@hidden my view is that for a lot of autistic people pair bonding is something which doesn't actually work completely and thus we're liable to have all our bonds be partial and situational, at least, this is how it has gone for me
@hidden Oxygen atoms typically pair-bond, but carbohydrates are large molecules with many single bonds. Therefore, monogamy in 2023 is a *radical* premise, while polycules are often high in carbohydrates
@hidden yeah it's hardly a universal experience even among autists, my question is why so many "poly" relationships involve dysfunctional pairbonds between autists and borderlines
@allison Hmm that's interesting but I know some autists that 100% have treated me that way, although that could also easily be explained away by classic meme attachment theory
@ai This kind of disturbs me honestly. I mean I'm not opposed to alternative relationship styles if it's right but I think this trend betrays some deeper lack of ability to dedicate to someone and work through things together
if you could keep a harem you would, but the logistics are a nightmare, and most the time it's people "willing" because they're otherwise unattractive.
@ai@cawfee.club@hidden@cawfee.club traditional monogamy may seem like a vestige of a bygone eraoh no, the intro alone raises red flagsIt’s a constant negotiation that, while tedious, ensures no one ends up “cucked” (unless that’s what you’re into!). Humans excel at self deception.I tend to think of modern-day monogamy as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.Let's stop it right here.
@ai Alright I said that after reaeidng like 1 paragraph now I'm atcually reading the article and WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK
@hidden@cinerion The article made me appreciate how little trust is required to survive in the modern world. All you need is to trust that, tomorrow, the system and your cushy job will still exist. Is it surprising that people forget how to figure out when to trust each other?
I completely agree with the characterization of relationships as Prisoner's Dilemmas. It's just the math abstraction of "investing in a joint venture with someone who can stab you in the back." The issue lies in needing game theory to help you analyze it, when 100,000 years of human evolution have been trying to teach you how to play
All tribal markers are stigmatized and erased, even while diversity is nominally celebrated. If I look at someone and see a blank slate, a perfect imitation, how can I trust them?
@cinerion@hidden@ai I should see if brave on android has anything like that, so far I've just been taking the L and/or avoiding modern day webshit entirely
@hidden@cawfee.club@ai@cawfee.club The key to building trust is to commit crimes together until hitting the point of no return so you have to protect each other.
@ai@cinerion Hmm I'm not sure, I don't feel like people are perfect, but I feel like trust requires a leap and then a response. You put your trust in someone and they work with you or meet you at your point, and then the bond is built. It seems like people both have no reason to give that faith, and no situations that require it. Perhaps we are saying a similar thing but in a different way.
@hidden@cinerion I think we are saying the same thing. I didn't mean "perfect" as in possessing all good qualities, rather "perfect" as in not needing anything, totally completed. I find that "NPCs" tend to be complete in perfectly fitting in. Maybe my personal criterion for "not being an NPC" requires that the person have some kind of angst, some discomfort, something which separates them from society's expectations in some way.
Anyways, I would say that it is only "imperfect" people who need to leap or seek a leaper in the first place.
Testing trust with a small leap and then escalating it is definitely built into our brains. It's why doubling scams are so effective, and why Nigerian princes do often send you a small initial payment.
What you said also reminds me of the main advice I give to people who want to get closer to others. Make yourself available (in time and effort) in small ways - only then can you be someone they consider trusting with the big stuff.
On a related note, I personally feel like it is much easier for people to fall in love if they are also collaborating on something else. Not just because they have something in common, but also because the decision to love becomes a 'doubling down' rather than a random bet on something totally disconnected from anything else. (This is one of many reasons I'm skeptical of apps.)
@hidden@cinerion Maybe it's also a consequence of a workaholic culture, where your work is a huge part of your identity. I've mentioned before how I hear about all these hyper-successful academics who are hyper-unsuccessful on the dating apps. They min-max all their skill points into one stat and then their personal life judges them based on everything but that stat. (Dating within the workplace is increasingly stigmatized, of course, and the restrictions are especially severe in academia because many working arrangements are pedagogical to some extent and therefore are understood as a power differential.)
Maybe I'm just saying an uncontroversial sentiment in a workaholic's dialect: it's easier to fall in love with someone if your hopes and dreams are aligned. I'm also thinking of people who go to the same church, even though church isn't really "work" per se.
@ai@hidden@cinerion I think this can actually be the attraction of the city for a lot of folks, it's by default low trust so you can escape adversarial situations forced upon you by your birthright and start staking out a found family bit by bit with those you do manage to form a deep connection with.
@cinerion@hidden Now I'm sure we're saying the same thing from opposite angels. In a city, you can survive indefinitely with no accountability to anyone except the system and your job (and even then, people evade taxes and slack at work). I was thinking that this way of life means that you don't have to trust others. You're pointing out that it also means that others have no reason to trust you (from just meeting you and not having heard anything bad about you).
The way you describe a small town makes it almost sound like an extended family. I'm not close with my own family, for various reasons, and the few times I've seen someone else's extended family of hundreds of people, all gathered for a wedding or a holiday, for example, I've been mindblown at how different life can be.
@ai@cawfee.club@hidden@cawfee.club I think that, while scaling up population enables some otherwise-impossible feats, like great water and sewage systems, electricity and connectivity, it also decreases the accountability among people, which breeds distrust. In a small-town, if you fuck up badly, everyone will know, and thus, if you come across a local you don't know, you have some sort of assurance they are at least somewhat reliable, as they have managed to live there and not be a known person to keep away from.
This doesn't apply to outsiders, of course. How can i know you're not here for some shady business if no one knows you in the area?
@cinerion@hidden Brb, buying a house in the countryside as we speak.
Seriously, though, you're telling me that small-town people don't have to constantly judge whether the person they're talking to is a real person or a paperclip maximizer? I am being completely serious when I say that my prior on a stranger I meet would be 50-50 for that question
@ai@cawfee.club@hidden@cawfee.club i can't trust this person until i find what's dirty about themI don't think this is the thought process, or even subconscious reaction, of a healthy person, i.e. not a city dweller. From my experience people are way more trusting in towns and rural areas without needing to pry much into someone else's life.
@allison@hidamari.apartments@ai@cawfee.club@hidden@cawfee.club I'd say that if those people don't have a talent or training that very highly demanded, they are in for a tough life. It's best they move to another town if they just wanna start anew. I have seen many cases of people going to the city and they are not prepared for how expensive everything is compared to towns.
@cinerion@hidden@ai oh definitely, but at the same time if you fall into certain conditions which you inherited thru no fault of your own most small towns are completely untenable (and like I said upthread, I only expect this situation to get worse until there is actually a real awareness of it and what is to be done)
@ai@cinerion I've spent the last 14 minutes thinking about this and all I can say is idk! I'm too sleepy to model this! To me love seems to defy all attempts to understand why or how, it's found in the unlikeliest of places and in the plainest of places. I think ambient closeness makes it more possible though, like going to church together or working on something together. Every time you 'see' someone is a chance to fall just a bit more in love, until one day you've found yourself at that point. That's how it feels to me.
@hidden@cinerion I can certainly agree that love is cumulative and tends to sneak up on you. Maybe part of why it defies all attempts to understand it is that it's impossible to define, ahead of time, what will make you fall in love if you see it. In my effortpost to lilli, I asked about experiences which can't be understood before you live them - I guess love would be the prototypical example.
Apologies if I'm incoherent, I'm sleepy too, and I spent the last 14 minutes thinking about Mercurial's math thing, never good for sanity!
@mia@hidden or where I live there is a good number of fundamentalist Mormons and they make their women believe that everyone on the outside is a bunch of rapist and murders. So their women stay because are afraid of the outside world.
@hidden@cawfee.club@ai@cawfee.club I'm confident 🖤魂魄🖤 can create lethal infohazard given enough time. I just mourn for the poor souls that get in contact with it :HazeSmug:
@hidden@cawfee.club@ai@cawfee.club We ought to avoid understanding too much for no particular reason. He who pursues knowledge gains something everyday. Shackles included.
@ai@cawfee.club@hidden@cawfee.club I honestly like the idea of infohazards/cognitohazards, for fiction stuff. I think it's a cool plot device, when not used by techbros.
@ai@hidden@cinerion Cognitohazards exist in that you're not ready to handle some thoughts if you cannot defeat them when you are exposed to them. Some thoughts are pernicious, difficult to wholly disprove, and will gnaw you down to the bone. Cringe is usually not a cognitohazard, cognitohazards typically sound plausible and good. Unhappy in your marriage? Add one or two people to the mix, that might help. Polyamory is a cognitohazard, casual sex is a cognitohazard, harm-based systems of morals are cognitohazards, the tabula rasa is a cognitohazard. If you are prepared to evaluate them, you can think about them critically, but the most dangerous thing you can do is evaluate them neutrally and put them aside to revisit later, when perhaps you are in a more vulnerable state and might take them up on their offer of an alternative to a problem you will then be grappling with.
@ai@cinerion@hidden Perhaps the most pervasive cognitohazard that I can identify though is the belief that the paper pusher can file away and categorize absolutely every mystery of the universe, to dissect it and break it down into tractable component parts that he already understands. This is the philosophical undercurrent of much of westoid human behavior, which pretends that the lattice through which the world is viewed is both infinitely vast, and its slats infinitely narrow, that nothing is obscured by the boundaries of its many subset boxes. Instead it is pretended that those things which are hidden by the lattice itself simply do not exist, or that a more refined lattice need only to be conceived of and then the picture will become clearer. This is inhuman tyranny.