For example, in heterosexual dating (in the USA) the man is expected to ask for the date, plan the date, and escalate sexual interaction. When Minda had her first relationship with a woman, she found that the cultural scripts for heterosexual relationships didn't work for a homosexual relationship style. Today, we apply rationality to relationships. That's why it helps to explicitly examine what happens when you apply rationality to new areas of your life â from disease to goodness to morality. Cached thoughts and cached selves can remain even after one has applied the lessons of the core sequences to particular parts of one's life. Brains don't automatically enforce belief propagation, and aren't configured to do so. Rationality and decision theory work for relationships, too! After that.Īnyway, the results have been wonderful. After that, I chose 4 months of contented celibacy. (The ladies of Sex and the City weren't too good with decision theory, but they certainly invested time figuring out which relationship styles worked for them.) For a while, this new approach led me into a series of short-lived flings. I needed to design romantic relationships that made sense ( decision-theoretically) for me, rather than simply falling into whatever relationship model my culture happened to offer. Some of my culture's scripts for what a man-woman relationship should look like didn't fit my own goals very well. I had moral objections to the idea of owning somebody else's sexuality, and to the idea of somebody else owning mine. I didn't like the desperate, codependent 'madness' that popular love songs celebrate. I didn't like the jealous feelings that had arisen within me. When things fell apart between me (Luke) and my first girlfriend, I decided that kind of relationship wasn't ideal for me. Co-authored with Minda Myers and Hugh Ristik. Also, the physics have changed, but i'm not really so sure for the better.Part of the Sequence: The Science of Winning at Life. Maybe I'll sit down with it and have a proper go, but now LFS has come along, I'm maybe starting to think it's a bit childish. The bloom effect is seriously out of control and there's too much stuff on the track now. I've seen it and played a bit, but now it seems all a bit over the top. It reminded me of my home town, bush racing tracks everywhere which people had made over time. Graphics were pretty awesome- trees were mostly modelled instead of just intersecting alpha textures (how I wish we could leave those ugly things behind!!) I could play with the keys and it was a fun challenge keeping up with or beating the AI on the later levels. I also felt the driving model was pretty good (never played LFS huh?). When it came out I did like it- it was really chaotic. But Flatout looked different (crazy damage model) and I'd never really lost hope that something fun and innovative was on the way. I was/still am pretty ignorant of the more serious racing sims, seeing only uninspired silly car games everywhere. The screenshots looked wild, and I was really curious to see how the "Halflife 2 of racing games" would turn out. I was looking forward to Flatout 1 for over a year.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |