= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
datadataeverywhere 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)
This thread is generating an interesting collective definition of creepy. I don't think I disagree with it, but it's most interesting to me because it seems to not fit any of the concise definitions that have appeared.
I think it's a big jump from
to
I guess I think of those as being different enough to not fall on the same spectrum. To me, someone who is not good at the social graces is still very far away from someone upon whom the police could reasonably be called. Also, as remarked elsewhere in this thread, women generally feel much more physically threatened by men than vice versa, so are much more likely to want to call the police in an extremely uncomfortable situation.
From
I pulled out
Which is ridiculous. [EDIT: I mean ridiculous in the sense of being stupid, not in being wrong. It certainly could be valid, which would be unfortunate but not the stupidest thing that's true for humans by a long shot]
I think that straight women generally do have higher standards for how socially skilled men are than straight men hold for women. I just don't think that this condition is caused by women being more socially savvy than men. It's also really hard to measure, because social skill means different things for men in women following traditional gender roles.
Perhaps the assumption that wasn't explicit enough in the way I said it, is that women are more socially savvy at relating to women than men are. (The term "natural" in PUA lingo more specifically refers to "naturally good at meeting/relating to women".)
It's pretty straightforward, though, how this leads to the PUA meme that "women are more socially savvy", when a more precise claim would be to say that "women are generally more sensitive to the social nuances of men's behavior than are the men performing those behaviors." The latter is the point the PUAs are trying to teach, namely that men need to learn to be able to see their own behavior from someone else's point of view.
(That the typical model for "someone else" used in such trainings is often "women of above-average physical attractiveness in bars and nightclubs" is a separate issue, which has spawned other debates here in the past!)
In general, problems occur when fairly narrowly-focused PUA concepts are interpreted without the aid of the background assumptions underlying them. Unfortunately, it's usually difficult for human beings to identify their background assumptions, because, well, they're in the background, not to mention being assumptions. ;-)
Good point.
Indeed it is. I think the implication was supposed to be "Women will conclude that many men aren't normal, when in fact they are".