HughRistik comments on A Sense That More Is Possible - Less Wrong

61 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 March 2009 01:15AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (205)

Comments (205)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: HughRistik 08 April 2011 07:36:04AM 6 points [-]

What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.

Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?

manipulation isn't a precise or universally negative concept -> dismiss all claims that some form of manipulation is bad

Many important concepts aren't precisely defined, yet they are still meaningful (e.g. status). We shouldn't throw out these concepts. Yet sometimes we should try to nail them down a bit more precisely and examine the intuitions behind them.

I've been trying to figure out what people actually mean by "manipulation" on LW, and the ethical theory behind it, but I haven't had much success. I don't want to make people abandon it, because I think that it is a meaningful concept. I've proposed my own definition: "unethical social influence." But I am a bit disappointed that people constantly fling it around without examining it.

My worry is that it is used overbroadly, constraining the personal development of people who need to intentionally learn social skills. Furthermore, I feel that some behaviors get tagged as "manipulation" when they are analogous to other behaviors that are considered ethical: it's just that people are accustomed to one, and not the other.

And I think people just intentional social influence too harshly when calling it manipulation, and/or don't judge unintentional social influence harshly enough. (Didn't learn social skills by age 18? Too bad... if you try now, you'll be manipulating people, so stop trying to get above your station, and return to the back of the bus.)

Finally, the charge of "manipulation" often seems directed to social influence that is framed in a way that triggers a disgust heuristic. I'm not claiming that the disgust heuristic is the entire reason that people use the word manipulation, and disgust can be a pointer to a valid argument, but I do see people getting icked out by social influence around sex, intentional social influence, or social influence that they haven't seen before or don't understand very well.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 03:23:43PM 0 points [-]

Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?

Vaniver did, at least by negligence when making oversimplified replies. The rest of this group seems to be populated by straw men. Conveniently demonstrated as a reply to you here by taryneast. That is one issue that is mentioned at times by yourself and others but certainly never as 'the only' - which is what you would be being condemned for. Chances are I have mentioned the subject myself - and it is so in keeping with the entirety of OvercomingBias that I don't even recall whether Robin Hanson has said anything directly.

Comment author: taryneast 08 April 2011 02:23:44PM * 0 points [-]

Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?

Um... you did. See the comment that I originally replied to. I quote:

Many of the common criticisms of pickup demonstrate an anger against the use of rationality and scientific thinking in the supposedly sacred and mystical area of sex and romance.

and also

I've been trying to figure out what people actually mean by "manipulation" on LW, and the ethical theory behind it, but I haven't had much success.

Well, in response to one of cousin_it's comments, I've given my own definition:

"deliberately doing something with the intent to hurt a person (without their consent) and thereby to gain advantage over them"

It's pretty clear cut what does and does not count as "unethical" here.

Furthermore, I feel that some behaviors get tagged as "manipulation" when they are analogous to other behaviors that are considered ethical: it's just that people are accustomed to one, and not the other.

Can you give me some examples of these behaviours?

Please note: I am quite interested in a lot of the analysis-side of PUA - I am totally unopposed to guys gaining more confidence, understanding and social skill - especially through analysis of what actually makes women happy and how guys can go about gaining it. I just don't like the Dark Arts parts of it. I think it can be performed with win-win in mind. No manipulation necessary.

I'd love to hear the opposite side too. Is there an equivalent PUA community for women? if not - why not?

Comment author: thomblake 08 April 2011 02:40:34PM * 4 points [-]

Jumping in here, this is not correct:

What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.

Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?

Um... you did. See the comment that I originally replied to. I quote:

Many of the common criticisms of pickup demonstrate an anger against the use of rationality and scientific thinking in the supposedly sacred and mystical area of sex and romance.

(emphasis added)

That comment does not state that it is the only reason some people are uncomfortable with pickup - rather, it says that it is demonstrated in many of the common criticisms, which is quite different.

ETA: BTW, that's an American 'quite' - I meant "which is very different".

Comment author: HughRistik 08 April 2011 11:42:07PM 2 points [-]

Thanks, thomblake, you got it.

Comment author: taryneast comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: thomblake 08 April 2011 03:03:50PM 2 points [-]

When you use a word like 'only', you're inviting that sort of interpretation. I read your statement and it seemed like you meant it literally, that is, "I'm resisting the interpretation that there are not other reasons at all...", and I read the response as confused because nobody said anything about there being no other reasons.

Even if HughRistik was being in some way uncharitable, I fail to see how it's an instance of Logical Rudeness, as it was a matter of correctly parsing your statement, rather than changing his position in the middle of an argument.

Comment author: taryneast 08 April 2011 03:45:19PM * -2 points [-]

Whether somebody says "only" or says "mainly" shouldn't matter too much, if the main point is actually something else entirely. In this case - the main point was about "what it is that upsets people about PUA", not whether it's the main point, or the only point that upsets people.

From my reading of CuSithBell's comment - I think she said "only" but probably meant "mainly" - and thus jumping on the word "only" makes HughRistik's comment seem like he was jumping on a side-point to avoid the main issue

Yes, on this site, using "only" to mean "mainly" opens you up to the kind of jumping-on that is common on this site... but I believe Logical Rudeness includes the situation where you jump onto a side-point at the expense of the main point. That's why I mentioned it.

That said, I totally believe that we all should use the more correct word. If CuSithBell really meant "mainly" instead of "only" then that's what she should have said to be more precise.

I restated and re-worded what she said because what I am most interested in is exactly what she said... with only one word of difference that does not (in my view) change anything from the Main Point.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 03:38:20PM * 1 point [-]

Is there an equivalent PUA community for women?

See HughRistik's comment regarding the Playettes.

if not - why not?

Because they are busy being feminists instead? (But more serious factors are the relative ease at finding a willing mate and qualitatively different consequences for being a poor player at the social game.)

Comment author: CuSithBell 08 April 2011 05:12:38PM * -1 points [-]

Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?

Well, let's see. This seems to be an argument against the notion that there are other considerations. This comment regards removing such a claim from the top-level post, and repeats the claim. Here is another one.

I know that earlier in this thread you pointed out this aspect of distaste with PUA, but acknowledged more legitimate criticisms as well.

I've been trying to figure out what people actually mean by "manipulation" on LW [...]

Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn't the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that's imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that's missing the point.

In these contexts, I use 'manipulation' the same way you suggest, and often qualify it with additional terms - 'harmful', 'dark arts', etc. - to clarify.

The wider meaning of manipulation I take to mean a collection of behaviors of varying levels of sinister-ness which may or may not be deliberate. In this less serious sense, both learned and innate social skills involve some level of manipulation.

I still think, just as you do if I recall correctly, that some aspects of pickup practice and culture are extremely undesirable - my main point is that attributing people's discomfort with this to unrelated matters is disingenuous and unhelpful.

Does this sound fair and reasonable?

Edit: My choice of analogy was poor, and I withdraw it completely. In its place, consider "People ( / Women) don't become card counters because they don't like math."

Comment author: HughRistik 09 April 2011 12:28:24AM * 3 points [-]

Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn't the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that's imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that's missing the point.

I don't accept this analogy, because it places pickup techniques as analogous to rape. Your analogy shows more about the potential ugh fields that people may have around pickup.

What actually occurs is that pickup is mentioned, and someone says that pickup (or some pickup techniques) are "manipulative." In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to approach an agreed upon conceptualization of "manipulation."

In these contexts, I use 'manipulation' the same way you suggest, and often qualify it with additional terms - 'harmful', 'dark arts', etc. - to clarify.

"Dark arts" doesn't really help, because that term has problems of its own.

I still think, just as you do if I recall correctly, that some aspects of pickup practice and culture are extremely undesirable

Yes.

my main point is that attributing people's discomfort with this to unrelated matters is disingenuous and unhelpful.

I'm not sure that some critics of pickup are only uncomfortable with the parts of pickup that I would stipulate as undesirable; their views seem to be broader and more sweeping.

I would simply maintain that some people's discomfort with a scientific/rational approach to dating underlies some criticisms of pickup. Does that sound fair?

For instance, I've seen many criticisms that are uncomfortable with analysis used as the foundation for an intentional approach (though I'm not sure if I've seen that particular one on LW). Edit: example:

By moving from incidental to intentional you’re changing the dynamic. You’re no longer pursuing the relationship between two people but a specific agenda designed around realizing the needs and desires of one.

That person believe that as soon as you start being intentional, you are suddenly being selfish... which makes absolutely no sense.

As another example, I think that some women here are uncomfortable that certain default pickup behaviors are counter to their own preferences... while not recognizing that the priors of PUAs (acting on limited information) are highly influenced by the preferences of other women with dramatically different phenotypes.

Comment author: CuSithBell comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: HughRistik 09 April 2011 07:00:20AM 3 points [-]

The analogy is accurate, you're just being irrational as an emotional reaction to its content.

You said:

Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn't the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that's imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that's missing the point.

In a discussion on LW about how to rape people, the nuances of consent would indeed be a distraction, but only if there was a consensus that the behavior is rape. So I thought that by making pickup analogous to rape, you were presenting it an something that everyone ought to recognize as wrong, such that debating the concept of "manipulation" would be missing the point. That's what objected to in your analogy.

If there wasn't a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point. But if that's what you meant, then I don't know why you made the analogy, because it proves my point, not yours.

(As an example: perhaps 24/7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.)

There are also people here on lesswrong who say that the reason people in general (or women in general) are uncomfortable with pickup is because of such discomfort with analysis. That is also "what actually happens", and it is explicitly what I have been talking about this whole time.

To the extent that people hold this view, I disagree with them. After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.

Comment author: CuSithBell 09 April 2011 10:51:52PM * 0 points [-]

I apologize for my metaphor. It was poorly chosen. I let my desire to make a point forcefully overcome my sense of decency. It is retracted. Perhaps you could consider the card-counting metaphor in its place.

If there wasn't a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point.

The point is that there was a mis-attribution regarding the reasons to object. There is even what seems to be a general consensus that these reasons are legitimate (see cousin_it's posts, or your own criticisms of PUA).

After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.

The posts in the second and third links are part of a larger discussion. In context, the discussion goes something like - "It's not that women don't like analysis, it's that they don't like PUA" is followed by "Of course they don't, people don't like analysis", then "I don't dislike analysis" is followed by "no one dislikes analysis, they just become angry when observing it." I made the above claim then, and no one denied it.

If you are skeptical of my point, I would like to request a summary of said point adjoining a response, if possible.

Comment author: HughRistik 10 April 2011 12:02:53AM 0 points [-]

I think we are just agreeing violently, at this point.

Comment author: CuSithBell 10 April 2011 11:06:10PM 0 points [-]

I suppose that's a good call. See you in another thread, then.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 April 2011 07:24:33AM 0 points [-]

As an example: perhaps 24/7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.

Would such an arrangement typically involve safe words or would the knowledge of that power of injunction destroy the thrill the experience for the subordinate partner?

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 03:13:46PM * 0 points [-]

Didn't learn social skills by age 18? Too bad... if you try now, you'll be manipulating people, so stop trying to get above your station, and return to the back of the bus.

Of course, back when I was in school the back of the bus was where all the cool kids got to sit. In fact, when I managed to get myself to the back seat of the bus it was much easier to flirt with my female fellow passengers. I was the impressive senior back-seat-sitting cool guy after all!

HughRistik comments on A Sense That More Is Possible - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (205)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (205)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login