mean free of consequences. They’re like children who’ve just disregarded basic ethics, and expect everything to run smoothly regardless of what their members do among each other.

Let’s just say, many just don’t seem to understand the value of not shitting where they eat.

You might have a better time with goal-focused meetups, like EA stuff. “Rationalists” is pretty explicitly a social group rather than a project; they share common interests but those interests don’t lend themselves to a casual/volunteering approach, so they are not seriously pursued at meetups.

I have no idea what I’m talking about, but inviting people to stay over could just be a reaction to bay area rents. Despite the sprinkling of rich people most rationalists don’t have a lot of money if only because of all the young people and academics.

> You might have a better time with goal-focused meetups, like EA stuff. you'll be shocked when you find out it's literally the same people ^(let alone that the point of "EA" is funnelling money to Yud)
It's more like EA has been hijacked into that rather than that being the point, but, yes.
The "Effective Altruism" subculture has literally always been a heavily MIRI-linked thing.
>let alone that the point of "EA" is funnelling money to Yud Oh, come on. MIRI gets a fraction of EA money, and Yud gets something like $125,000 from MIRI as a salary (I actually checked their filings a while ago out of curiosity). Yud gets virtually none of the money going into EA.
> I have no idea what I'm talking about, but inviting people to stay over could just be a reaction to bay area rents. Despite the sprinkling of rich people most rationalists don't have a lot of money if only because of all the young people and academics. Bullshit. Rationalists are a bunch of wealthy fucks with even wealthier friends.

[deleted]

i mean some of us are just degenerates and own it,

What’s your sex and orientation? Is the hitting on worse for women?