= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (647)
I would consider an appeal to common knowledge adequate in this instance. While some could plausibly deny awareness that discussion of attraction (and social dominance in general) tactics are frequently taboo, an argument would be a sub-optimal context for Silas to engage in education on the subject.
Since the topic so closely ties in with themes like 'near/far' thinking and related social-political biases it would be a post that would be worth Silas making if he has sufficient interest and some useful sources to draw from to signal credibility.
I would not. In our society, a man who has many sexual partners is reverentially referred to as a "player" or a "stud", and a woman who successfully manipulates men is derisively referred to as a "manipulative bitch".
There are 3,940,000 Google results for Manipulate Men, and 3,040,000 results for Manipulate Women. A ration close to 4:3 in favor of manipulating men, but it seems like neither subject is being repressed.
The appropriate comparison would be to a woman who gets men to spend resources on her with an insincere promise of sex.
And there is a vocabulary for such a case, though not as a term for the woman. Anyone familiar with "being friendzoned"?
Posting this as a separate reply so the separate issue can be voted on.
JGW, you're confirming my suspicion that that there's a deeper issue going on here, and I think we've found it. You see the issue I raised a one part of the broader issue about whether men or women have it better (in some appropriate sense I'm starting to discern). So you see it as completely topical to bring up a point like you just did, because it supports your stance, even though it has nothing to do with the point I'm arguing here.
Like wedrifid said, I'm not trying to prove that men, in some broad, general sense, are somehow "more manipulated" or "more oppressed" than women or anything like that. I'm saying that with respect to one particular issue -- sharing accurate information among themselves that could be used to appear more attractive to the opposite sex -- men receive more rebuke than women.
I think this is pretty common knowledge, and several quick sanity checks should convince you. For example, go to a retail center and count the number of places overtly promoting effective ways of making onesself attractive to the opposite sex, and the effort and specificity they give, and show how it compares to men and women.
Alternately, consider the rebuke you get for giving advice for being attractive to women that actually works.
You might want to rephrase that -- even knowing your overall position, I parsed it wrong the first time I read it. i.e., as "giving advice (for being attractive) to women" rather than "giving advice for (being attractive to women)". Your sentence is also unclear as to who is giving the rebuke -- the recipient or a third party -- although of course both are possible.
Actually, you can also get rebuked (or at least disbelieved), by giving accurate information to women (about what's attractive to men) as well. Many things that men consider attractive in female clothing, appearance, interests, or behavior are things that will get women docked status points by their peers... and I'm not talking about revealing clothing or overtly sexual behavior, either.
I actually think that the situation regarding accurate advice is more symmetrical than you're arguing. Women are actually just as stigmatized for seeking accurate mate-attracting information as men are, if not more so. What is socially acceptable is advice on how to be fashionable, not how to be attractive. As I mentioned in another comment, many fashions are not actually attractive to men.
Both men and women fear being stigmatized by their peers for seeking information that will actually help them attract the opposite sex, as opposed to information that merely helps them signal attractiveness and group loyalty to their same-sex peers.
What's different about men is simply that men have much more to gain and less to lose by breaking with their peers, and are more likely to be outcasts or rejects with nothing to lose. The current (relative) popularity of PUA at the moment is likely because it's mildly fashionable for men, in the same way that "The Rules" were mildly fashionable for women a while ago.
"The Rules", however, are out of fashion now with women, and discussing them would probably provoke similar rebuke from men as PUA does from women.
(For readers who don't know, "The Rules" was a book for women discussing behavioral tactics women could use to mentally manipulate men into long-term relationships, that had similar popularity to "The Game" for men.)
Those are some good points about the attractiveness/ fashionability distinction, and I made similar remarks to a different end. I'll have to think about that.
However, I can't but refer back to simple comparisons of the social reactions to advice, such as this:
"If you want to appear more attractive to men, show cleavage and arch your back." --> "Duh, already know that, of course that's how men are."
vs.
"If you want to appear more attractive to women, act dominant by ordering her around, thinking of her like a disobedient child, and generally making yourself appear scarce and unavailable." --> "Shut up!!! Shut up, you F***ING terrorist! Women are NOT like that, you worthless misogynist! You should be RESPECTFUL and DEFERENTIAL and give them lots of gifts. That's what we want, chauvanist. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go meet my boyfriend, who is such a jerk to me. I hope he's not late ... again."
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating the advice I paraphrased for men, but actual successful PUAs -- who would know what they're talking about -- seem to believe it, and the refusal to discuss such cases seriously is inexcusable.
Your comparison isn't fair -- compare mental manipulations vs. physical ones, and notice that "The Rules" were almost as controversial as "The Game". Conversely, you're not going to be declared evil if you tell men they should work out to get a certain chest-waist or shoulder-waist ratio that women find attractive.
Nobody cares that much about what men and women do to emphasize their physical attractiveness, or change in superficial behaviors to be more attractive. It's things that involve direct effect on the attractee's mind, or direct alteration to the attractor's body (e.g. implants, lifts, hair plugs) that produce the most impression of deception and manipulation, and thus the most excoriation.
Also, phrasing is very important. I could rephrase your controversial advice in a much-less offensive way thus:
"Women prefer men who are confident and know what they want. So be clear about what you want, and don't be afraid to tell them. They don't like it when men come across as needy or uncomfortable around women, so it can be helpful to think of how you might interact with your kid sister -- playful and teasing, rather than reverent or worshipful. Similarly, if you seem to have nothing to do but hang around with her, then you might seem like a loser with no other options. Cultivate other interests, including ones that don't involve her."
I just gave essentially the exact same advice, but in a harder-to-object to form. Most women I know would not only agree with the correctness of this advice, but would express their wish that more guys understood these things, and advocate educating men in this fashion -- since it emphasizes the benefits of these behaviors for women. (i.e., confidence, relatability, and independence)
The problem is that men and women do not always use the same (connotational) language for behaviors. To a low-attractive male, any action taken by a high-attractive male is suspect. Thus, an initially low-status PUA is more likely to describe high-status behaviors in negative terms (e.g. "ordering her around") rather than the terms women would use to describe the behavior they find attractive ("a man who knows what he wants, and isn't afraid to say it").
A PUA trying to teach others is also likely to use this negative language because his target audience of other low-attractive males will relate to it better, and it will also provide an outlet for their frustrations. However, this isn't the best language to use for an objective discussion or to use with people who are, well, not sexually and socially frustrated to misogynistic or near-misogynistic levels.
I actually think your formulation is the better way to teach it, as well. This variety of bitter misogyny tends to leak out in a man's interactions with women even if he knows the right things to say. And women won't find it attractive. People aren't resentful toward their kid sister. A PUA's target audience might like hearing the objectionable version more but it won't be as helpful to them.
In other words, you listed G as well as G*.
I mention this explicitly because I think this actually renders your wording importantly different from SilasBarta's. In the specific context of men-seeking-women that this advice was written for, a man who lies about what times he's free can make himself seem scarce and unavailable, whereas a man who actually has a crowded schedule will seem scarce and unavailable ... but only the latter has (or might have) the actual desired property.
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Higher-status PU gurus advocate approaching G as much as possible, rather than faking G*. It's easier and more beneficial to your life to have more of a "life", than it is to fake having one in order to play hard to get. It's also substantially more beneficial to actually be confident, than to learn a zillion and one tiny behaviors that signal confidence, etc.
That's only true if you view unavailability as a positive, rather than over-availability as a negative. A man who can simply avoid doing things that turn women off is still far ahead of the average man in attractiveness, regardless of the reasons or means by which he avoids doing those things.
As it happens, unavailability is one of those characteristics women may deny finding attractive, because it's not actually enjoyable. (Note that we often behave as if we "want" things we don't actually like "having".) Yet, over-availability is a negative criterion that women don't deny is unattractive.
It seems, though, that the thing that makes something "manipulative" or "deceitful" is whether the behavior is described in terms of things the subject agrees he or she would like, using "far" language, or things the "manipulator" would like, in "near" language.
The objectionable PUA advice is very specific "near" instruction about how to behave in such a way as to meet the PUA's goals; my version was a mostly "far" description of "what women like/dislike". Similarly, I could take "The Rules" and attempt to recast them in a positive-to-men light, by saying that men don't want to be in a relationship with women who are clingy, desperate, or might be sleeping with other men... so if you're looking for a man who wants a relationship, do these things to avoid putting them off.
(Of course, the truth is that both the Game and the Rules are pushing evolutionary buttons in the opposite sex that can hijack conscious intentions, AND contain elements that are consciously considered desirable. The "hijacking" elements tend to be seen as objectionable no matter which sex is targeted.)
I don't think we have any substantive disagreement.
This is a really good point. Think like reality! Behavior that pleases others and benefits yourself is virtuous!
All manipulations under discussion pass through the mind, so I don't understand the distinction mental vs physical. And, "The Rules" certainly hasn't gotten near the attention as "The Game", nor does it commit the sin of breaking from advice women already get. ("Hold off on having sex with a man" -- gee, I'm sure women aren't taught that, right?) So there parallel isn't nearly as strong as you claim.
But that's not advice of remotely similar effectiveness: a) women rank looks as relatively unimportant beyond a certain point, and b) for a man, simply looking good is not attractive in that it does not, er, attract. You won't get approached by women just for looking good; women, OTOH, will be approached by men mainly on their looks.
(ETA:) I'm not alleging deception or hypocrisy in those standards and judgments. What I criticize is the attempt to suppress and disparage truthful information about what criteria women are actually using. What goes on now would be like if men adamantly denied that breast implants have any effect whatsoever on female attractiveness, and that they're immoral, and pursued women with implants almost exclusively. (I know you disagree that this accurately characterizes what goes on, and my responses to that are elsewhere in this post. I just want to clarify what specific behavior I'm criticizing.)
Not for "ordering them around", you didn't; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that. More importantly, the good advice you claim women agree with is given side by side with the stuff that's completely ineffective and countereffective (gifts, admiration, letting her make choices -- which by the way does not contradict "knowing what you want"). How are men supposed to know which advice is deception and which isn't (or perhaps more politely, which advice reveals a lack of self-understanding / luminosity / going along with what one's expected to say)?
Sure, but like above, they say the same thing about men doing the counterproductive stuff. A clock is broken even when it's right twice a day.
It sounds like you're saying women are truthful as long as you stick to euphemisms and politician-speak("a man saying what he wants") and stay away from practical implications ("a man ordering a woman to use a different fashion" [1]). Am I supposed to be thankful for this?
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you're really hot).
I believe I was in college when "The Rules" came out, so a bit younger than its target demographic, but I recall that there was quite an uproar about it at the time. There was a lot of criticism about the advice being manipulative of men, but also somewhat anti-feminist and representing a step backward for women.
Heck, I even remember a series of Cathy cartoons dedicated to "The Rules," with the takeaway being part horror (I seem to recall Cathy's Aaaak!) , part fascination, part willingness to try it out because it just might work, or something like that. . . . and, ok, Cathy may not display perfect insight into the American woman's psyche, but it tends to get the big trends right, or at least did so in that era
So, yeah, The Rules aren't the hip new thing right now, but in its heyday, the book got a lot of attention and a lot of criticism, and it also sold a lot of copies. I think it's a pretty fair comparison.
Oh come now. It'll get you AIs and IOIs (Approach Invitations and Indicators of Interest), which are the female equivalent. (Of course, "looking good" includes dressing well and being well-groomed.)
Yes there was -- be clear about what you want, and say it. This is merely one of the ways a woman would positively describe what you're calling "ordering them around".
Both descriptions carry subjective connotations, without being a truly accurate low-level description of "confident leadership" behaviors -- and are equally biased.
A truly neutral description of the behaviors in question would be much longer to write, since it would need to describe behavioral guidelines in much more detail.
WTF does that have to do with this discussion? I didn't say men should try to learn PUA from women; there's a clear and obvious advantage to learning them from men (for the most part).
(I'm skipping replying to the rest of your comment, because it's just more down the same sinkhole.)
You seem to have confused me with the "PUA=bad" crowd, but nothing I said can't be found in PUA materials. I'm also not in favor of banning PUA discussion on LW.
What I disagree with you on is the assertion of asymmetrical bias and social pressures for men and women regarding the "venusian arts". Most of the asymmetry you assert disappears when you control for physical vs. mental, male vs. female goals, etc.
AFAICT, you are so stuck in anger about women, that you can't see just how symmetrical the situation actually is for them. Men don't give women good advice for what we want in long-term relationships, being just as likely to say we want one thing, but actually commit to another. And men are just as likely to be irritated when women point this out, as the reverse.
ISTM that one reason you don't see this is that you keep talking about "beauty" techniques as the appropriate parallel to PUA, when that would only make sense if women's evolutionarily-assigned mating goals had to do with short-term sexual interest, vs. long term bonding.
I also don't get why you seem to keep making arguments about the culture at large, vs. rationalist culture and LessWrong. The two are different enough that you can hardly import the outside world here, and expect some sort of redress for wrongs that might be occurring elsewhere. That would be equivalent to a woman coming here and saying that we all should use "she" in our examples to make up for an excessive use of "he" in the world at large.
I will start from your more personal remarks:
What? Where are you getting you this? I've long known you were not part of the "PUA = bad" crowd, and that you're not in favor of banning. I would counterpropose that you're interpreting my disagreement and occasional impatience as hostility, and assuming it carries over to other areas.
I'm going to delete the unhelpful psychoanalysis from the rest of these excerpts; they have nothing to do with the validity of my points and only serve to insult. If I'm wrong, let it be for some reason other than "Silas is a nut".
Don't speak for me; I've never been asked, and, on principle, I would refuse to give advice if I knew it would be skewed.
Again, speak for yourself -- if I feel social pressures that keep me from being truthful, I say so rather than perpetuate what I know to be wrong. I imagine that if I were a woman, I'd adhere to the same standard and expect no less out of others, male or female.
Not really. I accept quite well that women usually aren't going to be drawing men in for short-term sexual interest. Nevertheless, part of the necessary steps in getting "shortlisted" for a long-term relationship is looks, which is why I claim the parallel holds.
'Cause it's a critical example of bias and poor specification of values, maybe?
Now, for the rest:
Female AI/IOIs, by design, have plausible deniability. One can only take them as definitive at one's own risk -- that breaks the equivalence.
"I want beer" --> being clear about what I want, but not giving orders
"Bring me beer" --> being clear AND giving orders
I'll accept that full specification of which is okay and which isn't, is going to be difficult. Point taken, and I'll stop bringing it up. But on this issue, at least, you're going two far in blurring very different concepts.
Especially since:
"I want beer" (with a strong voice and expectant eye contact) --> Being clear about what I want and communicating that my mere wishes should implicitly be interpreted as orders. "Bring me beer" (lowered eyes, end of the sentence raised slightly in pitch) --> Making an uncertain claim about what I want, with a supplicating request for action.
A potential asymmetry that is of some interest is a difference in (typical) ability to separate 'far mode' signalling beliefs and 'near mode' actions.
Now I'm curious. What do men say we want in long-term relationships and what do we actually commit to? I think I know what I want but when it comes to related areas (what I want from work life) I have atypical preferences so I am not comfortable generalising from a sample of me.
Certainly, it's easier to make anything more palatable if you talk about in "far" -- which of course is the whole point of "far" thinking in the first place. ;-)
Maybe you should ask a woman that question -- honestly, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with trying to answer it in any detail.
Actually, contemplating just how uncomfortable I am with trying to say what I know, makes me considerably more sympathetic to why women don't often give guys good advice. No matter how true or useful the information might be to the opposite sex, there is considerable social stigma (from one's own sex) attached to telling the truth.
(Imagine the social consequences if a woman said she wanted guys to boss her around, or a guy said he wanted a woman who wasn't always interested in sex when he was. And that assumes that either the man or the woman are able to notice this not-necessarily-conscious preference in themselves, and admit to it, before the social stigma issue can even come up!)
Or maybe the really effective thing to do is to know which type of behavior to exhibit when (so much of social skill is about context-sensitivity); all-out dominant behavior is more effective in some cases than all-out the other direction ('submissive' seems like the wrong term) or ham-fisted attempts at variation, so advice to adopt all-out dominant behavior, combined with the idea that the other sort of behavior is completely ineffective, persists among men who are less skilled and interested in those cases; and women introspecting on what they want get that they want both but don't get the context-dependence, or don't realize it needs to be said.
I don't disagree with any of that, but note that this failure of introspection on the part of (influential) women on this matter is exactly what my thesis has been all along. And I wouldn't tolerate that from myself, or from men either, especially if such advice had the impact that the widely-taught (and wrong) male-to-female engagement rules has.
No, but you are definitely not supposed to be bitter about it. ~1,000 times on OvercomingBias:
Sorry if I'm piling on.
I don't think anyone here is saying: "listen to the women, they always know what is best". Rather people are saying: "Hey men who know what women find attractive, you don't need to phrase your true advice in such objectionable language."
Not to bring this back to object level but I'm not sure "ordering them around" actually communicates good advice. There are circumstances where taking charge is attractive but it isn't nearly as simple as "order them around" and I suspect whatever good advice is here can be phrased in a similarly unobjectionable way.
Really? Are we looking at the same forum? Because of all criticisms of PUA discussion, I never saw anything of that form -- most importantly, I don't remember acknowledgement that it is true (just as society in general won't admit it). Those who found it objectionable, like this characteristic poster, demanded much more serious straitjackets:
That's way beyond, "hey, use less objectionable language when making these true claims about what women find attractive". Don't you think so?
Agree With What You Are Saying But Good Pickup Advice Would Recommend Ignoring That Frame Rather Than Validating It. (AWWYASBGPAWRITFRTVI?)
Sorry, "here" is ambiguous. I meant in the discussion presently occurring, perhaps I should have just said pjeby is only saying that but I felt like my statement applied to everyone who replied to your comments recently.
My position is here. But yes, past discussions involved broader disagreement. I mostly meant that I didn't think your interpretation of pjeby's comment was accurate.
(ETA: I'm sympathetic to a lot of what she says but I'm not sure I'd agree alicorn was "characteristic" in that particular discussion.)
I wouldn't go as far as to support the (absolute part of the) first claim but I certainly support the second.
I disagree. Naturally things aren't simple (simple isn't a Nash equilibrium in the dating game!) but 'ordering them around' is good advice, particularly to those who most need dating advice. That class of guys tends to associate receiving orders with resentment and so tends to have a failure of empathy when it comes to their expectations of how women will react to similar assertions. "Order them around" is what they need to hear while the more abstract "taking charge" crosses too much of an inferential gap.
I've seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it's an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.
Certainly, I don't think teaching material should do any less. It's likely that a properly framed discussion here relating the venusian arts to, say the Dark Arts, advertising, consent, consistent decision theories, etc. would also need to discuss both sides of that perceptual gap, at least in passing. (Albeit without so much detailed how-to info in between.)
Yeah, the absolute part made it too strong.
We're probably being too vague to evaluate this question. I read "order them around" and I picture men doing a lot of things that women probably won't find very attractive. I suspect it might lead to the audience just trying to be mean to women thinking that will make them attractive. If I knew less about the subject that advice would lead me to do counterproductive things, I think. Language often needs to be tweaked for audiences that don't understand right away. I might be in the minority when it comes to my interpretation of "ordering them around" but it really isn't clear to me exactly what behaviors it recommends.
I'm wondering about this "taking charge" thing. Does it just apply when the woman isn't very sure about what she wants? Or also when the male overrides a clear desire of hers? What if the man takes charge and turns out to be wrong about the outcome?
The main context it's discussed in is situations where no-one has expressed a strong preference. In the case of conflicting preferences, men are advised to be clear and non-deferential regarding their preferences, without necessarily "overriding" anything. The point is to show initiative and non-wishiwashiness, not to push people around.
Then how he handles that is the next test. ;-)
I saw an interesting discussion of the movie "300" that sort of relates to this. Someone said that in almost every action movie, there is a woman who wants the man to stay with her and not go do the dangerous thing that's his mission in life. But, if he were the sort of man who would stay - who'd, before going off to war against the Persians, would say, "you're right honey, I should just stay here with you and the kids" - then she wouldn't have been attracted to him in the first place.
And, if he did change his mind and stay, the attraction and romance in the relationship would pretty much die right away.
So the advice to "take charge" is really just to be the sort of man who doesn't let a woman talk him into things for the sake of immediate pleasure (or lack of immediate conflict), at the expense of long-term interests. Such a man may be too easily convinced to leave or to cheat by a different woman, and be a lousy protector who won't do difficult or painful things in his family's interest.
So, the function of taking charge is that the man must demonstrate that he can tell the difference between what a woman says she wants and what's actually best in a given situation, as well as his nature as a man of constancy, certainty, and initiative. It's not really about making decisions, per se.
(For example, some "chivalrous" gestures like opening a door, pulling out a chair, or giving your arm to someone can be forms of "taking charge" in the sense that they show purpose and initiative, even though no decision is really being made, nor are any orders being given.)
With trivial desires it probably applies. With significant desires not so much. The line between the two is probably fuzzy but has obvious extremes. How strongly the woman holds the desire matters too, I suppose. I don't know if I can say more without context: I don' t teach people how to be attractive so I'm not good at spelling all the intricacies out. I just know enough to make it work for me.
You'd have to be more specific but I suspect the outcome usually doesn't matter.
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you're really hot).
Only in specific environments. And then, yes, the offence is mostly 'making sexual advances without being hot enough to get away with it'. Outside of a place where sexual harassment claims are an option it would instead just get demeaning looks.
The negative reactions may have to do with the fact that such advice -- and indeed, a comment like the above -- amounts to accusing half the audience of a very blatant form of hypocrisy. Obviously one should exercise extreme caution when making such an accusation, and it had better be backed up with some pretty solid evidence -- to say nothing of the pragmatic considerations of whether there is much to be gained by voicing such truths (if they are in fact true).
Yes, lots of people probably don't tell the truth about what is sexually attractive to them. But if you go around saying "women are such hypocrites", it's understandable for a woman hearing this to take it as a personal insult. (If you didn't mean for her to be insulted, you wouldn't say it that way.)
What if you go around saying "almost everyone, whatever their gender, has poor insight into their preferences and responses"?
I summarized some of the research on stated vs. actual preferences here. It seems to show that both men and women are often wrong about what they go for, but women may well be more wrong. However, I've only found a few studies like this so far, and I want to see more to feel confident about that conclusion.
By the way: Welcome to Less Wrong!
An important clarification: it's not the hypocrisy per se that I object to, but its institutionalization, the massive failure to recognize the unqualification to give advice, and the tremendous benefits accruing to those who are "wise" enough to ignore women. See why that might be objectionable?
Okay. How about my life history, plus that of pretty much everyone joining the PUA crowd or identifying with its message?
I'm sure you can see that exactly one of those pieces of advice is ambiguous, and easily disambiguated as advice to engage in genuinely wrong behavior. I think that some sorts of people, which I would expect to overlap with the sorts of people opposed to pickup, tend to directly leap from a statement being potentially harmful to express, to that statement and its speaker being Bad. (Another example: statements about the basis of intelligence and race/sex correlations, with their genuine usefulness to bigots.) I don't think that this is entirely incorrect of them, either instrumentally or epistemically — such statements are Bayesian evidence of bad character, for both direct and signaling reasons.
PS: Don't be so sarcastic.
I accept that the advice I listed can be ambiguous. I also claim that a very large class of men has been so horribly misled by the official line on male-to-female interaction rules, that even the above advice, in its crude form, in its rank misogyny, would actually cause them to be more attractive to women -- which just goes to show the depths of their deception.
Btw, what was sarcastic? Men who present the plain truth on this are the target of severe vitriol from women (even and especially those for whom it is true) and men who recognize its truth, but want to appear part of the "reasonable" crowd. My illustration of the vitriol is exaggerated, but not by much. And the misleading advice women promote does in fact mirror the official line (in mainstream books, advice from women, behavior taught in schools, etc.). What are you objecting to?
And yet, you seem to object to framing the truth in terms that women usually like and respond positively to... which makes me wonder WTF your actual goals are here.
Oh noes, people don't like language they don't like, and I am being forced to use the language of the oppressors in order to talk with them about anything. Help, I'm being oppressed!
Damn, dude, this is like saying you ought to have the right to describe people using racial epithets, simply because the epithets are included in statements that are true, like "That [epithet] is wearing blue jeans."
In NLP there's a saying that the meaning of a communication is the response you get. If you want a different response, try a different communication already, and stop bothering everyone with this low-status whining. It's a disgrace to everyone you claim to be speaking for, and everything you claim to be standing for.
Where are you getting that? I'm not objecting to framing the truth in a professional, reasoned tone. I'm objecting to your attempt to claim that two phrasings mean the same thing, when they really don't, thereby promoting a sort of uninformative politician-speak, as I explained here (and which you didn't address):
You seem to really be taking the concept of "ordering a woman around" to mean so freaking many benign things that the term no longer has any meaning. Doing so voids the usefulness of words and cripples the ability to clearly communicate on the issues.
"A man who knows what he wants, and isn't afraid to say it" does not, as you claim, equate to giving orders. And yet, PUAs do advise "giving orders", while an uninformed man who was simply told to "know what you want, and don't be afraid to say it" would not at all see how this means giving orders ... because the concept thereof isn't entailed by that advice!
While a professional, uninflammatory tone is preferable, it should never delete the substance of the claim, but that's exactly what your supposed rephrasings do.
The meaning of the communication is the response you get, and the intended response to the behavior described as "ordering around" is that the woman feel that she is with a man who "knows what he wants and isn't afraid to say it".
By omitting the intended response from the discussion, it is you who are distorting the communication.
So, why does it then surprise you if women feel excluded, when you are systematically excluding their goals and values from the discussion?
You are insisting that your particular selection of concepts is "the truth", when it is also the truth that women describe the benefits of these behavioral patterns in ways you deride as "uninformative politician-speak".
But clearly, it is NOT uninformative to women! They know what they like, but have difficulty breaking it into smaller chunks because they have evolved recognition machinery for it. And that is not their fault.
And just because at one time you didn't understand what this woman-speak means in men-speak, does not entitle you to claim that all women are therefore deluded, unhelpful liars and hypocrites, engaging in a campaign of mass deception to keep oppressed low-status men in their place with the conspiratorial assistance of the mass media.
This entire post was because of "exclusionary speech" -- talking about women in a way that excludes their goals and values from consideration. That's exactly what you're doing -- not just omitting those goals and values from your own statements, but actually objecting when anybody else brings them up.
Are you really not noticing this?
Agree, some of the suggested replacements destroy the communication. pjeby is naturally trying to force your words into a nice sounding (mostly true) framework that does not necessarily have room for your actual position. That's just what pjeby does in general. But in this instance do consider HughRistik's comment:
You know what I think replacing 'ordering her around' with 'give orders' does? It gets rid of politician-speak. You are trying to embed a message in there, and it obfuscates the advice. (And this is just an example from a trend!)
So, ignoring your caricature...
On one hand we have advice that is about body posture, and on the other hand we have advice that is about persuading yourself of things that are not true, such as thinking of an adult human as if they were a child.
And your question is why people react differently to either kind of advice, have I got that right?
So, ignoring your classification of cleavage as "body posture" ...
On one hand, we have advice for male-to-female engagement that has a solid history of enhancing male attractiveness and which is enjoyed by females, and on the other hand we have advice that is about manipulating men's hardwired judgment mechanisms, thereby subverting their better long-term interests.
And your question is why people condemn the first kind of advice, have I got that right?
Just because your objection parallels my comment in form doesn't automatically make its content a correct refutation; and someone other than me has warned you that the tactic doesn't serve you particularly well.
Do you or do you not agree that "think of her as a child" involves changing your mental state, while "show cleavage and arch your back" does not?
Your reply above directs attention away from this difference and toward the supposed "history of success" of the first form of advice.
This is shifting the goalposts, if your intent is still to understand why the first form is more often objected to. Whether the advice is sound or not is a separate matter.
Not sticking to one query is a classic reason why threads go out of hand (as this one has, once again).
I'm aware of how people get angry when their own argument methods are turned around and force them to think critically about the basis for their own beliefs -- though I don't think that's happening in your case. (The anger on your part isn't happening, I mean -- I do believe you are reflecting critically on your own beliefs, or at least are making a genuine effort.)
The point of me mimicking your form was not to be cute (although that was a neat side effect), but rather, to show that a simple reframing of the issue -- by highlighting different salient aspects -- would reverse the "obvious" answer to your question.
You claim advice about body posture to be benign, while believing false, offensive things is obviously bad by comparison. (The latter is a strawman of course: the advice is to, like an actor, go into a different mindset in order to have a generating function for your actions, which turns out to be preferable by the "target" of it. The advice is not to believe that adult women are disobedient children as if it were some more objective or universal aspect of reality.)
Of course I agree, but this is a poor metric. Isn't it more important what the advice causes in the other party's mind? If "think of her as a child" generates actions, on my part, that the woman deems preferable, what does it matter that my mental state is changed? If a woman uses attire and posture that causes me to "think below the waist", isn't the impact on my mental state more important -- because of the diminishing of informed consent [1] -- than the impact on the woman's mental state?
Because, as explained above, it's not apparent how that's a relevant metric or difference.
If the advice actually benefits women, that should negate any objectionability of the advice that is grounded on harm to women. Failure to speak frankly about the commonality of the kind of woman benefitting, while instead giving full weight to the supposedly-universal preferences of the most vocal feminists ... to me, that looks like a social failing.
[1] Yes, yes, I lose status by mentioning that this can happen, &c. C'est la vie.
It isn't usually a successful tactic, which is somewhat of a shame, given that it can serve to demonstrate how a particular (mis)use of argument is flawed. People on average don't have the respect for consistency that I would prefer.
OK, we're at least getting closer to something concrete:
It seems to me that "think of her as a child" is objectionable for the same reason that "think of the moon as being made of green cheese" would be: the proposition in question is false.
Whereas showing cleavage and arching your back have no comparable epistemic content. There is no "true shape of the breasts" or "true posture of the body", no facts of the matter that warrant a comparison as in the other case.
If it takes an essay to state where you stand on those, I'm happy to wait until later. But if you can briefly state your objection, I'd be interested to hear it.
You've got this backwards. Manipulating a man's perception of attractiveness in order to secure short-term mating is in a man's (evolutionary) interest. Manipulating a woman's perception of attractiveness to secure short-term mating, on the other hand, is not in a woman's (evolutionary) interest.
(Also, you conveniently ignored the bit where both manipulations are enjoyed by the recipients. If I weren't so certain you sincerely believe in your biased perspective, I'd have to conclude you were deliberately trolling at this point.)
pjeby said:
Nope, this is outdated. I'll try to return to it, but there are actually a lot of hypotheses that suggest that some types of short-term mating were adaptive for females. See the good genes hypothesis, sexy son hypothesis, and Hrdy's work on female choice.
(Practically everything else you've said in this discussion is gold, btw, so I hope you'll forgive me for being brusque.)
Why would men have evolved to have perceptions of attractiveness that don't track (are more conservative, when not manipulated, than would be in) their evolutionary interest?
Also, I thought we were talking about normative interests, what's actually good for someone. Why are you bringing up evolutionary interests in the first place?
This. Also the bit where both manipulations affect hardwired judgment mechanisms, of course.
You're filling in things that aren't there. A woman can use her looks to get non-sexual favors out of men, and the advice that gets her to that level of looks is widely and unashamedly given (though not of course the suggestion to use it for bad manipulation).
The advice that would get men to a comparable level of attractiveness (i.e. even using non-sexual manipulation goals as the standard), by contrast, is not widely and unashamedly given.
The parallel therefore holds, despite the difference in goals.
Unless you're talking about non-sexual mating goals, you've now broken the symmetry yourself.
No, you clearly haven't. The caricature you use in your dichotomy is absurd.
If people men are literally persuading themselves that women they wish to attract are children and then seducing them then they are acting, by intent, as paedophiles. Clearly the message trying to be sandwiched into 'think of her as a disobedient child' means something different. Something a lot more analogous to cleavage presentation in terms of the role played in attraction.
It's a good thing the English language has a milder word for the milder fallacy: "paternalism". It's still a fallacy, though.
No. Someone seducing someone they believe is a child then it isn't anything to do with paternalism.
Again, your dichotomy is absurd. 'Thinking of her like a disobedient child' does not mean 'persuading yourself of things that are not true'. Dating advisors don't recommend that men seduce females that they believe are children but still sometimes give this advice. They do not mean ''persuading yourself of things that are not true'.
Right, they mean "acting as if." By the way, Silas summary of that advice is a tiny bit extreme. I do hear "be dominant," and I sometimes hear "give orders," but "ordering her around" in general is not something I hear so commonly. I do hear "treat her like your bratty little sister" sometimes.
I was contemplating your post, and thinking that there's no concept in the culture for a woman who successfully manipulates men into having sex with her, though there are concepts around "slut" for having a lot of partners. Or more partners than the speaker approves of.
"Manipulative bitch" would be generally be for a woman who gets men to spend more resources on her than is approved of. I don't think the women other than his wife that Tiger Woods had sex with would be considered manipulative.
Seductress? And what is the label used for women who sleep with married men? Something about 'family destroyer', I don't recall exactly.
The difference seems to go along with the trend of 'sex for resources' in sexual relations. It is low status to be a female who gives sex for little return in resources while it is low status to be a male who gives resources without getting the sex that he desires. At the other side of the trade the 'player' and 'manipulative bitch' are of neutral or high status but also 'bad' and subject to intended social sanction by the one doing the labelling.
Homewrecker? (I am not at all surprised that this has 4 pages of definitions on urbandictionary.)
That's the one!
That one occurred to me, but I don't think of it as being in current use. However, I tend to hang out in places that are leftish, libertarian, and/or poly. I don't know about the whole culture.
Note that Google result counts on the first page of a search are approximate, not exact figures. On smaller result sets the actual count (as obtained by getting to the last page of the search results) can be close, or half, or even (that I've seen) a hundredth the approximated count. I would't conclude much of anything from the ratio of estimates with such large error bars.
Those aren't errors. If you repeat both searches with duplicates included, and go to the last page of results, you will find that Google is returning exactly 1000 for both. This is because Google never returns more than 1000, regardless of how many hits there are.
Comparing the estimates is the correct operation.
Do you have the empirical data to back up your unqualified assertions?
Try comparing Google's estimates to actual hit counts (as reported by going to the last page), with and without "similar results" included, for searches returning fewer than 1000 hits.
Here is one experimental result: estimated count 585, actual with similar results excluded 177, actual with similar results included 224.
I gave some: Google never returns more than 1000 hits. Therefore estimates orders of magnitude above 1000 (as in the case at hand) cannot be tested by looking at the actual number of hits returned: the two numbers have nothing to do with each other.
I do not know how accurate the estimates are, but a factor of several seems to be about right, as in the test you just made. I have also seen anomalies such as a search for X giving an estimate lower than for a search of X and Y, but never by orders of magnitude, that I've noticed.
That's worth knowing. Is there a source for non-obvious things about google searches?
Interesting.
How about the totals according to the last page, excluding "similar results"? That gives 899 for Manipulate Men and 893 for Manipulate Women. That ratio is pretty close to 1:1.
And the totals were way off from the front page estimates, by orders of magnitude. Maybe this reflects a lot of excluded similar results?
That wasn't the goal post that Silas was aiming for.
Look, I was trying to take Silas' belligerent meta level attack, and extract from it a object level argument for his position. It was not unreasonable for me to expect him to back up the supporting claim I identified before accepting it though. Then you claimed that this claim can be justified as common knowledge, and that was what I was arguing against in my previous comment.
I really am open to evidence on this. But I am frustrated by the unreasonable meta level attacks on motivations.
And I'm frustrated by your refusal to assimilate the lessons of You are entitled to evidence, but not that particular proof. Of course there won't be perfect, side-by-side examples we can compare, but we have to update on what we see, imperfect, or not. Before we get into a game of "why I get to ignore that evidence", I need to establish what kinds of things would count as evidence, even if they aren't ideal comparisons.
I asked to you to extrapolate out from the example I did give and ask what the reaction would be if EY's story extended to discussion of equally "useful", thorough techniques the male and female did to enhance attraction. As best I can tell, you dodged having to consider the logical implications of the hypothetical and instead preferred a test stacked in your favor, which assumes what you're trying to prove.
If you're frustrated, perhaps you can understand why I'm frustrated, and why I start positing theories for "what's really going on here", which you take offense at, but which are then vindicated when you bring up irrelevant comparisons as if they were part and parcel of the issue I was arguing about.
ETA: I have not been belligerent; I want to know if there's a broader issue we need to be discussing. Right or wrong, I have good reason to believe so. If I were trying to "explain" your arguments by reference to your mental health, that would be belligerent and offensive. But I would never dream of offering such an explanation. There's nothing offensive about suggesting there's a broader underlying issue; rather, it's often the key insight to resolving a dispute.
That is a really weird response to my attempt to extract from your post a different sort of evidence than what I had been asking for.
I am willing to to consider arguments that the comparisons are reasonable. I have explained that I am willing to consider such evidence.
I do note, however, that the side by side examples of both sorts of discussion in the same tone and style, both provoked no offense.
I don't update on hypothetical evidence. This is essentially asking me to assume the thing you are trying to support. My extrapolation is that they both become offensive at the same point. I don't think that point is even including useful information. It is advocating the use of that information to manipulate people to do things they would not endorse if they understood what was going on. I don't like making these predictions though because I don't have much evidence to go on.
Bringing it up the first time is an understandable mistake. You continued to push it after I informed you that your theory of me was wrong.
Though the thing I called belligerent was you accusing me of not updating on a point that you had not brought up. Don't you think it would be better to just present that point as one of the reasons for your suspicion? Would you like to put the meta level argument behind us and discuss it on the object level? I am willing to treat the larger world as reference class that has implications for Less Wrong. I don't accept the claim as common knowledge though, so you will have substantiate it by, for example, pointing to people's actual observed behavior.
The evidence PJEby provides here seems to support symmetry in reactions to the two sorts of discussion.
Great! Because I wasn't asking you to do such a thing. I was looking for a point of common agreement from which I could ground further arguments. (That's a normal way to resolve disagreements.)
You're kidding -- you're upset that I wouldn't take your self-serving statements at face value? All evidence shows I was exactly right. Like I explained to you once already, you presented this argument as contradicting my position, when in fact it contradicts a different one that I wasn't arguing for (and don't hold a contrary position on). This establishes that you see the issues as being related by a common factor ... exactly what I expected the whole time, and exactly the factor we should have been directing our attention toward early on.
Well, just like you can't update on hypothetical evidence, you can't claim your position is based on arguments you weren't even aware of until later. If you actually had such evidence in mind, you had numerous opportunities to present it, but you decided that you were "just curious why you should even be considering my position". It's a little late to claim that pjeby's points were motivating your objections, don't you think?
Silas, you're spending too much time talking about JGWeissman here. In his last post he offered to drop all meta points in this discussion and focus on object-level reality. If you think you're right about the issues accept his offer and move the discussion there.
This particular post is moving into sarcastic flamewar territory.
Wow, there is some serious miscommunication going on here. Maybe because I'm not using the keywords? Let's give that a try:
I agree that we should switch to the object level. But which object level? This discussion started on the object level issue of:
1) What is Silas's basis for suspecting (i.e. having a slightly tilted prior) that, between beauty-to-men and PUA-to-female biases, the latter will be more often unjustifiably hindered?
JGW showed a strange obsession with getting a lot of evidence from me to justify this suspicion. I inferred therefore that it's just one facet of a broader, important issue on which the larger community should be having a discussion. Despite his firm (but self-serving) denial, he eventually revealed what issue he had in mind:
2) Which gender, if any, is more manipulated/ manipulating/ repressed, and in what way?
During the course of all of this, another object-level discussion arose, similar to 1):
3) Can men get the same quality of advice for making themselves attractive to women that women do for men?
So which object-level discussion do you want?
1) is a minor, unimportant issue (one person's slightly tilted prior, in whch he wants to be proven wrong by future discussions? come on!)
2) is an issue I have no particular interest in at the moment.
3) is already having a robust discussion, in which I'm engaged.
So, what specifically should I be doing differently?
ETA: Okay, you folks will need to be a little more specific than a downmod; such an answer is somewhat vague here.
I have updated my position, from suspecting symmetry as the default case, to having moderate strength belief that the symmetry holds, mostly as a result of Eby's description of the symmetry which is much better than I could have done at the start of this discussion. I am more interested in figuring out if there is a symmetry, and what its nature is, than in arguing whether I was right from the beginning. If I always find that I am right from the beginning, I am probably not correctly evaluating whether I was right.
I brought that up as object level evidence of my position, not as evidence that my initial position was justified by my subjective state at the time. Because I really am serious about my offer to put behind us all the meta level issues, and focus on the object level. The offer still stands. Or, if you like, you can say you don't care if such an asymmetry exists, and we can drop the whole thing.
Sounds good. Please refer to the arguments I've presented in my exchange with pjeby, which are here and in the surrounding discussion.
(Note how I'm not hounding you to give me 100:1-likelihood-ratio evidence to justify your initial suspicion of symmetry. Cause that would just be wrong, you know?)