= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Influence = Manipulation - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (46)
The problem with using that as a Schelling point, is that it means that influence can become manipulation simple by virtue of the influencer becoming becoming more self-reflective and thinking about what he's doing and why it works.
I think that's basically too far outside of the model of the sort of people who use that Schelling point for for the consideration to occur to them, so they don't realize it's a problem.
Self-reflection is far outside their model?
The model they are using is of probably-morally-contemptible PUA folk. Morally contemptible people are morally contemptible. Good people don't become morally contemptible. If someone becomes a PUA-esque person after engaging in reflection then that just means they were morally contemptible beforehand as well. And morally contemptible people don't engage in self-reflection anyway so they'd they'd never end up as a PUA-esque person. People who engage in self-reflection properly will look like fuzzily imagined knights in shining armor, because they are not morally contemptible, obviously.
This only applies to vaguely imagined PUA folk. If a PUA-esque person actually shows up and starts talking to a person with this kind of model then of course it no longer applies.
The above is my general impression of the more saddening parts of what I perceive to be the kind of implicit social reasoning involved. Others will have better general impressions.