= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Relsqui comments on Love and Rationality: Less Wrongers on OKCupid - 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 (329)
I don't doubt that you're as successful as you claim, but given that neither of us has presented any proof, what makes your single data point more valuable than mine?
What evidence would you expect me to be able to provide online?
I'm not asking for evidence. I'm asking why it's okay for you to offer advice based on the strength of your own personal experience, when it apparently isn't okay for me to do so. Or do you disagree with the people claiming the latter?
Wrote my comment in light of this:
Understood. However, a couple of people elsewhere in this thread are claiming that I have no business giving advice about online dating without being able to give some evidence that my advice works. Do you disagree with them? Or do you think that it's inappropriate for me to do so, but appropriate for you to? Or neither?
Depends what you mean by "have no business giving advice."
Not all advice without evidence is bad advice. There are heuristics we use to figure out which unsupported advice is better than others. Based on some people's heuristics, like Vladamir_M's, my unsupported advice would more likely lead to better results (assuming all else equal).
What's the relevant difference between your advice without evidence and mine? Is it that he already expects advice from men about seeking women to be sound, and more general advice not to be?
I don't know that there's any way to pursue ths question without sounding defensive, which is not my intent. I just want to make sure I understand the objections to my post.
pwno didn't seem to imply that his argument applied to his advice and not yours.
Yeah, that's now clear to me--at this point I'm just curious.
It's a factual question whether positive personal experience backs up usefulness of principles one follows, not some kind of social norm, where you can make egalitarian appeals.
It's not an appeal, it's an honest question. Aren't we both claiming that our personal experience backs up our principles? If you're saying that there's a difference between the two cases, can you explain what that difference is? I'm genuinely trying to understand.
Agreed, interpreted this way it's a good argument. I answered the literal and perhaps unintended interpretation.
I'm relieved that we're back on the same page. I do try to avoid the kind of implication you were responding to, for exactly this reason; it's difficult, but I'll continue trying.
Part of the difference is that you are a different gender from pwno. Your experience may support your advice for women, but it doesn't give much evidence of its effectiveness for men.
Another difference is that pwno seems like he hangs out with more mainstream and gender-typical people, while your profile suggests that you hang out with alternative and gender-atypical people (based on your comments about disliking gender stereotypes). Your experiences in the minority gender-atypical taxon of 10-15% of the population may not generalize well to the majority taxon of gender-typical people. Anecdotal evidence from pwno and Vladimir_M may generalize better.
Assuming that you're using info from my OKC profile to place me in that taxon, it bears noting that a lot of women who place near me on the Kinsey scale probably identify as straight. I don't think I'm quite as unusual as you think I am, but the point is still valid.
Most of this post's discussion has revolved around what sorts of things are okay for Relsqui to post on this site. That is exactly a question of social norms. How your factual question turns out is only relevant in that it has some bearing on the question of whether the things in this post should have been posted here.
The social norm is not to post things that are not expected to be factually correct based on usual LW background and arguments given in the post itself. It's more general than not posting things containing any specific error, and so it's incorrect to say that there is a social norm against any given specific pattern, that is currently considered in error.
Not talking about evidence of the personal anecdote being accurate, but about the evidence of the advice being useful, which accurate account of successful personal anecdotes is not.