I'm currently reading "The Pragmatist's Guide to Sexuality", in which the authors outline a central framework:
"Arousal pathways should be thought of as existing in one of three states: positive, neutral, and negative. Negative arousal is experienced as a 'gross' sensation."
Broadly, they are conceptualizing the disgust reaction that a person might have to various sexual acts (say incest, or necrophilia) as something like "inverse arousal." The same basic thing, but with the sign flipped.
I, personally, apparently have a much lower sex drive than most men: I seem to be much less compelled by arousal, or typically have a weaker form of arousal, or something.
If we're gonna label me, it's not far off to say that I'm asexual. I'm comparatively uninterested in sex.
I also seem to have a low disgust response. I've never really "got" the revulsion that people in media express at the thought of their parents having sex, for instance. *
The way people would shiver and not want to think about it, has always been vaguely amusing to me.
Same with incest: I don't feel much of a native revulsion to the thought of cousins having sex with each other.
I now wondering, for the first time, if my low disgust response and my low sex drive are the same thing, or flip sides of the same coin.
Like, in my case, the whole signaling pathway is "dimmer", or "weaker" than it is for most people.
(Or maybe its that other pathways are "brighter" or "stronger"? Or something even more complicated.)
I'm curious: does anyone else have this experience?
Do you have both the low sexuality and the low disgust response?
Does anyone have just one or the other?
1 - Low sexuality | Low disgust
2 - Low sexuality | High disgust
3 - High sexuality | Low disgust
4 - High Sexuality | High disgust
(Pick whichever one fits best)
* - I say "people in media", instead of "most people" , because I'm suspicious that that media representation is actually a false consensus about what's typical.
Case in point, I bet that there are many men who natively about as interested in sex as I am, but behave in the "typical" male sex-obsessed pattern, because of socialization: it's a way to cohere with their peer group.
And in most cases they wouldn't even notice, that the desire isn't native, they typical mind about their experience.
If you don't actively dislike it, there's no flag that "something is wrong". And maybe you can just go with the flow your whole life, never noticing.
I was in my 20s, when I noticed that flowers don't actually smell good to me. (They smell kind of like musky dust?)
But when people had shown me flowers, I had sniffed them heartily, because that was the thing that you do with flowers.
@ben_r_hoffman, @jessi_cata, I took some time / emotional space to reflect on if I was doing something in this and related tweets that I would or should consider objectionable.
1) I did not do anything objectionable according to my ethics and discourse norms,
2) that there were better and more skillful things that I could have done instead, but
3) I endorse not having spent more time finding those better things.
My understanding of your critique is something like
"You, Eli, were optimizing for social harmony, and so were willing to paper over places where you disagree with Glen, and were therefore misinforming him and others."
He seemed to be emphasizing the (I claim!) tenuous historical and social connection between the rationalists and Neoreaction.
(My understanding of the connection: Lots of Neoreactionaries read LessWrong back in the day (because it was great!), but very few LessWrongers were, or are, Neoreactionaries.
Is there any particular reason why I should assign more credibility to Moral Mazes / Robert Jackall than I would to the work of any other sociologist?
(My prior on sociologists is that they sometimes produce useful frameworks, but generally rely on subjective hard-to-verify and especially theory-laden methodology, and are very often straightforwardly ideologically motivated.)
I imagine that someone else could write a different book, based on the same kind of anthropological research, that highlights different features of the corporate world, to tell the opposite story.
This guy drives around America in an RV, doing interviews with Americans of all stripes.
His videos are really worth checking out. They're among the best window I know into the lives of and minds of people that I never meet.
They're edited to be funny. But they're also honest.
As near as I can tell, he's just actually interested in the cultural anthropology of it. Not pushing a particular agenda or narrative. He just shows up and lets people talk.
Which is so rare that I can't think of another example?
What would have happened if a single US state had said "screw the FDA" and ordered [state population] doses of the Monderna vaccine for delivery in March?
Obviously this would be illegal, but what happens next?
Does the FDA sue Moderna?
If so, how would it have gone down? I'm sure a large number of think pieces would be written about how this was "reckless" and "irresponsible".
But also, the state government could point out how every person in that state, who wanted a vaccine, has gotten a vaccine.