= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on New Post version 2 (please read this ONLY if your last name beings with l–z) - 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 (185)
Perhaps I should rephrase my point. The entire “using science” section seems as though you have constructed a methodology by which you must act in order to have successful relationships. Insomuch as this methodology is not how you would normally act, you’re being dishonest. If you smile when you would not ordinarily smile, you’re projecting a false persona onto yourself. And if you change the subject by saying “it’s exactly like” something you know it is nothing alike, you’re openly, intentionally, and unequivocally lying.
I don't think this is dishonest.
I am more attentive to my personal appearance, the cleanliness of my surroundings, etc etc when I'm courting somebody. I am sure they were aware of this. The way much [all?] of society works, extra efforts to impress somebody are viewed as signalling the effort they're worth. It's not deceitful, because the other party understands the signal being sent. To show up on a date looking or acting slobby would be read as a signal that you weren't very motivated.
I think camouflaged changes of conversation topic are likewise not misleading. They're a routine social artifice that most people use and that anybody can notice if they care. The people who don't notice the topic shift are the people who weren't firmly attached to that topic and have no reason to object.
Yes, I think we have very different ideas about how the social world works and should work. You may have deontological attitudes about social norms, for example. It would probably take more time to work through those differences than I have at the moment.
Welcome to Less Wrong, by the way!
I'm not at all a Kantian - I'm quite decidedly a rule utilitarian, and in that vein, I think you would have more fulfilling relationships if you would just be yourself. And that's just counting the utility function from your side, not hers. She would undoubtedly have a higher utility function if you were (more) honest.
That being said, my entire perception of your character is based solely on your one paragraph, which set off a large number of negative stereotypes I have about the male gender. I sincerely hope I have a misconception of how you act.
Hard to sum up my character quickly. I certainly feel like an open, honest, genuine person. I'm also quite happily 'myself'. Trying to make relationships work any other way would be weird. Indeed, my communication with the 'awesome poly girl' is probably far more open and direct than is the communication in most relationships. And people in meat-space generally seem to like me.
Well, as I said, I'm not exactly an expert on your character. But what you described in that section sounds more to me like a pick up artist, more along the lines of Barney Stinson. How would you interpret it if you read what you wrote from the perspective of an outsider and that was all you knew about their character?
Well I wouldn't necessarily call that a high standard. ;-) But as I indicated, I am massively cynical about the male gender (OK, fine, I'm cynical about everyone, not just men...).
Which part gives you the Barney Stinson vibe? Drinking liquid courage before talking to girls? Telling them directly I think they're cute and would like to grab a coffee with them sometime? Not talking about politics?
I'll try to take you though my feelings as I read the article: (But Barney Stinson was, of course, an exercise in hyperbole - I just love HIMYM)
I started out thinking I would really, really like the article and relate to your experiences. It's always made me sad when exes can't maintain some form of relationship, and I've always managed to in the past, and try to encourage others to as well.
I think that was the first line that bothered me, largely because it was a stereotype, and that I know many, many women for whom it is not true. Secondarily, it bothered me because it seemed to imply that you should act confident even if you are not in order to attract women, which I disagree with on ethical principle.
The "act this way to get laid" vibe continued for me in the "Use Science" section. This is what I was thinking as I read it.
No! If you like talking about these things, power to you, and if the person to whom you're talking is put off by this, then it's better to learn that now, as opposed to later.
Same as above - if you really enjoy telling stories and she enjoys listening to them, what's the harm? Let conversion flow naturally, don't force it places because of certain prescribed rules.
This didn't really bother me. I'm from the south - smiling is polite, and I try to smile at people - it makes me happy, it makes them happy, and as a rule utilitarian, I can't be opposed to that. But I am opposed to smiling at a girl to make her feel comfortable for the sole purpose of sleeping with her, which is what it came across as, to me, even if you didn't mean it.
This is fine by me. Well, saying it is. If you think a girl's cute, tell her. As I've said, I think honesty is always the best policy. But worrying about whether or not your other signals are "optimized" makes it come across as just another gimmick to me.
This is what made me the most angry, because it's actively and intentionally lying about something. You know that it's not just like something, yet you're seemingly encouraging saying this just so people will have comfortable conversations with you. If you can't have a comfortable conversation without lying to create transitions, you're probably not compatible enough for a relationship, and you should stop wasting your time.
Ultimately, I think there is one rule to relationships: Be yourself. If you're not compatible with someone, you'll both find that out earlier rather than later. Except under highly contrived situations, I don't think you can ever convince me that complete and total honesty is not the best policy, and I see most of what you suggest as good social strategies to simply be masks you put on yourself.
At first i had the same feelings about the article you did.
But then i remembered what my life-coach taught me: "All behaviours start out as "gimmicks", after some time of training they go from gimmick to part of your natural behaviour and lose their gimmickness"
This was the best lesson i ever learned as refusing to use gimmicks has put me at a serious disadvantage to those people whole naturally learned about the gimmick when they where little children.
Like luke, using gimmicks has been the best thing to happen for my work and private life. (also people who know that im gimmicking appreciate the effort i put into bettering our relationships and actively help me)
One can easily construct examples of behaviour for which this is not true. The easiest (and most absurd) examples would be instinctive - breathing, eating, etc. So it is clear that not all behaviours start out at gimmicks.
But is it, as a rule, generally true? I still think not. Did your pursuit of rationality start out as a gimmick? Mine certainly did not. I don't know anything about you beyond that (at least, presumably I know that, since you're on this site) so it's hard to come up with further examples. But I'll go ahead and make some safe generalizations. Did you learn mathematics or physics by gimmicks? What about the most recent project at work? Did you complete that project by use of gimmicks?
Perhaps I am an idealist. Well, not perhaps. I am an idealist. But my reaction, upon noticing that the world (and especially the business world) operates by gimmickry is not to participate in it, and perpetuate the continuation of the system, but to oppose it in whatever manner I can.
there are some instinctive functions, but those are mostly limited to basic survival. The examples of breathing and eating are 2 things that most adults are doing incorrectly. To learn proper breathing you will have to apply a gimmick until your body and minds learns how to breath properly and you dont give it anymore consious thought. When a baby is born the doctor will use a gimmick to make the baby breath for the first time.
And yes, i learned all the things you mentioned by using gimmicks, in fact the first thing i learned in school is guessing the teachers password.
Maybe we should taboo the word gimmick. My definiton of gimmick: "A conscious change in behavior" Something stops being a gimmick when: "The behavior occurs unconsciously"
At first you suck at math and have to study hard, then after some practice calculation results come naturally.
I think the standard refutation is supposed to be "Does this dress make me look fat?"...
To which "Well, that color/style/fit/whatever doesn't particularly flatter you. Shall we look for something else?" is an acceptable response in any relationship I'm willing to care much about preserving, all else being equal.
But, sure, one can easily imagine situations in which all else is not equal. (Which is to say, I don't share the OP's view.)
Tangentially: someone asked me roughly that question once, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I replied, roughly, "Hypothetically speaking, given a choice, would you rather have evidence that a friend of yours was willing to answer questions honestly even when the honest answer incurred a potentially high social cost, or would you rather have evidence that your friend was willing to conceal an unpleasant truth so as to spare your feelings?" They thought about it for a bit and somewhat hesitantly chose the former, and I told them they looked lovely (which they did). That left them puzzled for quite a while.
The best answer I've heard to such questions is 'I can't tell; you'll have to take it off so I can get a better look'.
If you truly respect the person asking you that, the only answer you can give is an honest one.
You're presuming that the person in question wants to hear the truth. If they don't, then the truly respectful response is not the same as the honest one.
Your comment qualifies as a proof that I disrespect most people, including some of my loved ones. You could view it as a reductio ad absurdum of my opinion, or of your opinion; whichever you like better.
Thanks! This was indeed quite helpful.
Sure thing.
RobertLumley said:
It's not clear to me any behavioral methods for self-improvement are possible with this view of ethics. For instance, a therapist for a shy person might tell them to avoid fidgeting. But fidgeting is the way they usually act. Is suppressing fidgeting dishonest?
Since the above comment makes no mention of ethics, I'm confused as to why you've replied here. You (all) seem to be assuming I have a deontological ethical theory, which, as I have said over and over and over, I do not. The argument has not been made yet that acting as Luke says he acts brings higher utility to him and the people with whom he interacts. If you wish to discuss ethics with me, do it on those grounds.
I took "dishonest" and "false persona" as moral judgments, though perhaps you didn't intend them that way.
Anyway, I am quite happy to talk about rule utilitarianism. I think a rule that allows people to experiment in order to improve their social and romantic abilities is good for everyone, as long as their experiments are non-harmful to others. Likewise, I think a rule that allows people to expand their personality is good for everyone.
Let's say that through his research process, lukeprog managed to improve his social and romantic experiences. Meanwhile, his net effect on other people he interacted with was neutral or positive. If that was the case, then a rule allowing this sort of social experimentation seems like it passes rule utilitarian muster.
I realize that lukeprog didn't phrase his post in this way, because he doesn't talk much about the benefits of his behavior towards others (except for his mistake of invoking evolutionary psychology while breaking up with a girlfriend). Yet if lukeprog feels that his behavior had a positive or neutral result for the people he was interacting with, then he might not have found it necessary to say so, because he might not have realized that people in these threads might believe that his behavior had some of nefarious impact merely because he brought a hypotheco-deductive framework along for the ride. lukeprog could have spent more time discussing positive female reactions to him, but then it could have looked like he was boasting.
On the subject of learning to be more confident, I realize that you would consider behavioral methods to be a form of lying:
I have a couple objections:
It's difficult to determine whether a display of a personality trait is a "lie" or not, because it's hard to say what the "truth" is, due to the situation and due to the fact that people can change their self-narrative.
Not all forms of lying are bad. A rule utilitarian should subscribe to different sub-rules that apply to different sorts of deception, to take into account the results of the lie and the right of the deceived person to know the information.
I feel that prohibiting the sort of self-improvement lukeprog describes would be a horrible idea from a rule utilitarian perspective. For instance, he advocates smiling more. The potential negative consequences of the "deception" of smiling seem rather small. How do you harm people by being more smiley than you actually feel? Since smiling when not feeling positive emotions can be a good way to induce positive emotions in yourself, I can't imagine why a rule utilitarian would want to prohibit this practice.
It would be a bad rule to require everyone to display their exact emotions all the time. Prohibiting "fake it 'til you make it" as a method of self-improvement would also be a bad rule, because it my view, that strategy is very beneficial to people who are struggling socially, while having a neutral or even beneficial net effect on others.
As for confidence, displaying more than you actually feel can be a great method of feeling more confident, as Kaj_Sotala points out. Unless we have a reason to believe that such a practice is harmful to others, then why would we want to prohibit it?
It's a good thing for you if people in the group you want to date can engage in effective self-improvement. For instance, in my case, I want women to be attractive to me, to be relationally adept, and to know what they want. If romantic experimentation helps women develop those things without being costly to myself or other men, then more power to them! Likewise, if lukeprog and other men learn to be attractive and confident, that outcome seems beneficial towards women, who will have a larger pool of eligible men to date.
Personally, I've engaged in similar exploration as lukeprog, and I certainly feel that this process has helped me fulfill other people's criteria, and have lots of mutually good times. Perhaps if someone has not witnessed the results of the process first hand, they might have skepticism about whether the sort of process lukeprog describes can be beneficial to others. I think that it can be, when implemented by someone with a basic sense of empathy and ethics, so I think it is consistent with rule utilitarianism... at least, given the payoff matrices for both parties that I believe exist (your view of the payoff matrices might be different).
I absolutely agree. But I don't think it was necessarily good for him or for the people he encountered...
I'll concede this. But from my perspective, Luke essentially admitted he was lying with the bit about "it's exactly like". Taken in that context, I think the rest of that section reads very differently.
I can't say what the effects of his behaviour were, are, or will be. But I can say that I would be very insulted if he had tried such tactics on me - it's a belittling of my intelligence to expect me to not notice such blatantly obvious ploys. And in the context of relationships, it comes across as, in my opinion, being womanizing and disrespectful towards women. And as I've pointed out elsewhere it seems inconsistent for him to not care about their rationality. And maybe he is not disrespectful towards him, but it is definitely how the post read to me, and I still strongly object to it on those grounds.
Again, I agree. I did say almost always. And I've even distinguished between things lukeprog described that I thought were worse than other things.
I have said almost the exact same thing.
And I think that's the large difference. I have done similar things as well, and, for me they were incredibly destructive, and set me back several years in development of my social skills. And it wasn't until I started analyzing the sources of my emotions that I became confident in myself and who I was. I discarded emotions that weren't based in rational thought, and I accepted and embraced those that were.
Perhaps the best lesson to take from this is not to prescribe a single formula to a plethora of people. I will openly admit that I have done that. Before reading the (at times harsh) reactions to my comments, I was honestly astonished that the methods lukeprog (and you, and others) tried would actually work for someone. I spent many years faking confidence and tiptoeing around social protocol, and I was miserable and horribly insecure. I still can't imagine that ever being a positive experience, but I will accept the numerous people who have testified to it at their word that it was. But at the same time, lukeprog should be wary of projecting the "if you do this right, you can be just like me" attitude.
It seems like we do have some areas of agreement, and I'm going to focus on the areas where our perspectives are different.
He seems to think his exploration had positive consequences for himself and for others, given that he has written this post. His perceptions may not be correct, but they are all we have to go on.
Which tactics would you find insulting? Not talking about politics or programming? Maintaining emotional momentum? Displaying confident behavior? Changing topics in conversation by free-associating? Asking for a number while in a rush?
lukeprog observes the preferences of (a subset of) women, and attempts to self-modify in order to fulfill their (perceived) criteria. I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is, and how such a practice would disrespect women's rationality.
I seems like a more cognitive approach was most helpful for you. For other people, a highly behavioral approach might be useful. For me, both have been useful.
It's complicated. Not all of my efforts to expand my personality have succeeded. I eventually do hit a limit of extraversion, for example, beyond which I feel fake and drained. So I do relate to what you are saying. Luckily, some of my attempts at changing my behavior have stuck, and also succeeded in changing my attitudes and sense of self. It was only by pushing my personality to its limits that I gained a sense of what it could do.
Perhaps it's useful to note that all of lukeprog's "tactics" look to me like normal socialization or extensions thereof?
Tailoring one's subject matter to one's audience is very normal. Avoiding esoteric or controversial topics with people one doesn't know well is a simple logical extension of this. The "when flirting" qualifier is relevant in that it implies a new acquaintance; different heuristics apply when dealing with people one knows more about.
This is a fairly basic social skill. (By which I mean that it's applicable everywhere, not that it's trivial to learn. Possibly also noteworthy: The definition of 'correct emotional momentum' can vary from group to group and situation to situation.)
Body language is important. Signaling that one is in a socially-interactive mode when that's true is good practice.
Nonverbal communication conveys a lot of information. Treating that communication as real is generally wise.
I'd question the assertion that people don't notice these changes of topic, but this kind of behavior is quite normal in most real-time conversation contexts and will generally not be questioned unless it appears to be malicious.
Also, to make it perfectly clear: I'm not talking about flirting, dating, or any other romantic or pickup context with any of the above - I don't have (or want; I'm asexual and a-romantic) enough experience to do so. I'm talking about normal, peer-to-peer socialization.
I think that's exactly what we're discussing - whether or not they are "normal socialization or extensions thereof".
First and foremost, the shifting of conversational topics, I would find very insulting. If you can't talk to me normally without desperately reaching for conversational topics, maybe we just shouldn't be talking.
Secondly, I would probably list intentionally avoiding conversational topics like politics. If you're not a blue or a green, I'd love to talk about politics with you. (And if you are a blue or a green, I don't really want to talk to you at all...) And if you don't like talking about politics, maybe we shouldn't be together, if I do.
Third, is probably this business about "emotional momentum". I had no idea what that even meant when I read it. I'm still not sure I do. I have never considered what "stage of conversation" I'm in. If I think of something that's relevant, I say it. It generally works pretty well for me.
I had no objection to the quote, but to the rest of it. The rest of it makes it seem like lukeprog's only goal is sex, particularly the words "totally works" and "optimized".
Ultimately conversation should flow, regardless of who you're talking to. If it flows, you don't need to worry about stilted rules like this, which is the primary source of my objection. I wouldn't want to talk to someone constantly worrying about what to say next - it would seem very forced, I'm sure.
As a sidenote, and perhaps I'm alone in this and perhaps I'm not, it's hard to tell - I am massively introverted. I don't know if that is a source of difference or not (I would imagine most other LWers are as well) but I thought I'd throw it out there.
The technique described is generally used when one or both parties have run out of interesting things to say on the topic at hand - it's a transitional technique. The interesting point is that it's possible to transition to arbitrary topics rather than there having to be some logical connection between the two. I don't see why you'd consider that 'desperate reaching', but suspect it has to do with the specific topics you're imagining someone switching to. Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
This seems... odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs? Or is it just "topics like politics" that you're applying that expectation to? What do you mean by "topics like politics", and why is that category special?
If I'm understanding lukeprog correctly, this refers to monitoring your conversational partner and switching topics or modes if they seem to be losing interest, though that's a simplified description of the skill. I think this is also what you're describing by 'flow', and - importantly - it doesn't come naturally to everyone. To people to whom such skills don't come naturally, or people trying to communicate about the skills, breaking them down into explicitly-described sub-skills as lukeprog did is often quite useful.
No, not at all. I wouldn't at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of "Yeah, the weather's great outside, but I hear it's supposed to rain tomorrow." "Yeah, you know what that's exactly like? Aumann's Agreement Theorem". That's just absurd. Admittedly, that's a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were "completely unrelated" as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
No, I don't. And if the person I'm talking to doesn't want to talk about politics, that's fine. But I'm not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to - that's leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of "impolite" topics.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn't been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone's cousin's roommates' sister's wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann's Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
Given that the topic being considered "impolite" implies that most people won't like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it's not based on no evidence - it's just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
Aye, but if you learn to smile as an ordinary action, you're just changing your true persona.
Thanks to the way humans are wired, a habit of regularly faking smiles will generally lead to a person who genuinely smiles a lot. The exceptions seem to generally be those who have an investment in the smiles staying fake.
Yes, but that wasn't the way it was presented. Or at least not how I read it.
I will readily concede I am tact-filtering here. I leave it to him to say if it's accurate, but it's what I've done in similar situations, so I'll give him the benefit of the tact-filter :)