wedrifid comments on More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA - Less Wrong

66 Post author: XFrequentist 10 September 2010 12:25AM

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

Comments (616)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2010 02:52:03PM 7 points [-]

A job applicant who seems likely to resent being turned down will appear creepy to potential employers.

There is apparently no greater female nightmare scenario than mating with a less-than-optimally-attractive male. The Darwinian reasons why this should be the case are too obvious to be worth stating; but it should be equally obvious that such behavior is less than rational in our modern era of contraception: sex simply doesn't have the same dangers that it did in the ancestral environment.

Men do the same sort of thing. Really. Hunt around a little for examples of fat-bashing.

The only gender difference I can see is that a significant proportion of men [1] are apt to verbally attack unattractive women just for existing, while women are more apt to wait for a pass to be made by an unattractive man.

Is there anything in PUA about what sets off the "creepy guy-- I don't want to be anywhere near him" response as distinct from mere "not sexually interested"? I'm not talking about "less than optimally attractive", and your phrasing it that way strikes me as dishonest arguing. The vast majority of women have children with less than optimally attractive men.

[1] It may well be under 5% of men who do that sort of thing-- it's still apt to be quite a buzz-kill for women on the receiving end of it.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2010 05:30:12PM 1 point [-]

Is there anything in PUA about what sets off the "creepy guy-- I don't want to be anywhere near him" response as distinct from mere "not sexually interested"?

Extremely short answer: Degree to which the unattractive male appears to submit to the social reality as she sees it.

Comment author: Violet 12 September 2010 07:52:04AM *  4 points [-]

Many "alpha" behaviours can be creepy.

Someone being submissive is not creepy.

This as a personal note, not as a general truth.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 12 September 2010 08:50:14AM *  8 points [-]

Violet:

Many "alpha" behaviours can be creepy.

Some of the very pinnacles of creepiness are achieved by men who attempt to pull off difficult and daring high-status behaviors but fall short of doing it successfully. I don't know if this is what you had in mind with the scare quotes, but with this interpretation, your comment is very accurate.

I remember there was an old post at Overcoming Bias discussing this sort of situation, where a man's failed attempt at a high-status display backfires and raises an awful red flag that he's a clueless sort of guy who doesn't know his proper place and will probably self-destruct for that reason. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title and I don't have the link archived.

Comment author: Violet 12 September 2010 08:59:11AM 3 points [-]

I think they go more into a "that person is more likely defect for his own win than cooperate" and "that person does not seem safe".

Also being somewhat sensitive to the system people doing a status competition just stink on a personal level.

Then again I prefer androgynous cooperative helpful people, rather than overtly masculine (or feminine) ones.

Others might find the same behaviors very hot.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 03:45:32AM 1 point [-]

Absolutely this is why such a strong epithet as "creepy" is applied. The implication is that such a deranged individual is one step away from running amok, raping and killing.