To most feminists, the practice of sati, where a wife is burned alive on her husband’s funeral pyre, is iconic of patriarchy’s disrespect of women. Even though the practice was always rare (<0.1%), and mostly happened in higher social castes, the fact that a society would even consider it was called a terrible indictment.
Why don't the wives want cryonics for themselves? Why is it always the husband?
Anyway, that aside, the reason the wives are angry about it isn't just the financial selfishness that might be involved or moralistic issues but that if the husband believes in cryonics and loves his wife, he would prevail on her to get with the program. At more than a single level, the wife resents his indifference to her welfare.
I'm a woman. I think cryonics is a reasonable choice. I don't understand the people who feel a deep, reflexive repugnance to it, and I join the chorus who hopes that those who do can find a way to explain what's driving their feelings on the subject.
I think there's enough overlap between men's and women's mentalities that evo psych explanations don't buy much of anything.
Robin, I think your in the wrong relationship. You should have chosen somebody who also supported cryonics. I have a lot of friends who are women who also support cryonics. They aren't impossible to come by you know.
That's a very good question, and as with all statistics... you need to know the way they were taken, in order to know what their real meanings might actually be.
The 3 to 1 ratio means that 25% of MALES are the ones with OBJECTIONS to cryonics. That is not a small group of people, and it entirely disproves your rampantly sexist hypothesis.
Any time you give blanket statements like that about a particular gender, and you're not talking about gender-related anatomy, you are merely stereotyping, generalising, being sexist.
The differences between males and females when it comes to cryonics is merely the same societal differences which puts few women into most high-tech fields. Find me a community of males and females that grew up the same without enduring social biases, and I'll show you a group of people with equal opinions on cryonics versus natural death.
'The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source, the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration'?
That's relativity theory in its entirely. 'simple' no? Only in retrospect and only to sometime with some natural talent in grasping physics. Same with the game stuff. Ideas may sound pretty basic in retrospect, but the thoughts would never have occurred to most people without a lot of experience. To someone with strong social skills it may seem 'obvious'. But most people don't have strong social skills. Certainly it was all news to me.
Case in point, you have the basics of 'game' wrong, and obviously don't understand it. The basic idea is captured by the three male archetypes Robin Hanson mentioned:
Dom-Dad-Cad
and 'game' is about mimicking the behaviours of these three personality archetypes.
One might expect people to act so as to maximise replicator success - since differential replication explains most goal-directed behaviour in biology. Cryonic suspension is typically bad for people's genes - which normally do better if resources are given to relatives. However, their memes could (sometimes) benefit.
Genes usually build a memetic immune system - to allow symbiotic memes, while rejecting pathogenic ones. So: one theory is that cryonauts have poor quality memetic immune systems - or high exposure to pathogenic memes - with the result that memes hijack their bodies - against the best interests of their organic genes.
Cryonics is narcissistic.The opposite of sacrifice.That in and of itself is repulsive.It is proof that you are not giving 100 % and that she can never get 100 % from you.It is also proof that even if she could give 110% you would still want more.You want it all.Her capacity to "give" relative to your capacity to "want" becomes farcical.
I think of rationalism as a bringing in to neo-cortical consciousness a lot of the mammalian brain emotional programs which we all share with each other, dogs, rabbits (to a lesser extent) and chimps (to a greater extent).
In this context, the identification of rationality with1) Life Extension2) Gameare strikingly strange. It seems to me clear enough that two of our strongest mammalian-emotional drives are to stay alive and to get laid. And yet it seems in the rationalist community that without irony the "correctness" of the conclusions reached from what are clearly just instinctive inborn emotions is not only unquestioned, but in an ironical twist, the neo-cortex is put blindly in the service of these mammalian emotions.
Has it occurred to anyone that game may work on some significant minority of women, but that it has little to say about women in general?
Nightclubs, large concerts, raves, riots, and mass political rallies all "work" in that they attract lots of people and can repeatably be used to create certain behaviors in those people. Every one of those venues is repulsive to me, and indeed, there are probably very few people indeed who are attracted to all of them. Does it make sense to make deep statements about the motivations of all human beings by reference to what must be happening in each of these venues?
"I have absolutely zero tolerance for those whose objections to cryonics has nothing to do with money."
What does tolerance have to do with it. In a rational world, you learn what you can about the feelings, objections, thoughts someone has about something, even if it is one of your own golden calves, and you proceed rationally from there.
The whole Rationalist == Cryonics thing has me recognizing the extent to which rationalism can be just another tribe/religion.
when you pay for a club membership, you're getting exactly what's advertised. you know what you're buying (social activity) and that you'll get it once you pay. you do your utility calculation and decide if you want it. but if cryonics doesn't work (or doesn't work in time for you), buying it would be like paying for club membership and then never getting in the door.
(I'll refer to the objecting spouse here as the wife)
1) The wife, like many people (women more??) is quite afraid of death and finds it extremely unpleasent to confront the doubts she feels about the religious afterlife fairy tale she claims to believe. Her husbands involvement with cryonics not only forces those unpleasent thoughts into the forefront but also threatens/intimidates her simple unanalyzed religious beliefs with it's aura of rationality and implicit dismissal of those beliefs as too foolish even to consider. Also further insecurity is added if they feel poorly equipped to understand technical considerations.
The norm of not challenging people over their religious beliefs means that cryonics, and not religious beliefs, means that cryonics is unique in forcing the wife to confront the shaky, unconvincing nature of her beliefs.
It's much like trying to argue about god's existence as an atheist with your usual theist. Theoretically you might expect them to appreciate the change to save a non-believer or at least to better analyze their own conclusions about the deity. In fact, however, the reaction is to resent or even hate the atheist as it raises doubts in their mind and they feel insecure/inferior when they are unable to give satisfactory responses and are reduced to saying what they realize sounds like a childish fantasy (which they credit to a personal failing and assume a more virtuous smarter person who had thought this all through would give a good defense).
Indeed the anti-cryonics reaction seems to mirror the anti-atheist sentiments that many religious people feel since we tend to blame the individuals who make us feel bad even if it's our own failing.
2) The wife parses her husband's subscription to cryonics without her as a form of emotional abandonment or desire to be free of her. However, the idea of spending tens of thousands of dollars on something she finds unappealing or religiously objectionable so she doesn't parse her husbands hobby as this kind of hurtful signalling isn't a real live option for her.
3) People like to think that death serves an important purpose and that their loved ones (parents etc..) didn't die only because they weren't lucky enough to be born after death has been abolished or didn't sign up for cryo. Relatedly they may feel guilty for not signing up their parents if they admit the force of the reasons for joining.
Why don't the wives want cryonics for themselves? Why is it always the husband?
Anyway, that aside, the reason the wives are angry about it isn't just the financial selfishness that might be involved or moralistic issues but that if the husband believes in cryonics and loves his wife, he would prevail on her to get with the program. At more than a single level, the wife resents his indifference to her welfare.
I'm a woman. I think cryonics is a reasonable choice. I don't understand the people who feel a deep, reflexive repugnance to it, and I join the chorus who hopes that those who do can find a way to explain what's driving their feelings on the subject.
I think there's enough overlap between men's and women's mentalities that evo psych explanations don't buy much of anything.
Robin, I think your in the wrong relationship. You should have chosen somebody who also supported cryonics. I have a lot of friends who are women who also support cryonics. They aren't impossible to come by you know.
That's a very good question, and as with all statistics... you need to know the way they were taken, in order to know what their real meanings might actually be.
@Quentin:
The 3 to 1 ratio means that 25% of MALES are the ones with OBJECTIONS to cryonics. That is not a small group of people, and it entirely disproves your rampantly sexist hypothesis.
Any time you give blanket statements like that about a particular gender, and you're not talking about gender-related anatomy, you are merely stereotyping, generalising, being sexist.
The differences between males and females when it comes to cryonics is merely the same societal differences which puts few women into most high-tech fields. Find me a community of males and females that grew up the same without enduring social biases, and I'll show you a group of people with equal opinions on cryonics versus natural death.
Cryonic suspension is typically bad for people’s genesSo what? I am no more my genes than I would be a clone.
Not even wrong.
Hey curious, did you know:
'The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source, the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration'?
That's relativity theory in its entirely. 'simple' no? Only in retrospect and only to sometime with some natural talent in grasping physics. Same with the game stuff. Ideas may sound pretty basic in retrospect, but the thoughts would never have occurred to most people without a lot of experience. To someone with strong social skills it may seem 'obvious'. But most people don't have strong social skills. Certainly it was all news to me.
Case in point, you have the basics of 'game' wrong, and obviously don't understand it. The basic idea is captured by the three male archetypes Robin Hanson mentioned:
Dom-Dad-Cad
and 'game' is about mimicking the behaviours of these three personality archetypes.
One might expect people to act so as to maximise replicator success - since differential replication explains most goal-directed behaviour in biology. Cryonic suspension is typically bad for people's genes - which normally do better if resources are given to relatives. However, their memes could (sometimes) benefit.
Genes usually build a memetic immune system - to allow symbiotic memes, while rejecting pathogenic ones. So: one theory is that cryonauts have poor quality memetic immune systems - or high exposure to pathogenic memes - with the result that memes hijack their bodies - against the best interests of their organic genes.
Cryonics is narcissistic.The opposite of sacrifice.That in and of itself is repulsive.It is proof that you are not giving 100 % and that she can never get 100 % from you.It is also proof that even if she could give 110% you would still want more.You want it all.Her capacity to "give" relative to your capacity to "want" becomes farcical.
Vampires, like certain gay guys, give great game.
I think of rationalism as a bringing in to neo-cortical consciousness a lot of the mammalian brain emotional programs which we all share with each other, dogs, rabbits (to a lesser extent) and chimps (to a greater extent).
In this context, the identification of rationality with1) Life Extension2) Gameare strikingly strange. It seems to me clear enough that two of our strongest mammalian-emotional drives are to stay alive and to get laid. And yet it seems in the rationalist community that without irony the "correctness" of the conclusions reached from what are clearly just instinctive inborn emotions is not only unquestioned, but in an ironical twist, the neo-cortex is put blindly in the service of these mammalian emotions.
Has it occurred to anyone that game may work on some significant minority of women, but that it has little to say about women in general?
Nightclubs, large concerts, raves, riots, and mass political rallies all "work" in that they attract lots of people and can repeatably be used to create certain behaviors in those people. Every one of those venues is repulsive to me, and indeed, there are probably very few people indeed who are attracted to all of them. Does it make sense to make deep statements about the motivations of all human beings by reference to what must be happening in each of these venues?
"I have absolutely zero tolerance for those whose objections to cryonics has nothing to do with money."
What does tolerance have to do with it. In a rational world, you learn what you can about the feelings, objections, thoughts someone has about something, even if it is one of your own golden calves, and you proceed rationally from there.
The whole Rationalist == Cryonics thing has me recognizing the extent to which rationalism can be just another tribe/religion.
when you pay for a club membership, you're getting exactly what's advertised. you know what you're buying (social activity) and that you'll get it once you pay. you do your utility calculation and decide if you want it. but if cryonics doesn't work (or doesn't work in time for you), buying it would be like paying for club membership and then never getting in the door.
Hypothesises:
(I'll refer to the objecting spouse here as the wife)
1) The wife, like many people (women more??) is quite afraid of death and finds it extremely unpleasent to confront the doubts she feels about the religious afterlife fairy tale she claims to believe. Her husbands involvement with cryonics not only forces those unpleasent thoughts into the forefront but also threatens/intimidates her simple unanalyzed religious beliefs with it's aura of rationality and implicit dismissal of those beliefs as too foolish even to consider. Also further insecurity is added if they feel poorly equipped to understand technical considerations.
The norm of not challenging people over their religious beliefs means that cryonics, and not religious beliefs, means that cryonics is unique in forcing the wife to confront the shaky, unconvincing nature of her beliefs.
It's much like trying to argue about god's existence as an atheist with your usual theist. Theoretically you might expect them to appreciate the change to save a non-believer or at least to better analyze their own conclusions about the deity. In fact, however, the reaction is to resent or even hate the atheist as it raises doubts in their mind and they feel insecure/inferior when they are unable to give satisfactory responses and are reduced to saying what they realize sounds like a childish fantasy (which they credit to a personal failing and assume a more virtuous smarter person who had thought this all through would give a good defense).
Indeed the anti-cryonics reaction seems to mirror the anti-atheist sentiments that many religious people feel since we tend to blame the individuals who make us feel bad even if it's our own failing.
2) The wife parses her husband's subscription to cryonics without her as a form of emotional abandonment or desire to be free of her. However, the idea of spending tens of thousands of dollars on something she finds unappealing or religiously objectionable so she doesn't parse her husbands hobby as this kind of hurtful signalling isn't a real live option for her.
3) People like to think that death serves an important purpose and that their loved ones (parents etc..) didn't die only because they weren't lucky enough to be born after death has been abolished or didn't sign up for cryo. Relatedly they may feel guilty for not signing up their parents if they admit the force of the reasons for joining.