= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ishaan comments on Polling Thread - 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 (118)
Within the Redpill ideology, the female equivalent of alpha/beta is slut/prude. They claim that just like women have short term relationships with "alphas" and settle down with "betas", men don't mind having flings with "sluts" but would rather marry a sexually inexperienced woman. Conversely, they claim that while "betas" give out attention indiscriminately and fail to acquire sex (the "friend zone"), sluts give out sex indiscriminately but in the end fail to acquire commitment.
(The above does not reflect my own views and I personally think that the language they use is in very poor taste. I also think idea as a whole is wrong about gender and human instincts, but bears just enough superficial similarity to how some humans behave under some conditions to be compelling to some people. )
I can't speak for the Redpill ideology, but in my experience the alpha/beta terminology is well applicable to both sexes.
I know some women who are (very clearly to me) alpha females in the direct terms of status and domination, and I know some women who are beta females and are cooperative, preferring to be led, even submissive. That distinction doesn't correlate with the slut/prude dichotomy.
In more general terms, the Blue and the Red positions are described in the {grand}parent post look like extremes on a continuous spectrum to me. The problem with the Red team is that it treats individuals as fungible: provide the right signals and it doesn't matter who your partner is. The problem with the Blue team is that it ignores the underlying mechanisms -- you just click together, it's magic, don't ask how it works.
For example, it seems reasonable to me that for a successful relationship people do need to "click" together (Blue), but whether they do click is determined partly by what they are, what image they present, and what signals they send out (Red).
Sure, it's quite possible that people have a stable preference for dominant/submissive behavior in social interactions. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial thing to posit.
That's probably because the "Blue" side is not actually a monolithic, self-aware school of thought. "Blue" is an exonym created by Red to describe the amalgam of conventional wisdom and pop-feminism to which they construct themselves as opposing (analogous to how "Cathedral" is not a monolithic, self aware group, but an exonym created by reactionaries). In reality, pop-feminism and conventional wisdom doesn't often bother delving into evo-psych and thinking about sexual strategy...so the seeming lack of specificity inherent in "click" is not in opposition to anyone, but simply the result of not having adopted a position on the matter.
Well, personally I think the additional, and more pressing problem with Red is that it is factually mistaken in its conclusions about what sorts of signals one should send out and how these thing work.
What you described there is not a spectrum from Blue to Red. Blue to Red would look something like "attraction is about signalling affection and kindness" vs. "attraction is about signalling dominance and demand".
What you describe is a spectrum from Black to Red, where Black is the absence of ideas about attraction and sexual dynamics -"something" happens and it just clicks - whereas Red/Blue is a specific position on what that "something" is. The difficulty with distinguishing Blue and Black arises because the whole construct described by the term Blue is partly real conventional wisdom and partly a Red straw-man.
And there's no reason to a priori assume that Red or Blue is actually correct* about what general signals you aught to send out to induce attraction in the average, generalized case, nor is there reason to assume that the truth is anywhere in the middle of these two. There might be a third, Green position which captures the fact of the matter.
That doesn't seem to be so. Conventional wisdom has TONS of heuristics about sexual strategy. The real problem is that these heuristics are just a bunch of separate pieces of advice so they tend to contradict each other and in general lack any coherence or structure. In that sense I agree that the Blues have not "adopted a position on the matter", but instead they propose a large variety of inconsistent positions.
I think it's pretty obvious that this depends. It seems to me that there is a subset of people for whom the Red approach works well (there is some self-selection here as well) and there is a subset of people for whom it doesn't. I agree that the Red claims about their "truths" being biologically hardwired and universal to all humans are... excessive :-)
That's not a good way to formulate a problem. Any specific individual isn't much interested in the "average, generalized case", s/he has more or less specific preferences, and using any techniques selects for people who respond to these techniques.
To give a crude example, flashing a Rolex, keys to a Lamborghini, or talking about your private jet is an excellent signal to "induce attraction" from a very specific kind of females. If you're interested in this specific kind it's a good technique. If you're not, it's not.
Sure, and there is a subset of people for whom Blue conclusions works well, and for whom Green conclusions work well. Just because the conclusions work for some people in some places, doesn't mean the premises are actually sound. Following bad premises will eventually lead to suboptimal outcomes.
Accepting false premises based on conclusions that by chance happen to be instrumentally useful in some restricted cases is considered dangerous for very good reason.
I am not particularly interested in debating whether the Red map matches the territory well or not, but note that in your post you make strong claims -- that Red techniques succeed only "by chance" and even that temporary success "will eventually lead to suboptimal outcomes". Beware of the Typical Mind fallacy.
Did the sides in this debate suddenly switch in these last two comments? I thought you were both making really good points above, and then got lost here at the end. :P Oh well, I gave y'all some upvotes.
Maybe? :-) I think we were discussing the issue, not defending fixed positions.
Fair point :)
My last comment was referring to things in general, rather than the Red/Blue issue
L had pointed out that there is a subset of people for whom Red works well
I said that Red, Blue, etc... referred to models of reality, and the accuracy models should be judged by the evidence supporting those models, rather than the apparent usefulness of the associated techniques. (Example: If someone said aspirin cured headaches by chasing away evil spirits, we shouldn't take the fact that aspirin cures headaches in a subset of cases as evidence that there are evil spirits being chased away.) I further said that making this mistake would lead to sub-optimal outcomes.
L pointed out that what is sub-optimal for me is not necessarily sub-optimal for others.
I also agree with L's assertion that neither of us is defending a fixed position, though I don't think that was the reason for your confusion?
Just to clarify, by "sub-optimal outcomes" I didn't mean that you'll end up unhappy in your romantic relationships (which I agree would be a case of typical mind fallacy). I was referring to sub-optimal outcomes in domains unrelated to sexual strategy.
Also to clarify, the "by chance" refers to the general case of theories which come up with techniques that sometimes work for reasons that may or may not be what the theory says, not to Red/Blue specifically.
If you mistakenly model all women as identical to this specific subset and behave accordingly, you'll create sub-optimal outcomes in a global sense. (For example: What does having this model mean for how you treat women colleagues, coworkers, or students? How you treat daughters?)...note that the Red I've experienced does advocate that its model is true in the general case, rather than for a specific subset (they even have a name for it - "AWALT - All Women Are Like That")
Of course, you could still argue that "optimal outcome" in this domain is specific to who you are...but typical mind fallacy doesn't matter with respect to terminal preferences and values. I don't want a society where people are treated that way, especially not from a young age.
But in general, stepping back from this issue specifically...I just think it's bad epistemic hygiene to judge models by the apparent usefulness of the techniques which they suggest, especially when the fact that the technique is effective was well known before the model was generated.
I disagree. I think that judging models by the success of their forecasts in empirical reality is precisely how they should be evaluated.
Why? Doesn't that mean you'll end up accepting all manner of placebo and frequently misunderstand the reason that something works?
You're mis-paraphrasing "forecasts", where I just said "techniques" in general. I think the distinction between pre and post hoc is important here.
If they are actually forecasts (as in, the prediction was made after making the model) then it does lend some credence...but if the model was made post-hoc of seeing certain techniques work and observing certain trends, as is the case with most of what we are talking about, it's another matter entirely.
The fact that I want to judge models by their effectiveness in the real world does not imply that I have to be stupid about it.
The Red models make forecasts: they tell you what to do and what results to expect, all in the future.
That's usually called historical data on which the model is based (or fitted) :-)
But is it your contention that Red techniques (regardless of whether the underlying Red models are correct or not) actually work? You seem to have been saying that they don't.