Pretending

I was digging around a rather silly blog and found a link from it to a better blog.

The better, non-silly blogger is an interesting guy named Robin Hanson. He is interesting because he manages to be wrong in a really interesting way. This post really jumped out at me:

Sex is near and love is far, logical analysis is near while “aha” creativity is far, and conventional art is near while unconventional art is far. These results seem to confirm my suggestion that near mode emphasizes practical action, while far mode emphasizes social image. Sex is more what we really want, while love is more how we present ourselves to get such things.

It's the last sentence that makes me wonder. It's not like we live in a world where sex is terribly hard to come by or where there aren't quite a few women willing to have sex separate from love. So why would we say that sex is what we really want but we say we are in love to get it?

It reminds me of a line from California Dreamin' that has always bothered me. I mean the one about going into the church and pretending to pray. Why? Why not stay on the sidewalk?

The thing is, I don't think Hanson is lying to us. He wrote the sentence and meant it but I don't think he really knows what he means by it.

The whole thing is here.

The distinction between near and far is good one BTW. Good in that it spurs interesting thinking. It would be good even if it ultimately turned out to be bogus.