lessdazed comments on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - Less Wrong

147 Post author: Yvain 13 September 2010 09:36PM

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

Comments (323)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 November 2011 08:37:08AM 5 points [-]

This is very much a first attempt at answering these matters.

I'm tired of defending pickup. I want to have a turn criticizing it! But I can't take my turn yet, because so much of my energy discussing pickup is getting consumed by correcting all the biased and wrong stuff that is written about it. If I wrote critical stuff about pickup, then biased people would just use it selectively as part of their hatchet job, rather than promoting a complete understanding of the subject.

How can we reduce this polarization?

I think more honesty on both sides (and you've made a good start) will help.

Part of what's been going on is that your advocacy has left me feeling as though my fears about PUA were being completely dismissed. On the other hand, when you've occasionally mentioned some doubts about aspects of PUA, I've felt better, but generally not posted anything about it.

I may have said something in favor when the idea of "atypical women" (more straightforward than the average and tending to be geeky) was floated. I'm pretty sure I didn't when someone (probably you) said something about some PUA techniques being unfair (certainly not the word used, but I don't have a better substitute handy) to women who aren't very self-assured, even though that's the sort of thing I'm concerned about.

Thanks for posting more about what's going on at your end.

As for stigma, I actually think it's funny that both of us feel sufficiently like underdogs that we're defensive. From my point of view, posting against PUA here leads to stigma not just for being close-minded and opposed to rational efforts to improve one's life (rather heavier stigmas here than in most places), but also for unkindness to men who would otherwise be suffering because they don't know how to attract women.

I don't know if it was unfair of me to assume that you hadn't performed a moral calculus-- from my point of view, the interests of women were being pretty much dismissed, or being assumed (by much lower standards of proof) to be adequately served by what was more convenient for men. Part of what squicks me about PUA is that it seems as though there's very careful checking about its effects (at least in the short term) on men, but, in the nature of things, much less information about its effects on women.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 November 2011 09:52:24PM *  1 point [-]

I think I agree with this.

I think more honesty on both sides (and you've made a good start) will help.

We are already supposed to be honest here most of the time. I think something needs to be changed to facilitate such a debate, if we wish to have it.

I just think that while there are hopeful signs that we will chew through this with our usual set of tools and norms, but those hopeful signs have been around for years, and the situation dosen't seem to be improving.

Honestly I think our only hope of addressing this is having a farm more robust debating style, far more limited in scope than we are used to since tangents often peter out without follow up or any kind of synthesis or even a clear idea of what is and what isn't agreed upon in these debates.

Comment author: lessdazed 30 November 2011 11:47:21PM 0 points [-]

the situation dosen't seem to be improving.

What exactly do you mean? If the situation is getting no worse, notice the population is expanding.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2011 08:03:10AM *  3 points [-]

What exactly do you mean?

It is not improving.

If the situation is getting no worse,

This is up for debate. Vladimir_M and others have argued that precisely the fact that blow ups are rarer means more uninterrupted happy death spirals are occurring and we are in the processes of evaporative cooling of group beliefs on the subject.

I think they are right.

notice the population is expanding.

LessWrong actually needs either better standards of rationality or better mechanisms to sort through the ever growing number of responses as it grows in order to keep the signal to noise ratio close to something worth our time. Also I'm confused as to why a larger population of LWers, would translate into this being something LWers can more easily make progress on.