Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

MartinB comments on Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge - Less Wrong

138 Post author: lukeprog 20 January 2011 08:44PM

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

Comments (493)

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

Comment author: MartinB 25 January 2011 09:08:54AM 1 point [-]

If a PUA technique is deceptive or untruthful then it deprives the person to be seduced from relavent information that could help them make a better decision.

What is your mental model on how people find partners, love, sex and what is your explanation of the data observed in other people - particularly hook-ups without extensive getting-to-know beforehand.

I am not asking in a rhetorical or socratic way, I really want to know. For my own mental model I tracked the development to some degree, and then tried to identify generalizable errors in my thinking, recently I started again to collect those of others.

Comment author: Davorak 25 January 2011 05:18:10PM 1 point [-]

I hesitate to enter into this conversation at this juncture because I do not see how it forwards the current conversation and I do not know why you want to know. Are you looking to compare your own models and improve them, or do you think you see a sign(in what I have written) that there is a flaw in my model that you understand because you once had it as well?

Comment author: MartinB 25 January 2011 05:51:13PM 2 points [-]

Both. I think you have a flawed model. But I concede that mine might be mistaken as well. However I am reasonably well convinced I have some correct views, otherwise I would not have them.

The statement above showed a view that I do not share, but had at some point, so I am curious in where it comes from for you.

As a general habit I try to get away from surface discussions and see which base convictions lead someone to have his respective opinions. That was probably described here somewhere.

Since this whole discussion is about social items, there is a lack of information on what experience each participee has. HughRisk has shared his background, but everyone else can be from any point of the possible experiences-cluster. I would guess we have some experienced people in here who draw from what there see, but there will probably be also some who draw from pure intellectualized models of how an interaction should happen without real world data to back it up.

Comment author: Davorak 25 January 2011 06:54:59PM 1 point [-]

I think you have a flawed model.

Since there has been essentially zero discussion of my models your confidence that you understand my model should not be much higher then a random individual.

The statement above showed a view that I do not share, but had at some point, so I am curious in where it comes from for you.

Are you talking about the following?

... so I would imagine that what are considered PUA techniques can be both deceptive or untruthful and the opposite because both can be effective(often for different goals and sometimes for the same goal).

This statement is the equivalent of saying:

Most people looking toward business are looking for something effective, so I would imagine that what are considered business techniques can be both deceptive or untruthful and the opposite because both can be effective(often for different goals and sometimes for the same goal).

Some business practices are deceptive that does not make all business people deceptive. Some PUA practices are deceptive that does not make all PUAs deceptive.

Am I correct in assuming that you had jumped to conclusions and believed I held a stronger view point then you now infer with the above these additional comments?

Comment author: MartinB 25 January 2011 07:35:29PM 2 points [-]

I didn't say I understand your model. I just mentioned that I might have an idea about it from what you said so far.

I meant the statement:

If a PUA technique is deceptive or untruthful then it deprives the person to be seduced from relavent information that could help them make a better decision.

I wonder where the 'relevant information' plays in, and how. And when the person to be seduced makes the 'decision' about it. The description gives the impression of a rehearsed ritual where all parties involved already know upfront what will result from it.

Most people looking toward business are looking for something effective, The comparison between business life and PU is not particularly helpful. Usually people do not approach their love life as a business event. And when they do bad stuff can happen.

This statement is the equivalent of saying: That makes me inquire about which PUA techniques you are referring too. As such the statement is trivially true.

Am I correct in assuming that you had jumped to conclusions and believed I held a stronger view point then you now infer with the above these additional comments?

I don't think so. But that is a common failure mode for me which i work on, so it might be true in this case. If so it is not with intention.

Comment author: Davorak 25 January 2011 09:20:37PM *  1 point [-]

I didn't say I understand your model. I just mentioned that I might have an idea about it from what you said so far.

You stated that I had a "flawed model." I was unsure how strong a claim you were trying to make with this statement and pointed out that you do not have solid ground to make a strong claim because there is little information available on what my model would be and therefore weather or not it is flawed. Were you making a weak claim?

I wonder where the 'relevant information' plays in, and how. And when the person to be seduced makes the 'decision' about it. The description gives the impression of a rehearsed ritual where all parties involved already know upfront what will result from it.

I am not thinking of anything formal or a ritual. The decision can be conscience or completely subconscience. The decision could be about having sex, kissing, going on a date, or simply continuing or discontinuing a conversation or pretty much anything else.

If someone is willing to preform deception around a piece of information then I would probably consider it 'relevant information'.

Comment author: MartinB 25 January 2011 09:51:45PM *  1 point [-]

Were you making a weak claim?

No.

I might have to think about if your initial claim is trivially true (which then makes me wonder why you made it in the first place.) And of course I am still slightly curious about what your model is. But I can see enough reasons not to pursue this topic.

Comment author: Davorak 25 January 2011 11:55:26PM 1 point [-]

It was a method of finding common ground with HughRistik. If we both agree to a few trivially few statements it is easy to then define each others arguments in those trivially true things, find what the fundamental differences in our evidence/logic discuss and hopefully resolve.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 January 2011 12:37:51AM *  0 points [-]

I would guess we have some experienced people in here who draw from what there see, but there will probably be also some who draw from pure intellectualized models of how an interaction should happen without real world data to back it up.

I'll add particular emphasis on and deprecation of the should when divorced from any appropriateness in the real world.