Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

hg00 comments on The map of cognitive biases, errors and obstacles affecting judgment and management of global catastrophic risks - Less Wrong

3 Post author: turchin 16 July 2016 12:11PM

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

Comments (63)

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

Comment author: hg00 17 July 2016 09:46:57AM *  -1 points [-]

So it was OK for them to lie to me?

I did not say that.

I’m gonna go date 5 young women at the same time by telling them lies, then blame them for being insecure when the truth comes out.

If women were as terrible as you claim they are, it would not be necessary to tell them lies. Telling them about the other women you were seeing would increase their attraction to you.

Roosh (Red Pill thought leader) has written multiple times about how girls he's slept with have cried when they found his blog. This is also a data point that works against Red Pill ideology--if Roosh's online personality was actually one that women found attractive, they should want to fuck him even more after finding his blog. I suspect what is going on is that Roosh used disrespect for women as a crutch to overcome the fact that he used to be a weak, directionless man (as a result of unknown environmental factors--see my other comment) and overcome his fear of them. Then once he was reinforced for this behavioral strategy (with what is possible evolution's strongest reinforcer), he kept it up. Mark Manson wrote a good piece on this.

For example, I want to make it illegal to lie about one’s relationship status and sexual history. But, I can’t at my current power level. More specifically: I have met 3 different employees of a certain investment bank, who all were more sexually successful than me despite routinely lying to women to get sex. One tried to seduce my girlfriend at the time despite having one “girlfriend” and several “casual sex partners” who were unaware of each other, and who he implied possible long-term relationship potential with. Another tried to set me up with a woman he was tired of seeing (she wanted a relationship; he just wanted sex) without disclosing that he had had sex with them. A 3rd talked to me about startup projects while badly hiding the micro-expressions for “smugness/contempt” and “duping delight” and then predictably failed to follow up. I’m pretty sure at least 2 of these guys are into spreading genital herpes. But, I looked up the slander laws and it’s illegal for me to publicly shame these selfish men or their firm without recorded evidence (there’s a presumption of innocence), and it’s illegal for me to collect that evidence (two-party consent required for recording, and they avoid using email for their games). Thus, they win, and I lose, and their sex partners lose, and the people they do business with lose (their attitude carries over to their business dealings...it’s all about wealth extraction.).)

OK, so I think you are making a sort of classic geek mistake of believing that the stated rules are the actual rules. This is something most people figure out relatively early in life, but the same cognitive reallocation that makes geeks so good at analytical stuff, and the internal honesty that makes them good at building accurate world models, may mean they take a while to pick this hypocrisy stuff up. To fix this mistake, internalize the fact that the rules don't apply to you. The rules apply to people who follow the rules. Operate with more of a consequentialist mentality. Sometimes the world needs Chaotic Good agents of justice to use Tor through a proxy and talk trash about people online. It sounds like this issue is important to you--this is your opportunity to be a hero. Just keep in mind: "It's only illegal if you get caught". Wait a while after you have left the lives of these men to write about them, and distort your accusations so they won't think of you while you're reading them. Do thorough thinking/planning/research--this is your project, not mine.

BTW a quote from the Playboys blog you link to suggests that Graham's remarks about West Coast wealth may generalize surprisingly well to East Coast wealth:

Regular People Believe Rich People Are Mean: Another false assumption. Rich people are generally extremely logical. If you ask for a favor that you know he can easily do and he says “no” this does not imply that the person is mean. Instead? It implies that he has no reason to grant the favor.

From a consequentialist perspective, I would much rather see you seek revenge in order to get this off your mind and then join aturchin on the good guy team (a relatively high-trust group, by the way, with few bad actors) than stew in effective egoism. And research has found that giving back increases long term happiness, so selflessness may the selfish route in the long run.

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 04:28:38AM 1 point [-]

So it was OK for them to lie to me?

I did not say that.

To fix this mistake, internalize the fact that the rules don't apply to you. The rules apply to people who follow the rules.

Sounds like you're saying lying is OK.

If you ask for a favor that you know he can easily do and he says “no” this does not imply that the person is mean. Instead? It implies that he has no reason to grant the favor.

That's selfishness...maximizing one's own utility at the expense of total utility. Apparently this is OK.

Roosh (Red Pill thought leader) has written multiple times about how girls he's slept with have cried when they found his blog. This is also a data point that works against Red Pill ideology.

Red Pill ideology says women want a "naturally" successful guy, and seeing how the sausage is made is disgusting to them (male struggles, male suffering, time at the gym, time reading weird forums, steroids, shoe lifts, etc.). Roosh's blog reveals that he is a fake, low-status, STD-spreading manipulator, which is disgusting to most women. His persona, however, is not unappealing.

The Red Pill explained some painful mistakes I had made, more clearly than any other source. Examples:

"Beta orbiting": why demonstrating good character, high value and virtuous restraint through being friends with an attractive woman is disgusting to them, why I spent years in sexless relationships, and why many women I was attracted to dated liars who pushed for sex quickly instead of me.

"Hypergamy": why all of my exes lined up other sexual prospects while in a relationship with me, and dumped me as soon as it was in their best interest. Also why my aunts with fat or poor husbands got divorced, while my uncles with fat or poor wives stayed married.

"Tingles Uber Alles": why tall, muscular and slightly scary men get a lot of sex, and why my outgoing middle-class Asian friend who's 5'3" is a virgin at age 30.

"Alpha Fucks; Beta Bucks": why many women enjoy casual sex, and lie about it without hesitation or remorse, including one of my exes.

Look it up. Or don't. Actually, it's better for me if you stay naive.

It sounds like this issue is important to you--this is your opportunity to be a hero. I would much rather see you seek revenge in order to get this off your mind and then join aturchin on the good guy team (a relatively high-trust group, by the way, with few bad actors) than stew in effective egoism.

Thank you for permission to turn evil. I make my own rules from now on. My revenge will be legal, general (not targeting any specific group, people or company), and anonymous.

For the sake of argument, if my sexual fetish was nuking densely populated cities and fucking in the heat of the fireball while listening to the screams of the dying, can you say with certainty that this is morally wrong?

Comment author: hg00 20 July 2016 10:08:55AM *  -1 points [-]

Sounds like you're saying lying is OK.

Sure, in certain circumstances. I think I agree with Chris Hallquist at least.

That's selfishness...maximizing one's own utility at the expense of total utility. Apparently this is OK.

A person who's maximizing total utility is not going to grant every favor asked of them.

Red Pill ideology says women want a "naturally" successful guy, and seeing how the sausage is made is disgusting to them (male struggles, male suffering, time at the gym, time reading weird forums, steroids, shoe lifts, etc.). Roosh's blog reveals that he is a fake, low-status, STD-spreading manipulator, which is disgusting to most women.

Women cried when they found his blog. They did not blow a raspberry in disgust. They cried because they thought they had some kind of connection with a guy who turned out to be callously manipulating them.

The Red Pill explained some painful mistakes I had made, more clearly than any other source.

I agree it's a perspective worth keeping in mind and I said so above. I'm just saying that the case the RP folks make is overstated.

Think about it this way: Crime happens. Sometimes people get mugged. And it makes sense to take steps to protect yourself from getting mugged. Maybe you're going to learn martial arts. Maybe you're going to avoid walking through sketchy areas at night. Maybe you're going to pack heat. But even though crime happens, that doesn't mean that everyone is a criminal. It's easy for a person who had one or two really emotionally significant muggings to update on those experiences and start assuming the world is full of criminals even if that isn't actually the case.

I spent years in sexless relationships

I don't think it's normal for unmarried men to stick with women who don't have sex with them for years, so if you don't mind I'm going to psychoanalyze you a little bit.

It sounds to me like what might have happened in your case is that you focused really hard on being "good" and not so much on being "powerful" (see my good * power attraction equation from above). You were passed over by women looking for monogamous relationships, because they thought they could do better than you in the "power" department, and get a respected brave instead of a disrespected one. However, you were an ideal mate for "dual mating strategy" bad actor women. For these women, the fact that your "power" stat was low did not matter since they were just looking for a provider to work their dual strategy. Since your relationship prospects were filtered in this way, this gave you a distorted picture of what a typical woman is like.

Another possibility is that in the same way some neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods that have a lot of crime, you live in a city that has a dog-eat-dog dating culture.

Thank you for permission to turn evil. I make my own rules from now on. My revenge will be legal, general (not targeting any specific group, people or company), and anonymous.

It seems kind of pointless and counterproductive to take revenge on randoms that have not done anything to harm you...? BTW, I gave you "permission" to take revenge only on people who harmed you.

Consider a world in which nondirected revenge is normal. In such a world, revenge does not act as a deterrent to bad actions (because nondirected revenge isn't likely to result in bad consequences for a particular bad actor) and it also results in an expanding circle of harm (because victims of nondirected revenge are liable to engage in nondirected revenge themselves--consider the possibility that the bad actors you were harmed by were themselves acting in aggression in response to some bad situation like growing up with an absent father).

For the sake of argument, if my sexual fetish was nuking densely populated cities and fucking in the heat of the fireball while listening to the screams of the dying, can you say with certainty that this is morally wrong?

Jesus christ dude. I'm a moral anti-realist but I certainly would prefer you did not do that.

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 03:59:09AM *  1 point [-]

Jesus christ dude.

I put a check mark for today on the calendar I use to track my Quirrelmort-inspired cynicism.

But even though crime happens, that doesn't mean that everyone is a criminal.

Brains evolved to enable people to exploit dumber people.

It sounds to me like what might have happened in your case is that you focused really hard on being "good" and not so much on being "powerful"

I naively believed the best way to get a good wife was to act like a good husband.

It turns out that the best way to get a good wife is to be powerful...and the way to become powerful is to selfishly build up skills/power/experience, including sexual experience.

you live in a city that has a dog-eat-dog dating culture.

Welcome to any metropolitan city.

consider the possibility that the bad actors you were harmed by were themselves acting in aggression in response to some bad situation like growing up with an absent father

Probably. But what difference does it make? They still hurt me, violating norms of civil behavior, and were not (and cannot) be punished for it. Thus, the rational thing for me to do is to do unto others first.

Justice is a lie told by the powerful.

A person who's maximizing total utility is not going to grant every favor asked of them.

I am a "happiness monster". My utility deserves a 1000x multiplier.