= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on post proposal: Attraction and Seduction for Heterosexual Male Rationalists - 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 (144)
Lol, oops. Yes, not what I meant. Edited.
As for programming, I apparently use that term in a weaker sense than you do. I'm aware that humans are not computers.
On mni's comment: I read only that one comment, and I mostly agree with it. This is a common critique of evo-psych in general, and is salient for many claims of evo-psych. I'd have to spend more time than I have now if I want to respond in a way I'd be happy with, though.
I'm sorry if that sounded condescending. The word "programmed" rubs me the wrong way when applied to women, specifically. Maybe because it always does seem to be the women who are "programmed"; men mostly get to be "strategists," rational actors following an evolutionary strategy. It's just a vocabulary distinction, but it's annoying when you're always cast as the sexbot rather than the strategist.
Thanks for explaining; this did not occur to me. I haven't encountered this particular sexism or - just as likely - haven't noticed it. In my sense of "programmed", men and women are equally "programmed."
I prefer to use the word 'optimized'. Does the job just fine, with only 1/4 of the objections!
I prefer the term 'endowed' because our adaptations are often sub-optimal.