komponisto comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 July 2009 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (647)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 April 2010 02:47:07PM 5 points [-]

You're considering whether advertising is problematic and/or should be legal without looking at whether people on the receiving end of advertising want it or benefit by it.

If someone wrote in Less Wrong about successful techniques of advertising, and said it must be a good thing because people buy what's advertised, I don't think it would go over entirely well.

Even before I'd read Rain's comment, I was willing to bet that most LWers limit their exposure to advertising-- not so much for political reasons or for fear of it, as just that it's low information repetitive input. I admit I'm generalizing from myself on this one, though it's worth noting that even the general public tends to avoid tv ads if they can.

One thing that's clear from the akrasia and luminosity discussions is that not everything in people's minds can be relied on to make their lives better. It's reasonable to be concerned about inputs from people who are trying to influence your mind and have specific goals which do not include your welfare.

In the case of PUA, saying that some women like that approach (which is true), or that PUAs mean well (which is neither trustworthy [1] nor relevant) substitutes for a general follow-up on how women who've been PUAd perceive the experience later,.

At this stage, advertising may well be less effective than PUA-- for most things, it isn't personally directed. A small story-- I know a person who used to sell stuffed dragons, and she said she sold them by finding the little part of the potential customer which wanted one ot the dragons, and (by implication) getting that part of the person to make the decision. She didn't see any problems with that, but I later met someone who wouldn't go near that woman's table because of being afraid of getting talked into buying a dragon she didn't want all that much.

Even if the sales effort had been more carefully constructed so that anyone who bought a stuffed dragon would not be capable of regretting it, there would be more consent issues, not fewer.

If advertising becomes that effective, I don't know how this should be addressed legally or philosophically. I do think there are problems.

[1] Some PUAs start from a position of resenting women for turning them down.

Comment author: komponisto 14 April 2010 03:14:39PM 2 points [-]

saying that some women like that approach (which is true), or that PUAs mean well (which is neither trustworthy [1] nor relevant)

[1] Some PUAs start from a position of resenting women for turning them down

At the risk of being seen standing up for low-status males, I feel obliged to point out that that's not incompatible with "meaning well".

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 April 2010 04:09:21PM 2 points [-]

It's not incompatible with meaning well, but I wouldn't recommend taking their word that they aren't doing harm.