Viliam_Bur comments on LW Women Submissions: On Misogyny - Less Wrong

27 [deleted] 10 April 2013 07:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (472)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 April 2013 03:44:52PM *  1 point [-]

this RSD group you mentioned offers three-day bootcamps for $2,000 - $2,500. That's one-tenth of the annual tuition for a private US college, and they charge it for three days!

How costly is the average divorce in USA? If "the Game" reduces the chance of a marriage followed by a divorce by 1%, was it worth it?

How much money does an average nerd spend on dating before he gets laid? Is the price of getting 1 sexual patner higher or lower after the RSD seminar?

Prices are sometimes high or low depending on the context you put them in...

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 April 2013 03:51:53PM 1 point [-]

How confident ought I be that "the Game" will reduce my chances of an eventual $200,000 divorce by 1%?

Comment deleted 15 April 2013 05:58:38PM [-]
Comment author: OrphanWilde 15 April 2013 06:39:54PM 5 points [-]

Of the supporters of PUA I've read, they break down into two groups - single men and married women. (Married men don't seem to write about PUA, although given that married women do, presumably there are some who have picked up its ideas and simply don't add to the discussion.)

So apparently a lot of women appreciate being "Gamed" in long-term relationships as well, and appreciate the changes in attitude from guys who switch to it. No idea about the statistics. "Alpha attitudes" preclude jealousy, dependency, and insecurity, all attitudes which tend to be destructive. There seem to be a lot of threads on PUA forums about how to maintain a facade of confidence and security going into a LTR. Heh. The major failing point of PUA - it more frequently teaches guys how to pretend to be confident, independent and secure in themselves than how to -be- confident, independent and secure in themselves. For some people, that's enough; they become what they see themselves as. For others, not so much.

Some aspects of it have been useful in my personal life - simply recognizing that neediness was an unattractive element. I had previously expected, incorrectly, that women wanted to be needed. Distinguishing neediness from desire was helpful.

So there are some elements there that are helpful. Unfortunately, Sturgeon's Law applies.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 April 2013 08:27:00PM 4 points [-]

Married men don't seem to write about PUA

Sometimes they do.

The major failing point of PUA - it more frequently teaches guys how to pretend to be confident, independent and secure in themselves than how to -be- confident, independent and secure in themselves.

Sometimes this is explicitly mentioned; it's called "inner Game".

Unfortunately, Sturgeon's Law applies.

Absolutely.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 April 2013 06:05:20PM *  2 points [-]

I agree, but Viliam_Bur raised that particular hypothetical, so I was curious as to his estimate of its likelihood.

ETA: note that "useful skills for establishing and maintaining long-term relationships" is presumably beside the point, though. That is, if "the Game" makes its practitioners more likely to never have a long-term relationship they will thereby also be made less likely to have a $200,000 divorce.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 April 2013 08:32:22PM *  1 point [-]

An experiment with a control group is indeed needed. And yes, it should both evaluate the probability of a divorce per participant, and per married participant.

My estimate... well, it would depend on how much of the Game one knew "naturally" before the seminar. It probably wouldn't work for both extremes -- probably even more for the extreme that couldn't ever get married (and therefore divorced) without the training. :D

For an average person, I would guess that taking the "red pill" does decrease the probability of a divorce by maybe 5%... but I have nothing to support this guess.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 April 2013 09:28:36PM 0 points [-]

OK, thanks.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 April 2013 06:27:14PM *  0 points [-]

it doesn't follow that it's also teaches useful skills for establishing and maintaining long-term relationships

I'm under the impression that the book The Game itself explicitly laments that PUAs aren't good at that. (OTOH, there's no point in learning how to maintain a relationship if you don't even know how to establish one in the first place, so it can still be useful. Not to avoid divorce, though.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 April 2013 04:00:35AM 2 points [-]

I've seen Game/PUA blogs that discuss applications of Game to maintaining relationships.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 April 2013 05:41:10PM 0 points [-]

Yes (see OrphanWilde's comment), but OTOH V_V did say “mostly”.

Comment deleted 15 April 2013 05:54:12PM *  [-]
Comment author: wedrifid 15 April 2013 06:22:37PM *  3 points [-]

Pascal's mugging alert!

False alert. That is not Pascal's Mugging.

The burden of providing evidence is on those who make positive claims.

Probability theory rejects your social rule. It will not play favorites for you for any reason.

I see no evidence for this claim.

Either you are using the word 'evidence' incorrectly or you haven't looked. Consider replacing 'no' with 'insufficient' in order to make your claim plausible.