= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XFrequentist comments on Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter - 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 (166)
Interesting. Expound?
This was taken by most to mean PUA, but when Cosmos and I went over the draft we were thinking far more generally. Explicitly talking about status is low status and similar issues are involved with mapping other social interactions. These activities seem to get particularly bad reactions from women.
PUA, of course, has the potential to be far worse if handled in the wrong way.
It would surprise me if women found non-seduction-related explicit discussion of social strategy more distasteful than did men.
Is your experience the same even if there's no mention of seduction or anything gender related?
My experience is yes, they find it more off putting and distasteful, but I admit that sample sizes are not sufficient to have high confidence in that conclusion.
Suppose this hypothesis is correct. While improving the gender ratio is instrumentally useful, do we really want to attract the sort of people who are offended by all explicit discussion of messy social reality?
No, but yes.
If there exists a person P such that, for every explicit discussion of messy social reality, P is offended, then ~Want(P) with probability very high.
However, if there exists a person P such that, for a given randomly selected explicit discussion of messy social reality, if one does not pay attention to the potential to offend, that they are then offended with high probability, then I don't think that says much about that person. In fact, the set S of such persons P contains the majority not only of people, but of people worth attracting to meetings, especially before they've been exposed to alternate social norms.
He means that it is easy for discussion of pick-up / seduction to alienate potential female LW participants.
Aside from advocating the theft of the PUAs' group structure and ethic of practice, my article had nothing to do with seduction.
I thought Cosmos might be making a more complicated point, but fair enough.
Fair enough.
When I wrote grandparent BTW I was not aware you were the author of the (very fine IMHO) article at the far end of the link. I thought you were just mystified as to what the sentence might mean.
Anyway, he removed the link to your article from his article, so I am going to assume that there is no need for me to say more.
It makes people uncomfortable. That's pretty much the whole story, I think, unless I'm missing something.