Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ee/unknown_knowns_why_did_you_choose_to_be_monogamous/

by wglb • 16 years ago

15 32 16 years ago

Jun82• 16 years ago

I think philosophically, it would be wrong to refer to subconscious drives, etc. as "knowledge", much as you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in it). That's why there's no category of "unknown knowns".

Zak• 16 years ago

The article is not referring to subconscious drives as knowledge. It refers to cultural assumptions that few people question as "unknown knowns". Many of these assumptions are the kind of things that PG refers to in "what you can't say".

cperciva• 16 years ago

you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in it)

Let's just say that N philosophers have at least N+1 definitions of what "knowing" means, not all of which are consistent with your position, and leave it at that.

Jun82• 16 years ago

Hmm, I know epistemology can be hard to fathom (and frankly is not my thing, my thing being philosophy of language), but I thought my statement was one of the basic definitions. I would be interested if you can point me to work that considers a statement like "I know that Chicago is the capital of Illinois" (it's Springfield) tenable. I was taught that this was an incorrect usage of know.

lg• 16 years ago

Although he's probably right that Rumsfeld should've mentioned it, because there's something like unknown knowns for groups with a coordination problem (like the 17-branched US intelligence community), where some people know something but that knowledge doesn't propagate to the rest of the group.

snitko3• 16 years ago

Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with polyamory. Whatever blows your skirt up. Biologically speaking, men wants to inseminate as much women as he can. I also accept the author's point about freedom and different kind of experience that monogamy cannot give. But then the author would also have to agree, that monogamy may have the depth that any non-monogamous relationshop lack, so it might be a trade off. Then medically speaking, monogamy is safer. Psychologically, there are also trade offs: it's usually difficult enough to get along with one person - I believe issues multiply when you have many. For example, I don't see anything particularly scary about having multiple wives (western culture thinks it's some sort of barbaric behavior), but if you look at it closely, you would understand why it only works in traditional societies like muslim: because they have mechanisms for holding it all together. Men there have obviously more authority and thus they hold the power of getting it all together. In the western world the task gets a lot more complicated because people are more independent and have more rights legally. One thing for sure, divorce cases with this model would be a legal hell.

Please note I have not made up my mind about the particular lifestyle so I'm totally neutral here. I'm not into any relationship right now, but when I think of it, I sometimes think about how would it be a monogamous ones and sometimes I feel more like I'd want to stick with some sort of polyamory.

mkramlich2• 16 years ago

Guess: when you're looking at one good-looking woman you're thinking monogamy. when you're looking at two good-looking women you're thinking polyamory. ;)

steveklabnik6• 16 years ago

> But then the author would also have to agree, that monogamy may have the depth that any non-monogamous relationshop lack

This is simply not true. The number of partners has absolutely nothing to do with the depth of any given relationship, poly or mono.

> I believe issues multiply when you have many.

It's actually the opposite. You don't have to get upset because someone is lacking in some area, because you have someone else that covers it. It actually takes a lot of pressure off of a given relationship.

snitko3• 16 years ago

1. I disagree. The number of partners has to do a lot with the depth of any given relationship. The reasonable analogy is learning a skill. The more time you spend on it, the better you become. The more time you dedicate to other disciplines, the more broad interdisciplinary knowledge you gain. It's a tradeoff. And I don't see why this cannot be applied to people.

2. As far as I can tell from everyone else's experience (haha) there are always issues. Issues is not something to be ignored, but rather something to be discussed, otherwise they grow into something you can't actually solve. The more partners you have, the less time you have to discuss those issues.

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

I don't see how this is relevant to this crowd.

For a choice between between monogamy and polygamy to be relevant, the subject must have the capability to secure multiple partners. How many subjects reading hackernews could possibly have this ability?

edit: wow, I must have hit a nerve. This was purely tongue-in-cheek.

dennisgorelik2• 16 years ago

Nice try [to tease]. You forgot about another side of the story: you may have only one partner and still be involved into polygamous relationship (because of your partner).

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

Who said we can even secure the one? Or that we can secure the ones kinky enough to dig polyamory?

You got me though :)

rphlx• 16 years ago

There are plenty of rich people on HN. You can predict the rest of my argument.

mkramlich2• 16 years ago

I could write a script to do it.

steveklabnik6• 16 years ago

I am currently in a polyamourous relationship, actually.

altano2• 16 years ago

Are you straight? If so, has said relationship been successful for a while? I think Gene Roddenbury is the only non-fictional male I've heard of who has been in a successful polyamorous relationship with women.

When you're gay, things are much simpler in such relationships, so that seems to be annectodally more common. Probably selection bias, though.

dennisgorelik2• 16 years ago

Monogamy is safer (on many levels) and not as complex as poly-relationships.

altano2• 16 years ago

Yes, non-monogamy is similar in this regard to most other interesting and desirable things: it's neither easy nor simple.

mitjak• 16 years ago

Easy one. Monogamy: the cooking and housework are taken care of! Haha.

Kidding. I'm the cooking obsessed clean freak in the relationship.

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

I'm not sure the word 'polyfidelity' works. Maybe it does in a dictionary sense, but as I understand it 'fidelity' or 'fealty' carries a heavy connotation of loyalty to only one individual, rather than simply loyalty.

kwamenum86• 16 years ago

You can be loyal to an individual or a group though. With polyfidelity it is the latter. It is a closed network of intimacy.

baddox• 16 years ago

I've always understood to simply mean "truthful" or "trustworthy."

JoachimSchipper2• 16 years ago

Actually, the feudal concept of fealty did not only bind a vassal to a lord, but - to a lesser degree - also to that lord's lord and so on.

Why do you care? It's a fairly clear word for a new-ish idea, IMHO.

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

I don't care. It just seemed like an odd choice in words.

ddewey• 16 years ago

"This, then, is your exercise: spend five minutes thinking about why your choice of monogamy is preferable to all of the other inhabitants of relationship-style-space, for you."

With most "decisions" about my lifestyle, I keep the societal default until unhappiness with it prompts me to change, rather than considering all options from a neutral state. I wonder what the pros and cons of the default-first and neutral-first strategies are? Default first automatically directs your attention to "pain points" in your life, but may make you blind to larger, more existential choices. Default-first also takes into account the "wisdom" of the masses, at least some of which is probably right. Neutral-first keeps you from being locked into any one lifestyle by fear or other attachments.

Examples of things that I've consciously changed from the default settings: I'm vegetarian (animal-rights motivation), I cut my own hair (I like the simplicity and the control).

For reference on the neutral-first strategy (with a pleasingly mathematical twist): http://www.astatespacetraveler.com/a-mathematically-proven-w...

Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous?

Related Stories