= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Barry_Cotter 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)
So don't learn about social functioning from those who have expertise. If you do learn from personal experience don't theorise it or systematise it, if you have done that don't talk about it?
Sounds about right for the playing of social games generally, doesn't it? How depressing. Lionhearted's new post seems relevant, particularly pjeby's discussion
No, that doesn't matter either, I think. Individuals who publicly identify as being influenced by PUA thinking can be seen as virtuous given some moderate level of social savvy. It's only the vague class of imaginably contemptible PUA folk that is manipulative.
Would it be fair to say the disdain is mostly signalling then? Moderate social savvy is not a high bar.
That depends a lot on the specifics of the connotations of "signalling" I think. The people who engage in such signalling always have the best of intentions and obviously are only trying to positively influence others, never manipulate them. (Am I insulting them by insinuating that they are unreflective, or being charitable by saying they're not consciously manipulative? Or am I being sarcastic? Does it matter either way? You decide!)