I've spoken with a couple people who have hired dating profile photographers. It sounds like these services can be *really* expensive. I heard about one who charged $700 and one who charged $2800.

I was not impressed with their output. Tbh, I think my work is better than theirs. (And for reference, I charged $200 for a couple recent shoots. I think I'd go up to ~$350 if I were a bit more confident in my skills/reliability. I would feel kinda wrong charging $700 atm!)

If I think of other (not-necessarily-pro) photographers I've met in the rationalist community, I'd say their photos are way better too. And meeting people outside the rationalist community, it's not THAT uncommon for me to encounter a photographer who is REALLY good, whose skills are beyond what I ever expect to achieve.

But... like... uh. Making a living off photography doesn't seem like a super strong signal that you're great at it? (At least I assume these people are making a living off their work, given the vibe I get from their websites.) I guess you can turn it into a business and learn to market it effectively, even if your results are so-so?

(Very small N, but this phenomenon doesn't seem limited to dating profile photographers. I have also been surprised by the relatively low-quality output of a wedding photographer who, AFAICT, has been hired for many weddings.)

I think it's cool that I'm in a subculture where polyamory is SO de-stigmatized and available for anyone who wants to do it. Also, some people like to sleep around -- among highly-vetted friends-of-friends -- and I'm happy that I'm in a community that makes this feasible. I am surrounded by chill people who are extremely unjealous and open.

But also???

There's something I'm feeling a bit unsure about.

I think poly social networks seem -- possibly -- more unstable, unpredictable, and disloyal. At least compared to my fantasy vision of a nice ~monogamous community.

I expect marriages are more stable than friendships. But friendships are more stable than unmarried romantic relationships. And all romantic relationships tend to take priority over friendships.

When I befriend someone who is married, I expect predictability. Barring divorce, serious illness, or a business taking off: they will probably stay about as available to me for a long time. And they will often have their spouse with them -- so, if I like their spouse too, we're golden.

When my friend is poly:
- They could always get into a new relationship, which would likely be more important than their friendship with me. i.e. I could kinda be demoted at any time.
- Their new relationship could make them significantly less available.
- Their new relationship could significantly change their mental health or how they think.
- Their new relationship could cause them to move elsewhere.
- Their new partner could become their new default +1. So I'll see them a lot. What if I don't like them? (What if I *do* like them, but I can't see them as easily after they break up?)

Unmarried poly people can be forever open to "something better" than their current primary partner. This instability doesn't just affect their primary partner. It also affects their friends.

And when *I* consider dating people beyond my fiance, that's obviously another, bigger layer of instability. And it seems like the most accessible way to get really close to another human if I'm in a poly community.

People prioritize romance above friendship, therefore, if I want to be prioritized by more than one person in a poly community, I should date more than one person. But unmarried romance is so unstable!

Secondary partnership with a poly person = likely unstable, because most romance is unstable. Close friendship with an unmarried poly person = likely unstable, because they could always get into a new serious relationship that affects our friendship.

I also don't like the feeling of people forever trying to stay sexy to new people. Idk, feels wrong to extend that life stage for too long. I feel like I want people around me to finish exploring and start exploiting.

That said -- you can be married while also being poly and/or slutty. That's cool too. That feels more stable/predictable than doing that stuff while unmarried.

(And in some ways, poly people are MORE stable, since we tend to be friends with our exes, or keep people as secondary partners even when they didn't work out as primaries.)

Lately, dishonesty has been standing out to me more. Not dishonesty in other people -- dishonesty in myself.

All the time, I'm noticing myself subtly misleading people. Never with outright lies. Never out of malice; never for much personal gain. Usually it's out of a desire to avoid upsetting people.

Like, it's not uncommon for a friend/acquaintance to do something that bothers me. And then I *don't tell them*. I keep acting cheery, despite whatever bothersome thing they did. That's misleading!

Or, like... if a friend makes an irreversible decision that I think was kinda bad, I usually won't say anything.

I wish I could just switch to telling people everything. Or telling my friends everything? But it seems intractable. A ton of people don't want feedback.

And it's hard to convey what a small deal a lot of these things are. "I didn't like it when you did X" can make it sound like I am commanding them to stop, and I'll be mad if they don't. But that's not how I feel.

I just want people to have the information so they can use it to make better choices. (Maybe this info means they should stop doing X; maybe it means they should stop being friends with me; maybe it means they should stop doing X iff they get the same feedback from 3 more people. That's up to them!)

I kinda wish we were all more honest about everything. I wish I could tell everyone what I think of them, and vice versa. I wish my value-aligned friends told me whenever they think I've made a mistake, or I'm doing something off-putting, or whatever.

Imagine your hourly rate is ostensibly $50/hr. Your *actual* hourly rate depends greatly on the type of job you have.

1) If you get paid for 40 hours every week, but you work less: your actual rate is higher

2) If you get paid for 40 hours every week, but you work MORE: your actual rate is lower

3) If you only bill hours you actually spent working: it's truly $50/hr

4) If you're freelancing or doing bounties, then you spend a lot of unpaid time figuring out what to work on next. So your actual rate is lower. (I think a lot of freelance positions take this into account.)

I used to work "full-time," less than 40 hours per week, with a salary. But in the last few years, I've just done a few tiny odd jobs for friends, with negotiated rates. So the difference has been quite notable to me.

I think hourly rates at full-time jobs anchor people on reasonable rates outside of full-time jobs.

e.g. For one task, my friend looked up the typical hourly rate for someone who does the job full-time, to negotiate a rate with me. Neither of us thought about the fact that working full-time means their actual rate could easily be twice their ostensible rate. (But that's hard to assess from the outside.)

Another one of my friends paid me pretty generously when I did a task for them. They calculated my pay by thinking about A. how much time I saved them, and B. the actual value of their time.

I often have small conflicts with people I'm dating. I quickly get a sense of how it feels to resolve our conflicts. Often, it's been pretty good -- I tend to date people who are quite receptive to feedback. And if they aren't, it becomes a problem very quickly. The progression of my romantic relationships depends on good conflict resolution.

This is not true for my friendships. (I'm not sure of all the reasons why.) I tend to smooth things over with friendships much more often. If they bother me a little, it's not a big deal, because we aren't trying to be that close or spend that much time together.

And then when a bigger problem does come up, I find myself worried: how will they handle the conflict?

With many people, if I tell them that they did something that bothered me, then there's a good chance they will refuse responsibility and just blame me for being upset. ("Many people" is meant to be very vague -- I really don't know the percentage, since I'm rarely testing this.)

Last time I initiated a conflict with a friend, I only did it because I felt like I really needed to, and their reactions made me give up on them.

I vaguely wish that my friendships involved more small conflicts early on. So I could check how conflicts go between us, before getting invested. But I'm not sure how to do this -- it doesn't happen by default for me.

Bounties are like "if you find the solution to my problem, I'll give you $Y."

But every time I think about writing a bounty, I worry it's not going to be very helpful. Because people often don't vet their solutions that much. It takes a lot of time to decide if the potential solution is an actual solution.

e.g. I say "$30 if you find me a place that will give me a dental appointment in the next week." 3 people suggest dentists they like; they each say "try calling this person!" No one actually called the dentists to ask for availability. I take what I can get; I call them myself. Dentist 2 has availability next week. Oof, this didn't save me that much time; I could've just googled for local dentists. Am I supposed to pay out now?

e.g. I say "$500 to fix my nighttime breathing problems," and then I get these suggestions: buteyko, Wim Hof, sleep study. But then I spend 2h reading about buteyko and learn it would take me 1 month of regular practice before I should expect to see results. (And maybe it just won't fix my problems at all.) It's going to take me more than $500 of additional time/money to evaluate each potential solution, so it'd be great if people only made suggestions with a high probability of success -- but how do I make that happen?

Even if verifying a solution takes just 5min on my end, if 20 people make suggestions, then that's going to take me a lot of time.

I wish I could say "if you make my problem disappear with as-little-work-as-possible on my end, I'll give you $Y." But it seems hard to operationalize for different problems.

I'm starting to think I might be much more valuable as an event photographer than a portrait photographer. Even if my goal is "get good portraits of people."

I just had a portrait session with someone today. I had trouble getting them to "act natural," and various poses made them say "this pose makes me feel/look like I'm just posing for a photographer." They preferred photos that looked plausibly candid.

For the average person -- especially the average guy -- I get it.

At events, I can get candids of so many different people. It's time-efficient. And people are dressed nice by default. And sometimes the environment is especially nice. Usually the lighting isn't ideal, but sometimes it's interesting. (e.g. Colorful dance lighting.)

I've been feeling kind of awkward in my portrait sessions. It's kind of hard to make a bunch of good decisions about posing/staging on the spot -- it all depends on the person, their outfit, whether they're masculine/feminine, the cloud cover, etc. Lots of thinking on the spot. And generally I'm not working with someone who has any interest in modeling, so... they feel a bit awkward and nervous themselves, which isn't good for photos.