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

Eugine_Nier comments on LW Women: LW Online - Less Wrong Discussion

29 Post author: daenerys 15 February 2013 01:43AM

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

Comments (591)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 20 February 2013 04:23:36PM 0 points [-]

LW was the first place I've been where women caring about their own interests is viewed as a weird inimical trait which it's only reasonable to subvert, and I'm talking about PUA.

Could you give some examples? I'm having trouble thinking of any.

The general idea that women not being attracted to men who are attracted to them is just some arbitrary wrongness in the universe that any sensible man should try to get the women to ignore.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 February 2013 06:00:20AM *  1 point [-]

The general idea that women not being attracted to men who are attracted to them is just some arbitrary wrongness in the universe

Well, if they were attracted to the men attracted to them this would increase total utility. One of the less pleasant implications of utilitarianism.

On the other hand, it's interesting that people are willing to swallow pushing people in front of trolleys, but not swallow the above. Probably related to this.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 February 2013 01:16:19PM 1 point [-]

The general idea that women not being attracted to men who are attracted to them is just some arbitrary wrongness in the universe

Well, if they were attracted to the men attracted to them this would increase total utility. One of the less pleasant implications of utilitarianism.

This is only an implication of utilitarianism to the extent that forcibly wireheading everyone is an implication of utilitarianism. However, given some of your other remarks about unpleasant truths conflicting with social conformity, I doubt if you intended your comment as an argument against utilitarianism, but rather as an argument for PUA. Am I reading the tea-leaves correctly here?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 February 2013 01:44:27AM 1 point [-]

This is only an implication of utilitarianism to the extent that forcibly wireheading everyone is an implication of utilitarianism.

Well, one can deal with wireheading by declaring that wireheads don't count towards utility and/or have negative utility. That approach doesn't work in this case since we don't want to assign negative utility to the state of two people being attracted to each other.

I doubt if you intended your comment as an argument against utilitarianism, but rather as an argument for PUA. Am I reading the tea-leaves correctly here?

Why can't I do both? After all, the correct Bayesian response to discovering that two ideas seem to contradict is decrease one's confidence in both.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 February 2013 09:12:54AM 1 point [-]

Well, one can deal with wireheading by declaring that wireheads don't count towards utility and/or have negative utility.

One can deal with any counterexample by declaring that it "doesn't count". That does not make it not count. Wireheads, by definition, experience huge utility. That is what the word means, in discussions of utilitarianism.

That approach doesn't work in this case since we don't want to assign negative utility to the state of two people being attracted to each other.

We might very well want to assign negative utility to the process whereby that happened, for the same reasons as for forcible wireheading.

I doubt if you intended your comment as an argument against utilitarianism, but rather as an argument for PUA. Am I reading the tea-leaves correctly here?

Why can't I do both?

That is just a way of not saying what you do. Do, you, in fact, do both, and how much of each?

After all, the correct Bayesian response to discovering that two ideas seem to contradict is decrease one's confidence in both.

The correct rational response is to resolve the contradiction, not to ignore it and utter platitudes about the truth lying between extremes. Dressing the latter up in rationalist jargon does not change that.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 February 2013 06:53:26AM 1 point [-]

We might very well want to assign negative utility to the process whereby that happened, for the same reasons as for forcible wireheading.

That's my point, you need to assign utility to processes rather than just outcomes.

That is just a way of not saying what you do. Do, you, in fact, do both, and how much of each?

I am in fact doing both, in this case mostly against utilitarianism.

The correct rational response is to resolve the contradiction, not to ignore it and utter platitudes about the truth lying between extremes.

There is a difference between assuming the truth lies between two extremes, and assigning significant probability (say ~50%) to each of the two extremes. I'm trying to do the latter.