= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Let them eat cake: Interpersonal Problems vs Tasks - 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 (568)
Well, I don't know who you hang out with, but I've heard that tale quite a bit.
But you're absolutely right about one thing: many times it does in fact lead to the situations you describe, which creates a serious problem: if many women "encourage" and enjoy this persistant behavior, while others hate it ... well, a huge chunk of men will have expected positive utility from persistence, and most men will be in a difficult position: "Is this a real rejection, or an indication that I need to more seriously signal interest?"
And of course, the "persistent" types cross over to those that don't like persistent men, making women worse off too.
But at the same time, women arguably might not even want there to be a universal, reliable, required rejection signal [1], because men will know exactly how much interest they have to show! (ETA: which is bad because the signal given by a man's persistance is no longer a reliable indicator of his liking of/commitment to you, because all men will just shift to the minimum level of persistence, which thereby becomes uninformative.)
[1] The signal I described means that if women actually like the guy, they must not give the signal, while if they don't like him, they must give the signal, no exceptions: no desires for persistent men that continue after receiving the signal. Note that violent resistance would not qualify as such a signal, because women do not, and would not commit to, using violence against every man they're not interested in.
In fact, at the higher end of the status game some of the early process seems to be in using the rejection signals used to deter lower status guys as tests to see if the guy has both the confidence and social experience to convey that those moves apply to those other guys, not him. At that level the difference between an engaged challenge and outright disinterest is usually clear and stalking is not a particular problem.
Amen! If the guy isn't confident enough to get over a little 'hard to get', then he's probably inexperienced and not worth bothering with. Many women do this both consciously and unconsciously. However, "Leave me the fuck alone," may be the unambiguous rejection signal you're looking for.
So, unless I hear "Leave me the fuck alone" (or similar variants), I can safely assume it's just a game of "hard to get"?
I'll follow that advice, but only if you have to endure the consequences.
Well, I mean that it's a universal signal as opposed to varying in each person. There are many other signals that mean the same thing, but they are not universally applicable in all circumstances.
Okay then. For now, I suggest you consider the incentive structure that results from women who have held both of these positions at some time or another.
"Geez! Why can't this guy take a hint and buzz off?"
"Pff, only a complete wuss would go away just because I asked him to. If he were worth my time he would have kept it up."
This is an oversimplification of something very complex involving many subtle nuances. It's sorta like saying Newton was wrong because a bowling ball falls faster than a feather... What is meant by asked for example. "Leave me alone" vs "I'm just going to have to walk across that room mister," are not equivalent.
I'm sure it is, but just for the record, your explanation isn't going to deconfuse any poor male who isn't deconfused to begin with. (Perhaps you already know that.)
Well, pardon my frustration, but point of these questions is to make sense of and reveal these nuances, which is why the earlier answers you gave weren't what I was looking for.
Obviously, if a woman says something sarcastic and teasing, that's ... flirting, not a rejection. The problem cases are more common and more ambiguous. If a request for a date is flatly turned down, how do you know if it's a test, or if further pursuit constitutes harassment? If I'm ignored, is that a test, or am I beting told to go away?
It may seem clever to use this as a filter, but, as I think I've demonstrated, there are disastrous consequences to it. You can't simultaneously promote "No means No, morons!" and "I like when guys aren't deterred by rejection."
The stakes are even higher when it comes to date rape, but I'm sure as hell not going to spell out the mapping on that one.
Someone who says "I'm just going to have to walk across that room mister" or similar, is not necessarily being sarcastic/flirtatious. More generally, there's genuine uncertainty about "hard to get" plays: the best that can be said about them is that they are not solid evidence either way, although they do "up the ante", so they're not without effect from a "strategic" point of view.
Luckily, a reasonably knowledgeable guy generally has collected enough bits of evidence to make a proper decision. Nevertheless, even the most confident pick-up artist would take a statement such as "leave me alone" at face value unless there was very solid evidence to the contrary.
Most guys have the opposite problem: they are overconfident (or more rarely, underconfident) about their counterparty's interest in them, and find it hard to properly update their estimate in the face of available information. The only way around this problem is for such people to train in LessWrong-style debiasing and improve their "dating/seduction/etc." skills, as detailed in the OP. Focusing on the "nuance" of verbal statements is a mistake.
Yes.
What leads to this impression? My impression is that the majority of males are underconfident. But it may vary depending on subculture and peer group.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of women who flatly reject an offer for a date or continually ignore an advance, do NOT want to be pursued further. There are exceptions, and some people do change their minds, but if that's what you meant by 'rejection,' then No means No. Hard to get is a more complicated dance than "Will you go out with me," "Uhhh.... you're not my type. No."
But it's not nearly as simple as you just portrayed it.
I mean, we all like to feel superior as we shake our heads in contempt at the poor guy who just won't give up. She's obviously not into you, man! She told you "no". Just let it go!
Er ... until we look over there and see the women talking glowingly about how charming and romantic it was for her husband/fiance/current boyfriend to keep pursuing her even when she flatly told him no, and is now glad that he didn't take her seriously then.
Given those cases, it's quite a bit more understandable why a man would refuse to give up on such an "obvious" case.
Yes you can. And that cuts back to the core of the OP.
Oh, the "the fuck" part is essential? Good to know.