= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - 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 (1529)
I can talk to anyone, you're engaging, he's a creepy PUA?
I don't understand the question, sorry. Will you rephrase?
I'm playing the usual game: I'm <something positive>, you're <something neutral>, he's <something negative>. It's not really a question.
I still don't really get it. Are you opposed to repurposing PUA soft technology to help teach social skills?
I don't care if people use PUA otherwise and I certainly don't want to get caught in this thread's quagmire.
It's a lighthearted cultural reference (which does have something of a useful moral embedded within). A common form is "I'm strong willed, you're stubborn and she's pig headed". It is just a comment about the same thing being labelled differently depending on how closely we associate with it. It tends to be approximately neutral to the subject matter.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't have an opinion on PUA. I'm just playing a game.
I'm still chewing this one over. Can you give me an example of persuasion that doesn't follow this format in some way? How would I convince <someone neutral> to stop doing <something negative> without first qualifying my idea as <something positive>? Is it bad if these categories are personified?