= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA - 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 (616)
It was rhetorical understatement, perhaps -- not quite the same thing as dishonest arguing. But note that what is meant here is "less than optimally attractive among their own options".
As for men and fat-bashing, etc., yes, that's also quite bad. However, I was under the impression that criticizing this was already far from taboo in elite circles
In any event, I don't want to deny any symmetry that may exist, and I don't think it would be fair to impute such a denial to me on the grounds that I specifically discussed only one side of the coin.
(And it's interesting how so far no one has noticed the parenthetical sentence at the end of my comment.)
The one about sexual jealousy? I thought it was foolish, but not in a way directly relevant to the part I was most motivated to critique, so I let it be. Women experience sexual jealousy too; implying that it's the special province of men has the weird consequence of implying that women would all rather be some flavor of poly, which is false.
It didn't imply that, any more than the earlier part implied that men never reject women.
The proposal was that male sexual jealously is analogous to female mate selectivity in the specific way I was discussing.
Also, really, I think "foolish" is unnecessarily hostile language. Wouldn't "incorrect" suffice?
In this thread, you have used language and expressed opinions which have sounded antagonistic and upsetting to me. I did not intend to be hostile in return, and apologize if my emotional state has caused me to use poor word choice in such a way as to upset you.
This is perhaps the best reason for creating some kind of spin-off or sub-community along the lines of that suggested in the post. Some people, for whatever reason, find this sort of discussion personally upsetting or objectionable. Currently that means there will either be posts and comments that cannot be made at all or conversations will end up being derailed with people claiming (and giving) offence.
If there was a spin off site for rationalist socialization discussion then comments on LW that enter the political minefield that is sex can be deemed off topic and redirected. Readers who are offended by discussion of PUA, etc, will be able to read LW freely. Commenters on the subsite who are irritated by repetitive responses that seem hostile to them will be able to manage that community with the standard "do not feed trolls" rule.
Does what the women are upset about make any sense to you?
Reading your post gives me the impression that you think topics related to sex just blow up for no particular reason, but I may be wrong.
wedrifid said:
I disagree. This is exactly the sort of discussion that needs to happen between rationalists with different sorts of life experiences (e.g. male and female rationalists). The controversial nature of these subjects shows why it needs to be hashed out, not that these subjects need to be avoided. Of course, individuals are free to bow out of these discussions.
Nancy said:
Yes, put particular details about the exchange don't quite make sense to me.
Originally, SarahC made the point that pickup won't guarantee men success with women, and women are still free to reject PUAs. I don't quite understand why she brought up this point in the first place, and I'm not sure why she speculated about a potential for violence. PUAs know very well that their methods don't guarantee success with any particular woman, and they work very hard on coping strategies to deal with rejection. She said:
This quote made me wonder if SarahC thinks that any complaint of unfairness by men in the dating world is evidence of "entitlement" and "creepiness." I didn't get on her case about this, because I know that she has run into some of the more icky PUA stuff, which could well give her the impression that PUAs hold such attitudes. Instead, I asked her why she might not believe that PUAs recognize the validity of women rejecting them.
Yet I think komponisto asked a good question: whether SarahC would judge complaints in other domains (like getting hired for a job) by the same standard, and consider frustration and complaints of unfairness to be evidence of "entitlement" and "creepiness."
Unfortunately, in the same comment, komponisto made this point:
More on that comment, later.
Alicorn pointed out that sexual interaction is qualitatively different from other forms of interaction, such as hiring. Furthermore, she observed that given the prevalence of sexual violence, we should have higher priors that men might react to rejection with violence, that we should have for job-seekers.
While granting the distinctions Alicorn observes between men trying to date women, and job hunters, I'm still not sure why we got on the subject of sexual violence. The reason is because Alicorn's priors may apply to the reference class of all men, but with PUAs, we have a different reference class. We know that PUAs are interested in figuring out and fulfilling women's criteria, which seems at odds with PUAs feeling "entitled" and that women's rejections of them are "unfair."
Alicorn may have some other reference classes that influence her priors about PUAs. Still, I don't think it was appropriate for SarahC to jump from the observation of PUAs claiming methods that consistent attract women, to the notion that PUAs might get frustrated if these methods don't work, hold a sense of creepy entitlement, and potentially respond with violence. I fully acknowledge that SarahC might have good reasons to hold such suspicions, but she hasn't yet shared what they are.
Now, let's return to reactions to komponisto's comment.
I fully understand why this comment pattern-matches so many negative things. It does sound like komponisto might be advocating that women be sexual with men in situations where they aren't sure they want to be sexual (or don't want to be sexual). I had the same reaction as pjeby.
It's useful for komponisto to know the problematic interpretations of his comment. It's understandable that Alicorn wasn't able to read it charitably, but that doesn't mean that a more charitable interpretation doesn't exist. pjeby suggested one, for instance:
The charitable interpretation: komponisto wasn't suggesting that women should do things they don't want with men; he was suggesting that they be less conservative in what they want with men in the first place. He explains in his next post:
After he said this, I was kinda wanting one of the women in the thread to say "OK, now I see what you mean."
In my view, discussions about sex on LW blow up for many reasons, and only one of those reasons is men being insensitive.
I've often noticed that women seem to be running a "creepiness detection routine" towards men's sexuality. In real life, there are good reasons for them to do so. In internet conversations, it's useful for men to know what kind of arguments trigger that routine, because those arguments potentially sound like their aren't respectful of women's bodily autonomy, self-determination, and consent.
Simultaneously, it's also useful for women to know that many men are sick of negative associations with their sexuality, and the expansive application of the word "creepy." Note MC_Echerischia's brusque response:
I think that women having a "creeped out" response triggered is useful data for discussion on LessWrong, but I don't want to see it running the discourse here. If such a reaction is presented, it's probably most useful to try to explain where it's coming from. Clarification of the creepy statement can always be requested.
I find it a shame that Alicorn isn't currently willing to discuss possible criticisms of women's preferences, and that komponisto subsequently bowed out of the discussion. I respect the preference of both those individuals to not want to engage in such a discussion at this time, but I think that those discussions are important, and I wish they could occur here.
Personally, I'm not very interested in criticizing women's preferences because I'm skeptical about how malleable people's preferences are, yet since (as mattnewport points out ) it's culturally acceptable to critique the basis for men's preferences in women, I think it should be an open question what level of choice people have over their mating preferences, and what could be reasons for them to change their preferences.
I agree that this sentence of komponisto's is where things blew up.
Too conservative for who? Who gains under the new system? He frames it as women "granting sexual favors", not, for example, as women having more fun or a larger selection of potential mates or anything else they might want. I think that's where the entitlement issues showed up.
I think everyone would be better off if men were less picky about women's appearances. If you optimize for that one thing, it's harder to optimize for anything else, including various sorts of compatibility.
However, I think it would be rude to push that point of view-- it seems so clear that men want what they want, and generally don't want to want to be different. (I think there was someone here who did want to want to have broader tastes in women, but couldn't manage it.)
There might be some binary thinking going on-- "should be less conservative about granting sexual favors" may be apt to trigger memories of the least attractive men who wanted them rather than the men who just barely didn't make the cut. "Granting sexual favors" does suggest a high-to-low status situation.
When I suggested men being less picky about women's appearance, did that seem to imply being attracted to somewhat less currently physically attractive women, or being attracted to women you currently find physically very unattractive?
More komponisto:
What is to be done by who? Why should they care? And, for that matter, how much work would it take for women to adjust their desires, and by what means?
I don't know if I should be blaming anyone for not getting this aspect of things since it's taken me this long to drag it into consciousness, but I think this is why the creep-o-meter and physical danger alarms are going off.
In a previous discussion, someone was making a utilitarian calculation which seemed to ignore women's interests-- and when I asked him about it, it turned out that he had. I didn't underline it at the time, but it's really unnerving to be that much of a blank spot.
Very true.
It would be interesting if this were something that was subject to chemical modification. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing one could verbally persuade a man about - but if there was something that reduced pickiness with say the same side effect profile that caffeine has towards increasing alertness I think it would be a good addition to our culture.
It might be possible to verbally persuade some men that this was worth working on-- but it might also take considerable work just to find usable methods.
I've read one account of a man who found that pornography was giving him irrational standards about what women ought to look like and do, and that staying away from pornography for a while (months?) recalibrated his standards towards actual women.
For a science fictional look at the possible effects of not being able to see facial beauty, see Ted Chiang's "Liking What You See: A Documentary".
Don't we call this substance 'beer'?
I agree with this. The problem I seek to avoid by having an alternate place for such discussions is that of having the vast majority of discussion effort diverted to 'meta' discussion. Currently discussion of what human sexual preferences (gender typical and otherwise) are and what techniques are most useful in social interactions are extremely diluted. Most actually interesting material that can be used to enhance our models of the world ends up only included as footnotes and tangents among justifications and criticisms of stereotypes.
I would like people to make posts and comments on the actual subject matter. I'd like it if the majority of replies to be agreement, disagreement, elaboration and general discussion of the ideas contained therein. Because then I'd have a chance to learn something new.
Altering one's preferences, especially ones as deeply lodged as ones about sexuality, is a difficult project. I expect I could accomplish certain hacks in myself because self-modification is something I practice and have developed good instincts about. I don't expect women in general to share this ability. So what would it accomplish to hammer out a new set of ideal preferences that it would be better if women had instead? They can't adopt them on purpose even if they see the logic indicating that they should. At best, they can follow a norm that has them act as though they adopt these new preferences, and that just has them acting contrary to their own real preferences to suit those of men.
If there's some point to entertaining criticism of women's preferences (as opposed to my own atypical preferences which are unlikely to percolate out into the population) that I have missed, do please let me know.
If altering preferences is so easy then the men could alter themselves to be bisexual and solve the problem...
Not advocating that, but if we talk about altered preferences, that is the simplest solution.
Obligatory SMBC link.
Summoned Demon: Any wish you have is yours, for the price of your soul!
Angel: Don't do it! No wish could justify an eternity of suffering.
Demon Summoner: I want to be bisexual, immune to STDs and have absolutely no standards.
Angel: S@#T
Demon: whistles.
Angel: That's good.
Hah, I think about this solution almost every time that women test my nerves! But then I look at the gay/bi people I know, and their lives seem to have even more drama than mine. (That could be some selection effect though...)
In a nutshell-of-simplification, I believe this statement is false.
I think people's preferences -- or apparent preferences -- are more malleable than that. As people learn more -- about the world, themselves, and other people -- and learn to think -- if not faster, then at least more powerfully -- they may become susceptible to arguments they wouldn't have been susceptible to before, and the suboptimal game-theoretic equilibrium inherited from the past may begin to break down. At the very least, people are diverse enough that there are bound to be some for whom this is true more than for others. As a result, there is no reason that I can see not to entertain discussion of possible preference-modifications. An individual may find that a particular proposed modification is too difficult to implement, or would even perhaps conflict with deeper, more important preferences; but it is not reasonable in my view for such an individual to thereby conclude that the possibility was not worth considering, or that there won't be a significant number, now or in the future, of other individuals for whom the outcome of this kind introspection will be different.
Still less do I think it reasonable for anyone to attempt to suppress such discussions by means of psychological bullying tactics such as implying -- against all plausibility -- that having such a discussion will noticeably increase the risk to the personal safety of participants on this forum. Such an attempt at suppression may be pardonable, if the fear is genuine, and especially if it comes from somebody whom one has met and likes; but the mere fact that it is pardonable does not make it reasonable, when one's own prior for such fears being rationally justified is somewhere between the probability of a summer snowstorm in Miami and the probability (speaking of sex and violence) that a certain American exchange student and her boyfriend of one week got together with a local drifter to end the life of her friend and roommate in the course of a sadistic orgy held under the influence of cannabis. Exaggeration in the previous sentence is minimal; and no, before anyone asks (or pounces), such a low prior does not derive from beliefs about the statistical incidence of certain kinds of violence, but rather from beliefs about their causal mechanisms.
Thank you for your attention, as it is said by some.
I don't think that the safety concern was limited to the safety of participants in this forum? Why ever would you come to the conclusion that it was? If anything, personal anecdote has been used only to demonstrate prior thought about the subject matter.
And I am also wondering why you think that criticism of such discussion, even if it verges on "psychological bullying", can be called "suppression" without engaging in exaggeration which is far beyond the "minimal".
There are certain ideas, the expression of which is protected by the ideals of liberty and by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. That protection does not extend to protection from being criticized. There are some ideas that have been expressed here that should be criticized. In an ideal community, they would be widely criticized.
The reason for criticizing them is similar in some ways to criticism of use of the "N word". It is not so much that the word or the idea is offensive to someone. It is that if that kind of aggressive and abusive verbal behavior is tolerated, then more people will engage in it, and the aggression and abuse will simply escalate to something more physical. Because, make no mistake about it, the behavior I am seeing is exactly analogous that of an adolescent boy testing to see how much he can get away with.
It is reasonable to take precautions even against small risks, when those risks are the sort you run into again and again and must develop habits about. I wear seatbelts even during short car trips with safe drivers in good weather in daylight with minimal traffic at low speed. It is costly to evaluate those factors of risk separately each time I get into a car. It is costly to evaluate the factors that lead you to see this thread as definitely not harmful to me.
Perhaps it is harmless. I've never been injured in a car accident, either (although I've been wearing seatbelts each time I've been in one). But I put on my seatbelt as a reflex which it is unsafe to tamper with, and I ask for protective conventions in conversations on this subject as a reflex which it is unsafe for me to tamper with. Inviting me to take off my metaphorical seatbelt, without a reason other than it being inconvenient for you, demonstrates a willingness to take my concerns lightly and to substitute your judgment for mine. Interestingly, that doesn't make me feel safer.
I found that part of komponisto's comment creepy, and I'm neither a woman, nor do I have anything against men wanting more sex.
The suggestion in the comment, though, was creepy for precisely the same reason that the "this could lead to violence" arguments are creepy: both are attempts to influence others to change their actions via social disapproval, rather than through more positive/egalitarian means.
I find this sort of victim-rhetoric (i.e., "I'm helpless so YOU should change") to be equally offensive, regardless of the kind of victimhood claimed, or the gender of the self-described victim.
(Of course, since I own my offense, I don't project this back into the world to say that either komponisto or Alicorn are therefore bad people who should be punished or prevented from speaking. IOW, I am not a victim.)
I would like to move at least one branch of this conversation to a more abstract level. What, exactly, is your objection to attempting to influence the behavior of others by means of social disapproval? How is it non-egalitarian? Do you disapprove only of negative social pressure, or do you also deplore positive social pressures?
Are you perhaps of the opinion that all forms of disapproval should be kept to oneself? Or is it only organized campaigns of disapproval that draw your ire? Or, maybe is it that, in these cases, you are not in sympathy with the behavior-modification objectives, so naturally you don't care for the methods?
Could you suggest a more positive/egalitarian way in which komponisto could influence Alicorn, or Alicorn influence komponisto other than expressions of disapproval?
If I were to be more precise, I would say that I disapprove of people attempting to use a claimed victim status as a way to target behaviors they personally dislike, by:
IMO, in a rationalist community, if you dislike something, you bloody well ought to be able to say you dislike it and why, without needing to claim you represent a class of people and calling for people to announce/signal their factional alliances. That's divisive and unhelpful, no matter how "right" your position might be.
It's possible that I'm biased, but I don't think that it's in the way you describe. For one thing, if komponisto's real objective were to influence women's preferences towards "granting sexual favors", then the obvious thing to do would be to promote the decriminalization and destigmatization of prostitution -- something I'd wholeheartedly support as well. So in that case at least, it's not about a lack of sympathy with the stated objective.
On the flip side, I think that some LW commenters are insensitive to their readers (male and female on both sides) and that it's occasionally annoying and/or offensive to many, and that it would be better if those parties got better at communicating without projecting their stereotypes onto others.
So, I'm not entirely out of sympathy there either... I just think there are better ways to address it, by engaging and educating, and giving people an option to be the "good guy" by changing, rather than casting them in the "bad guy" role that just creates polarization.
Find out what the other person wants, and then find a way to give them what they want so you can get what you want. Isn't that the very essence of the PUA concept being discussed here?
To the extent that people on either side of the debate fail to look into what people on the other side actually want -- as opposed to projecting their own negative stereotypes in the other side's direction -- no actual communication will take place.
Why did I bring it up? Because I was worried about this George Sodini business, and because the promotional material you showed me seemed excessively optimistic in its promises of success with women, and because I think the kind of man having enough trouble that he's willing to pay for a seduction course might be less astute and less realistic than average. I do think desperate guys can get suckered in by promises, and by an ideology that makes seduction look like victory. I think bad things can happen when you tell unhappy people "Here is a way for you to triumph over all the [insert bad word, maybe "political correctness police"] who are keeping you down." That pattern has played out many times and sometimes the results are undesirable. It's just something to be careful about.
On the other hand, you (HughRistic) have been very reasonable, and I'm pretty sure your kind of PUA is a good thing, and you obviously aren't a desperate person in the grip of an ideology. Maybe that kind of thing is rare; I've seen it on the internet but obviously that doesn't tell me if it's common.
I don't think "any complaint of unfairness in the dating world" is creepy. I just don't. I don't think anybody around here is creepy. I think creeps are creepy. I thought we might be able to agree to be anti-creep.
You come up with a system like PUA, I think it's fair to ask you to disclaim unethical use of it. It must get tiring after a while, but that's the way things work. People who make and play video games have to say, over and over again, "No, games do not make people go on shooting sprees, and we're doing our best not to encourage that." I'm sure they're sick of it, but they've made themselves the ambassadors of their art, like it or not. People will judge your art based on its ambassadors.
Wow. Just... wow.
So... anyone with poor social skills is "less astute and less realistic than average"?
I suspect that your estimation of how much "trouble" is "enough" is way off, and consequently, your estimation of how many men end up in the "willing to pay" category... and hence, whether you can reasonably compare those folks to the "average".
I know a guy with a $20 million/year training business, that sells many products at $20 and under. That's one guy, in a business with literally dozens of big names, and maybe a hundred small ones.
And that's with his (and everybody else's) products being massively pirated. Even men who aren't willing to pay, are still getting the material. Especially since there is tons of it available for free as well via internet forums (though the free stuff is not always of the best quality).
Ironically, it is the men who are willing to pay the most, who are most likely to be exposed to high-quality, low-deception, maximally self-improvement oriented material. Sadly, this is because it's (comparatively speaking) a niche market.
IOW, the average guy wants a quick fix - the dating equivalent of the little blue pill. And the only reason that more guys don't buy the products (that I've heard from internet marketing discussions with the guys who sell them) is that their main point of sales resistance is admitting they "have enough trouble" to need the product!
In other words, the average guy wishes he were better at meeting/relating to women, but thinks (since all his friends are signaling that they're studs) that he's the only one having any trouble, and therefore must be a loser.
(Note: this is the average guy, meaning "most of the male population", not "average guy that women already relate to", which might explain why you think the average guy is below-average.)
Neil Strauss's book (and Mystery's show) have actually done men an enormous service by making it less "weird" to be interested in improving one's skills at meeting or relating to women, so that interest in the subject isn't necessarily signaling to your peers that you're not as good as they're all pretending to be.
In short, it's only above average men (in success with women) who don't wish, at some point in their lives, that they were better at meeting or relating to women.
(Do remember that while the marketing rhetoric tends to "have any woman/as many women you want", this is so that the average purchaser will say to themselves, "well, I just want to be able to meet/talk to The One, so that ought to be really easy if I get this product, and if I can do more that's just a bonus".)
I'm trying to imagine a marketing campaign-- maybe "good sense at reasonable prices". Seriously, is it that small a niche?
Thanks, Sarah, that answers my question. If you said this stuff in the first place, it would have helped me understand why you brought up the issue of violence. I still think it's a bit of a stretch to connect George Sodini to pickup (he did actually take a pickup seminar at one point, but obviously had deeper problems) to pickup, though I do grant some of what PUAs write sounds adverserial towards women.
I agree with pjeby's response on this point.
I realize that, and I know it's not your fault or my fault that so many of the ambassadors of pickup suck. That's why I'm trying to talk about it in a way that sounds reasonable and morally neutral, so I can see what people think of it whens it's translated into a language that isn't so off-putting.
Yes.
I know the reasons well enough to realise that the 'blowing up' will not go away without creating a separate place for discussing such topics in an objective, rational manner. I wouldn't dream of demanding that people refrain from taking the discussion personally on LW. When on a subsite dedicated to game theory as directly applied to humans then I would expect people to refrain from sabotaging objective discussions, when there is a very real opportunity to simply not to expose themselves to them.
Claiming offence is an extremely powerful political weapon. In a value neutral sense, ensuring that a topic blows up is an attempt to assert political influence on the outcome. And politics is the mind killer. I would like there to be a place to discuss topics related to sex in a purely objective manner. Because it just facts. Facts are just true of false. Not outrageous or unacceptable.
I don't know if it's possible to discuss anything in a purely objective manner, sex especially, since it's a topic into which most people bring a lot of biases regardless of how objective and rational they're trying to be. If such a topic is discussed by a group of people who are likely to have the same set of biases towards the subject, then that can create a blind spot. And sex in particular requires deep understanding of both men's and women's psychology and socialization to make headway on, so there may be a limit to how much a discussion involving only one sex could accomplish. I wouldn't want to lose insightful perspectives like Alicorn's "gifts vs commodities" comment that otherwise might not come up. I'd be willing to sift through the strong emotions (that mostly fit the facts) the topic may inspire in order to maximize my exposure to such insights.
There is a difference between strong emotion and typical biases and directly combating the discussion by taking things to the personal level. The historical record of LW posts tells me that this political intervention is at times escalated to the level of outright bullying. When expressing certain positions are associated with the threat of reputation sabotage we cannot expect the discussion to be especially well correlated with non-political reality.
Sex doesn't seem to be the distinguishing factor on whether a given participant is able to usefully engage on the subject, especially once the selection effect of 'people who like lesswrong type discussions' is applied. It is a political vs epistemic divide, not a male vs female one.
"Sex doesn't seem to be the distinguishing factor on whether a given participant is able to usefully engage on the subject, especially once the selection effect of 'people who like lesswrong type discussions' is applied. It is a political vs epistemic divide, not a male vs female one."
And yet the current norms of discussion are ones that leave a large proportion of the women here fighting through some measure of fear and discomfort to post-- but not the men. This saps cognitive energy and limits how much they can contribute. You may want to consider why this is, and whether there are any minimal changes you would consider making in order to make both genders feel safe enough to post freely.
"Strive to only make utilitarian calculations that take into account both men's and women's best interests" is a good place to start.
This discussion has also given me a lot of insight into why the proportion of women on this site is so atypically small even for computer programming crowds. Some that like lesswrong-type discussions may find dealing with the PUA-related talk here too mentally and emotionally draining for the site to be a net positive in experience. I've changed my mind and now also support moving all PUA-related discussions to another site, if for different reasons than yours.
So, if I understand you, under your proposal, comments like this one would no longer appear here on LW? Because people who cannot help making them would have another outlet?
One of the ancestors of that comment would probably be a link to the other site, yes.
I don't like the tone. You seem to be suggesting that wanting to make such a comment is a personal failing. I don't agree.
What I meant to suggest is that a failure to foresee that such a comment would be offensive (to many people) would be a personal failing of one variety. And if you were able to make the prediction, but felt that the comment was so insightful and relevant to the discussion that it needed to be made regardless of who was offended, then that would be a different kind of personal failing. But what I suspect actually happened is that you set out deliberately to cause offense. And, yes, in the absence of provocation, I consider that a personal failing too.
The tone was indeed disapproving. I didn't expect you to like it. All I really expect is that you might take note of the disapproval. Please notice that at least some of your fellow males really dislike the culture of misogyny around here. And particularly, the smug way in which the victims get blamed for their own discomfort while the victimizers pretend to noble, but puzzled, tolerance.
I'm guessing that they aren't pretending. They really don't know what they're doing.
Surprisingly enough the usual victims don't seem to have made an appearance in this iteration of the discussion. Perhaps they have learned enough about the game to realise they are better served by just letting HughRistik handle the conversation with his usual combination of personal experience, education and level headed insight.
It doesn't look to me as though wedrifid did anything wrong in this case.