= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
omslin comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - 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 (101)
I think this is a very bad idea, considering the record of past discussions about sex, gender, and related matters on LW. I've seen quite a few of those, and almost inevitably, the result is either an awful death spiral or, in case someone tries injecting a serious dose of reality, quarrels and internet drama. If the recent discussions superficially look better than usual, this is only because nobody has bothered much with trying to steer them closer to reality, and the death spirals have been able to drift away happily and undisturbedly.
For whatever reason, this forum has shown to be incapable of conducting rational discussions about these topics. This is a sad verdict, but I'm afraid it's realistic.
Feels like you have forbidden knowledge. Not coincidentally, I want to know what it is.
What is it roughly? That innate differences across the sexes play a strong role in causing statistically different mating behaviors to develop? That these differences end up somewhat resembling "females want high-value sex and a devoted father while males want sex and sexually faithful partners"? That females are often attracted to high value behavior (e.g. PUA stuff)? That many people have some, possibly very vague, estimate of how sexually valuable they are, and act upon this belief? Is there any way you can quench my curiosity? It seems obvious that if you answer in general terms you won't offend anyone, as meta thought doesn't really push the emotional buttons.
PS: It has been suggested that general statements can cause worse beliefs in a group, since they're very simplified. But there should be some way of pointing to an area of the map without degrading that region of the map.
It goes something like "Do this... No, that is the opposite of what works, do this... No, you're manipulative and it's unethical to say that... No, saying that it is manipulative is crazy political indoctrination... People here are Pigs... No we're not... Yes you are, manipulative pigs... that's not what your mom said last night." (And somehwere in there is HughRistik writing a massive treatise. If you want to get all the best of such conversations just read through this)
Look for where people are told not to do or think things because they are evil or manipulative rather than wrong or ineffectual.
Look for people inveighing against supposedly commonly held beliefs or behaviors without citing actual examples of offenses.
There is no forbidden knowledge involved. Just search for old LW discussions on these topics, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And yes, often the problems revolve around issues such as those you've mentioned. (Though I wouldn't really agree with the way you've worded most of them, and there are many additional issues that are also apt to cause problems when brought up.)
Analyzing and documenting all the sources of bias and discourse breakdown that appear when these topics are discussed would be a large and fascinating project in its own right. It's an extremely incendiary mix of ideological preconceptions and biases, personal emotional investments, urges to switch from factual discussions to moral superiority contests, signaling-driven opinions, unwillingness to face ugly truths, and so on.