You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on Pick Up Artists(PUAs) my view - Less Wrong Discussion

-27 [deleted] 11 April 2013 02:15AM

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

Comments (94)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2013 11:26:13PM *  1 point [-]

Yes. On the other hand, a greater fraction of women than of men are good-looking. (See this.)

Comment author: Kindly 13 April 2013 01:49:15AM 4 points [-]

Being good-looking is an absolute thing? I always assumed it meant something like "top 20%".

Comment author: [deleted] 13 April 2013 09:00:49AM *  4 points [-]

Well, it is the example of two-place word EY used, but I do think that there's a non-totally-arbitrary way to normalize it that makes it make sense to compare Sexiness(Admirer1, Entity1) with Sexiness(Admirer2, Entity2) even when Admirer1 != Admirer2. Think about how many straight men would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight woman, and how many straight women would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight man, for any given value of “motivated”.

Even by asking Admirer1 and Admirer2 to rate Entity1 and Entity2's attractiveness respectively on a 0-to-5 scale you get the results mentioned in the article I've edited my comment to link to.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 14 April 2013 01:53:40AM 1 point [-]

I would argue your statement in the grandparent was misleading since it made it seem like this was a property of the Entities and not the Admirers.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 April 2013 08:30:41AM *  2 points [-]

Is “gold is expensive” a property of gold, or of the market? If the latter, is “gold is expensive” misleading because it sounds like the former?

Comment author: Kindly 17 April 2013 03:09:26PM 3 points [-]

That is actually a popular way to be confused about economics: thinking "gold is expensive" is a property of gold.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 13 April 2013 12:03:16AM 3 points [-]

(You should probably link the OkCupid study, or whatever you're using as the basis of this statement, which otherwise comes off as... contentious, to those who aren't familiar with the research.)

Comment author: [deleted] 13 April 2013 09:02:53AM 4 points [-]

That's not the only piece of evidence I was thinking about, but it's the only one that is neither just anecdotal nor likely to completely mind-kill the discussion, so... Edited it in.