IMO it's kind of weird that there aren't more blog posts in the rationality-sphere about how to do group house living well. There are a bunch of tricky problems that need solving and opportunities for clever solutions that make people better off, so you'd think there would be much fodder. Possibilities:
- Maybe people just don't think about it very much?
- "Group house living" isn't as culturally salient a category as "parenting", so we're not used to writing about it?
- Most of the problems involve being kind of annoyed at specific people, and so are inherently awkward to talk about?
like this
Ben Millwood
in reply to Daniel Filan • •like this
Daniel Filan and Amber Dawn like this.
Daniel Filan
in reply to Ben Millwood • •Ben Millwood
in reply to Daniel Filan • •Daniel Filan
in reply to Ben Millwood • •Well then why don't people expect this incorrectly about group house living?
(Also tbh it seems like there's a lot of stuff that generalizes in the parenting setting along the lines of "how to deal with people who don't have much attention span or patience")
Ben Millwood
in reply to Daniel Filan • •Daniel Filan likes this.
Kevin Gibbons
in reply to Daniel Filan • •There's been at least one attempt! medium.com/@ThingMaker/dragon-…
The experience (of publishing the piece, not the house) may have discouraged other people considering writing something similar.
Of course, this wasn't _just_ a group house, but it was also that.
Daniel Filan likes this.
Daniel Filan
in reply to Kevin Gibbons • •Amber Dawn likes this.
David Mears
in reply to Daniel Filan • •I wonder what is generalisable from my group-house situation? (It's not a 'rationalist group house', it's just me, @Amber Dawn and @Ben Millwood living together, in a polyamorous 'V' / 'hinge'.) Maybe:
... show more* It is nice to have separate rooms, even if you are a couple. YMMV.
* Because people have different preferences about what they find onerous, you can trade chores with each other to create utility. This can be one-off or permanent.
* Remember, thinking about chores is itself a chore that should be shared. A corollary of that is that if you miss a chore you signed up to, it's your job to think about why, when it will be done, by whom, and communicate about it, lest someone else become the de facto 'chore project manager'.
* People vary enough in their chore preferences and chore-organisation and distribution preferences that you should not expect t
I wonder what is generalisable from my group-house situation? (It's not a 'rationalist group house', it's just me, @Amber Dawn and @Ben Millwood living together, in a polyamorous 'V' / 'hinge'.) Maybe:
* It is nice to have separate rooms, even if you are a couple. YMMV.
* Because people have different preferences about what they find onerous, you can trade chores with each other to create utility. This can be one-off or permanent.
* Remember, thinking about chores is itself a chore that should be shared. A corollary of that is that if you miss a chore you signed up to, it's your job to think about why, when it will be done, by whom, and communicate about it, lest someone else become the de facto 'chore project manager'.
* People vary enough in their chore preferences and chore-organisation and distribution preferences that you should not expect to be able to automatically port across any particular system you've used. (E.g. Do people like doing all their chores in batches or do they need flexibility? Do people like being thanked or is it patronising? Maybe some people actually enjoy project managing houses?) Instead you should set aside a time to talk about it, and occasionally review if everyone is happy.
* It is nice to organise events where you see your friends.
* Often, houses have large tasks that aren't really anyone's particular responsibility and don't fall under regular chores, e.g. "what's up with all the water in the fridge?", "shouldn't this handle be attached to the door?". A good institution to try out is setting aside occasional whole or half days to address all of these things simultaneously (includes discussing the problems, prioritising, and assigning responsibilities).
* If someone is really averse to some task, and someone else isn't, it's really nice if the second person volunteers to take on the task for them -- i.e. reciprocity not only increases utility in the moment, but it also builds relationships.
* Splitwise is convenient for splitting group payments.
* If you are above some minimal level of financial abundance AND background desire for reciprocity, you can save on admin by designating large amounts of food as communal supplies, and the purchases as evenly split, even if you vary in how much you eat which items.
My experience of writing this is 'I don't feel like I'm especially greatly wise about living in group houses and I hope noone thinks I think I'm sooo brilliant' (and 'wow, a lot of this is about chores, what other dimensions of group living are worth thinking about?'). Maybe that is why people don't write advice about it: they feel embarrassed about implying they are so great to live with or something.
like this
Daniel Filan and Amber Dawn like this.
Amber Dawn
in reply to David Mears • •Yeah reading this I was like 'wow a lot of our lore is about chores'. I guess because this came up as an issue with us, whereas 'there are conflicts/annoyances with the other people' hasn't come up as much, possibly because two of the relationships were selected specifically for not being mutually annoying :p (and luckily you and Ben seem to not annoy each other that much)
Maybe the main tip is 'try to select people you really vibe with/share living preferences with', and if you manage that you will be well-placed to either not have problems (because your preferences don't clash), or to solve them?