= 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)
I'm a little surprised to see the issues of LWers interacting with women reduced to "being careful when discussing explicit awareness of social reality" ... with a link to PUA stuff.
1) PUA stuff is hardly the only example out there of "explicit awareness of social reality".
2) It's quite telling that the implication of the post is that "women don't like explicit awareness of social reality", rather than the (more accurate) "women don't like PUA".
One way to encourage women to participate in rationalist communities might be to make a conscious effort not to portray us as silly, manipulative, fickle, irrational gold-diggers. Some rationalists do a good job of this ... many don't. And PUAs, rationalist and otherwise, are usually bad at this. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Nitpick: It had "PUA" in the title, but the formerly-linked article was not about seduction/gender in any way.
I will not make this particular mistake again (is there a term for "Boo Lights"?), but I still think the idea of explicitly practicing high-value social skills in a group is a good one.
The article was about discussing PUA or relevant techniques while avoiding or eliminating the seduction / gender / Dark Arts issue - that is, the phrasing of the link to the post read (to at least a few of us) as "being careful when discussing explicit awareness of social reality" = "don't talk about the seduction / gender issue" and thus "social reality" = "seduction dark arts".
Quite possible. And I apologize, I replied (in the grandparent) identifying you as the originator of the current post rather than the linked post. So far as I can tell, you've written a fine article, and I'd bet you're addressing an important need (maybe I'm just being selfish - I'd be ecstatic if nerds were a little more socially aware!). The problem (according to my reading) was in the link to the post - as though the idea were "follow this guy's lead and don't discuss dark-arts pick-up techniques - because women don't like thinking about how things Really Are".
Yes -- and I find that the "Women hate the dark arts because they can't deal with reality" trope is a very common one (perhaps less common on LW, but common in general). It may be that the OP didn't intend to imply that, but it may also not be an unreasonable implication to draw given the frequency the argument is made.