HughRistik comments on What is missing from rationality? - Less Wrong

19 [deleted] 27 April 2010 12:32PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (260)
Tags: winning rationality signaling

Comments (260)

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

Comment author: HughRistik 30 April 2010 05:55:07PM 4 points [-]

Virtually nothing Roissy writes about game is new or original, including his reference to the Matrix, which I've seen used about 5 years ago. He just succeeded in popularizing it to new audiences, and linking it with conservative politics. Roissy is not an important or representative figure in the larger community.

Comment author: mattnewport 30 April 2010 06:00:51PM 6 points [-]

As a note of caution to those not familiar with the name, Roissy might be construed as an example of the 'worst advocates' of PUA by many. He is a talented writer and at least thought provoking, arguably quite insightful, but Tyler Cowen described him as EVIL and he is not for the faint of heart. Anyone tempted to google the name is probably at least owed a NSFW warning (purely text based NSFW) and possibly a NSFTEO (The Easily Offended) warning.

Comment author: arundelo 30 April 2010 09:55:02PM 9 points [-]

I stopped reading his stuff when I realized it was having a negative effect on how I think of women, sexuality, and my own sexual identity. (I am a hetero male).

Comment author: [deleted] 19 January 2012 11:24:29PM *  1 point [-]

Funny that he does so partially for a set of reasons that are falling into disfavour on LessWrong.

My question is which parameter value he incorrectly estimates; after all, he is not just evil he is also imprudent in missing the joys of monogamy and matrimony. I believe that most of all, he underestimates his transparency to his observers in real life. I sometimes call this the endogeneity of face to thought and thus his face must be somewhat evil too. Since his strategies cause him to spend time only with women he can fool, he doesn’t correctly perceive how he is wrecking his broader reputation; the same is probably true for the rest of us as well.

This also piqued my interest:

(But IS he evil? Is there not a theorem which suggests that rule-governed sweet young things will in fact overinvest in the rule and, if you could selectively induce "rule disengagement," human welfare might rise? But no…that theorem was refuted some time ago.)

I'm not quite sure what he is referring to.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit