= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on LW Women Submissions: On Misogyny - 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 (472)
Of course everyone (like you) want to put down people who claim higher status than you think they really have. What makes one's social dominance "artificial" or genuine? Merely the success of convincing others that you are in fact dominant. So your argument (that artificially high dominance is bad) implies that you only dislike unsuccessful PUAs, the ones who fail to raise their status in your eyes.
...what I meant by that, is the methods that people usually employ when attempting to puff up social dominance (displays of power and authority, disregard for others, etc) are distasteful.
That's sort of true, but the order of events is reversed, and we need to unpack "status".
If I identify someone using unethical behavior, I dislike them, thereby lowering their social status.
To become a "successful" PUA (one that raised his/her status in my eyes) one would need to refrain from behavior I perceive as distasteful. Obviously, this includes refraining from all behaviors that I define as immoral.
Unpacking status: Perceptions of "dominance" and perceptions of "liking" are separate. Dominance is decided by power hierarchy within a group - for example, I'll almost always perceive my boss as "dominant", but if she exerts authority unfairly I will see her as dominant and unlikeable, whereas if she is charismatic and helps me achieve my goals I will see her as dominant and likeable.