Polyamory and Status

Jean-Honoré Fragonard, The Swing

Epistemic status: conquering my resistance by talking about it.

High status drug use is enjoyed privately and low status drug use is punished publicly.

High status education is enjoyed privately and low status education is punished publicly.

Let’s talk about the battle for the soul of polyamory happening in Tiago Forte’s twitter replies, and understand three persuasion tactics deployed by supporters and detractors.

Tiago tweets:

You are already polyamorous for most things – books, songs, ideas, cities, apps, movies, etc

All I’m saying is maybe we should consider polyamory in one more category – people

Tiago communicates to the reader: Look at this list of great things you love. Here’s another great thing, people! Many people can be loved just like those other great things. Polyamory is high status.

The persuasion tactics applied here are two logical fallacies known as false analogy and oversimplification.

False analogy: Different things being alike in one way does not necessarily make them alike in another way. Any regular person enjoys multiple books and songs and movies and people in their life, but that is not a well-reasoned argument for having multiple romantic partners. The dynamics involved in appreciating multiple forms of media are different from those involved in romantic relationships.

Oversimplification: The complexity of a concept is reduced to the point where essential details are lost, and so something is presented as simpler than it truly is. The complexities of maintaining multiple romantic or sexual relationships are much more involved than loving multiple ideas or cities or apps. That complexity is lost in the hyper-condensed argument in the tweet.

To Tiago’s credit, he is quite hedging with his language: “maybe we should consider.”

In the replies to Tiago, Byrne tweets:

I already dispose of used Kleenex, empty food containers, and urine without a second thought. Perhaps I should extend this universal disposability concept to other human beings. Or perhaps human relationships are qualitatively different from eg pee.

Byrne communicates to the reader: In this conversation about polyamory, think about used Kleenex and urine. Gross! Having multiple romantic relationships is also gross. Polyamory is low status.

Byrne establishes himself as a voice of authority by demonstrating an awareness of the logical fallacies Tiago employed by employing them himself. However! He trojan horse’s in a subtle logical fallacy of his own, an appeal to emotion, in this case, disgust. Even though Byrne dismantles the analogy he presents, he associates polyamory in the mind of the reader with disgusting Kleenex and urine.

To Byrne’s credit, he is open about his intention:

actively lowering the status of people who espouse bad ideas on social media helps.

Stay intellectually strapped, reader. Think for yourself and be aware of persuasion tactics used to bolster and smother the status of the thing. You have full sovereignty of your opinions in the culture wars.