Vladimir_M comments on The Social Coprocessor Model - Less Wrong

22 [deleted] 14 May 2010 05:10PM

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

Comments (570)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 May 2010 01:40:07AM *  8 points [-]

Hauling a heavy box is not at all analogous to the drink example. When a woman asks a man for help with heavy physical work, this puts him in a much better initial position status-wise. She is the weaker party, asking for necessary assistance from his greater physical strength. Helping a weaker party from a position of greater power is a first-rank status-winning move. Therefore, it's best for him to do it cheerfully with a "that's nothing for a man like me" attitude; grumbling and saying "you owe me" is a bad idea since it suggests that he actually finds it hard, rather than an act of negligible difficulty from his superior position.

Of course, if a woman regularly exploits a man for such favors or makes him spend unreasonable time and effort helping her, that's another story altogether. However, a random request for some small help with a hard physical task nearly always conforms to this pattern of status dynamics.

In contrast, when a woman asks a man to buy her a drink, she is asking him to satisfy a random and capricious whim, not help her as a weaker party from a superior position. Therefore, acceptance carries no positive status signals at all, but instead signals that he is willing to obey her whims for the mere privilege of her company. Compared to the box example, it's like accepting to pay extortion money versus giving to charity. The former is an expression of weakness and submission, the latter a dispensation of benevolence.

Comment author: whpearson 18 May 2010 09:29:42AM 0 points [-]

My point was more that the situations could be confused by people with broken social coprocessors and inappropriate behaviour translated across from one domain to another. Without a lot of explanation of the appropriateness.

Buying drinks can also be seen as someone weaker (financially) asking someone stronger. Considering that men earn more on average than women, and if you are picking up college girls and have a real job that is likely to be even more the case. So I don't see the way that these situations can be easily distinguished that way by someone without much social experience.

I agree about the grumbling, don't grumble about the weight, grumble about the time taken.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 18 May 2010 10:35:16AM 10 points [-]

Buying drinks can also be seen as someone weaker (financially) asking someone stronger. Considering that men earn more on average than women, and if you are picking up college girls and have a real job that is likely to be even more the case. So I don't see the way that these situations can be easily distinguished that way by someone without much social experience

I have a few meta-rules of thumb in such matters:

  1. Anything can mean anything.

  2. Corollary: Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by intelligence.

  3. The rules are never what anyone says they are.

  4. The rules may not even be what anyone thinks they are.

  5. Nevertheless, there are rules.

  6. It is your job to learn them, and nobody's job to teach them to you.

  7. All advice, however universally it may be expressed, is correct only in some specific context.

Application of the last to the whole is left as an exercise. :-)

Comment author: thomblake 18 May 2010 12:21:09PM 1 point [-]

This whole list is brilliant. Particularly,

Corollary: Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by intelligence.

This makes "Never explain ... stupidity" a special case of this rule!

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 May 2010 07:10:36PM 2 points [-]

whpearson:

My point was more that the situations could be confused by people with broken social coprocessors and inappropriate behaviour translated across from one domain to another. Without a lot of explanation of the appropriateness.

Well, yes, but that's what explanations are for. Once you grasp the underlying principles, it's not that complicated -- and more importantly, you gradually start to make correct judgments instinctively.

I agree about the grumbling, don't grumble about the weight, grumble about the time taken.

No, if you understand the status dynamic fully, you'll realize that you shouldn't grumble at all. Grumbling, of whatever sort, indicates that you assign a significant cost to the act, and in order to come off as high-status, you must make it look like it's a negligible expense of effort from your lofty high-status position, a casual dispensation of benevolent grace. As soon as you make it seem like you perceive the act as costly in any way, it looks like you're making the effort to fulfill her wishes, clearly displaying inferior status to hers.

Comment author: whpearson 18 May 2010 11:28:52PM 0 points [-]

Remember we are talking about nerdy girls, that is not the norm that the PUA deals with. I remember a recent post by someone saying that nerdy girls prefer men who dominate everything but them. I can't remember who posted it, at the moment.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 May 2010 12:02:11AM 2 points [-]

Getting back to an earlier discussion of whether more women are wanted at LW..... anyone who's likely to show up here is nerdy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember, and keep remembering, and make it clear in your writing, that "women" are not a monolithic block and don't all want the same thing.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 19 May 2010 04:31:06AM *  4 points [-]

NancyLebovitz:

anyone who's likely to show up here is nerdy.

Assuming that there are non-Anglospheric folks here, this is probably an unjustified generalization due to a cultural bias. The idea that smart people interested in the sorts of things discussed here have to conform to the stereotype of "nerdiness" is a historically recent North American cultural phenomenon, which doesn't necessarily hold in other places. It's actually a rather curious state of affairs by overall historical standards.

Your observation is probably accurate statistically, though.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 May 2010 09:02:54AM 0 points [-]

That's interesting. Any theories about what's going on?

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 19 May 2010 11:11:44AM 2 points [-]

People who appear socially low-status can end up in economically high-status knowledge-based professions in an industrial society, which upsets people's intuitions of how the social hierarchy should work. Put-downs have evolved for making things look right again.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 May 2010 12:56:46PM 0 points [-]

Could be.

I still find American anti-intellectualism kind of shocking. Do you know if there are other cultures where children reliably punish each other for getting good grades?

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 19 May 2010 02:44:15PM 0 points [-]

I don't really know how it's distributed. There seems to be a generally stronger streak of anti-intellectualism in America than in Europe, and kids probably pick that up. A poor primary education system may make the problems worse by making education gaps wider and by leaving children with a poor grasp on how the wider society functions.

I've the impressions that things are somewhat more US-like in Britain and that studying science is more appreciated in the former Soviet bloc, but I don't know how accurate these are. Education seems to be very highly valued in China and India. I've no idea about the rest of the world.

Comment author: BenAlbahari 19 May 2010 12:27:22AM *  -1 points [-]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember, and keep remembering, and make it clear in your writing, that "women" are not a monolithic block and don't all want the same thing.

A woman who doesn't want a generalization applied to them? :)