= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on The Dark Arts - Preamble - 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 (139)
What if you also "manipulate" so that it will also not be regretted afterwards?
In marketing at least, there is the concept of customer retention through anticipating and countering buyers' remorse... which mostly, AFAICT, consists of providing a customer with arguments to use to explain to co-workers, friends, relatives, spouses, or whomever why their purchase decision was a good one. This strongly implies that at least in the purchasing arena, the main reason people come to have buyers' remorse (besides crappy products) is that the purchase makes them look bad in the eyes of others.
Hence the marketing adage that the primary function of facts and logic in a sales pitch is to provide the customer with a rationale that lets them prove to themselves and others that they made the right decision... but only after they've been convinced to make that decision based on emotion.
I believe there's some discussion in the PUA field of similar "buyer's remorse" issues and providing the same sort of supporting rationale, except that such rationales are more to allow those women who are uncomfortable with casual sex to rationalize that it e.g. "just happened" (i.e., neither she nor the PUA truly intended it, so she is neither a slut nor a victim) or that it falls into the category of "once-in-a-lifetime encounter", or something else that can be reconciled with her belief system or social image in a non-harmful way.
In either case, a wise "salesperson" takes care to find a way to allow a person to reconcile their actions with their self-perception of "character" or their "usual self".
Incidentally, my personal model of an "ethical PUA" is Founding Father Gouverneur Morris, who told his lover, "I never lost respect for those who consented to make me happy on the principles of affection."
Isn't that kind of a low standard? I'm glad he doesn't do slut-shaming, but I'm curious about what the women involved think about his effect on their lives.
I expect he's said other things you've liked, but what you quoted is actually that unusual, it might enough by itself to explain why women are apt to be nervous around men.
If it helps, he lived in the 18th century -- he was one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Thanks-- I didn't bother to google, and your phrasing left it unclear about whether he was a Founding Father of the US or PUA.
Still, how common do you think it is for men to see women as lowering their own status by consenting to sex?
Still pretty common, unfortunately.
But I wouldn't single out a contemporary man for praise just because he didn't slut-shame. It's more remarkable 250 years ago.
Depending on the social group somewhat less common than women lowering the status of others via judgement on that criteria - for most part it is women who are the more direct rivals with other women.
I wasn't clear-- I meant the specific case of a man lowering the status of a woman for consenting to sex with him.
Hamlet, Act IV, Scene V:
(Ophelia is singing bawdy songs)
hmm, that's interesting.
I'm still inclined to think that I don't have a problem with it, if, in the clear light of day with plenty of time and space to think it over, the rationale still holds water. If my best reasoning can accept it, then fine. If I know that I was influenced by the "salesman" but I still don't really have much to regret, it's okay. He just swayed me to try something that turned out to be good for me (or, at least, within my range of acceptable outcomes.)
Example: suppose you try to convince someone that sex before marriage is okay and give them reasons that they shouldn't feel guilty afterwards. I'd say you've still helped that person rather than hurt them.
It's a borderline issue for me, though.
Or, to put it in more objective terms: If you get someone to do something by improving their decision-making process, or if you cause someone to do something that is instrumentally rational relative to their values, then it's not manipulation. If you believe that premarital sex is okay and you think you can persuade someone to feel the same way, then that's okay.
Aurini's hypothetical example with Mary doesn't pass this criterion. Aurini didn't really believe that donating to the charity would be a good decision for Mary to make.