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.

Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 24 November 2014 08:56AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (317)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (317)

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

Comment author: advancedatheist 24 November 2014 03:53:49PM *  4 points [-]

I thought this article about coaching in pickup techniques kind of misses the point:

I Took A Class on How to Pick Up Women—But I Learned More About Male Anxiety

http://www.alternet.org/culture/i-took-class-how-pick-women-i-learned-more-about-male-anxiety

I posted in response:

For some reason we have this notion that the young man's "sexual debut," as the scientific literature about human sexuality calls it, happens as an organic developmental stage in the late teens, with a median age of around 17. If a 17 year old boy picked at random can probably figure out how to close the deal with a girl for the first time, this accomplishment certainly can't depend on coaching or life experience, because what the hell does a 17 year old boy know? But apparently a nontrivial number of boys in every generation miss this developmental window, and then they wind up in their 20's without an adult man's skill set for dealing with women, like the adult virgins who pay to receive instruction by alleged PUA's. If you have a teenage son, and you can see that girls don't find this boy sexually attractive, that has to affect how you view your son, and in a bad way. Perhaps we should consider earlier and more radical interventions into these boys' lives to help them to develop the adult man's skill set for relationships with women, instead of leaving this to the haphazard because of romantic nonsense that "the right girl will come along some day."

BTW, in case someone brings up the P-word, I'd like to know how seeing a prostitute will help a young man develop the skills he needs to get into sexual relationships through dating - because I just don't see the connection.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 November 2014 10:33:47AM *  15 points [-]

I'd like to know how seeing a prostitute will help a young man develop the skills he needs to get into sexual relationships through dating

Seeing sex as less "magical" could help reduce tension with trying to get sex.

(By the way, the whole article seems to me like: "Look, some people have less social skills -- let's make fun of them! Oh, they are trying to overcome their weakness -- wow, that's even funnier!" The elephant in the room is that in our culture it is taboo to express empathy towards men and boys.)

Comment author: chaosmage 25 November 2014 08:12:59PM 1 point [-]

in our culture it is taboo to express empathy towards men and boys.

Really? I do that all the time and literally nobody has ever tried to stop me or punish me for it. Do your actual personal experiences differ?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 November 2014 10:17:20PM -2 points [-]

FWIW, there are contexts in which I've seen this criticized.

Usually, the context is that someone has started a discussion about some situation in which men or boys have caused suffering or otherwise behaved badly, and someone else has responded by expressing empathy towards the men or boys in question, and the person who started the discussion has criticized the attempt to switch the conversation focus from empathy towards the objects of the behavior, to empathy for the agents of it. (The jargon term for this is "derailing" in many contexts.)

Of course, this is only a subset of the general category of expressing empathy towards men and boys, but it's one that gets a lot of attention.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 25 November 2014 11:44:15PM *  -2 points [-]

This is hardly unique to situations involving gender.

For instance, sometimes this sort of thing happens —

  • Person A makes a decision or takes an action that hurts Person B — perhaps accidentally; perhaps out of negligence or bias.
  • Person B makes a demand — such as restitution for the harm done; or that the situation be corrected so that people like A won't hurt people any more.
  • A or A's supporters ignore or deflect B's demand, saying things such as that A's decision-making role is difficult; that A's guilt over hurting B is unpleasant to A; or that continuing to discuss A's mistake (and not "moving on") is a sign of malice, unfairness, or mental imbalance on B's part.

That's derailing: Person A changing the subject from "A hurt B, and B wants it fixed" to "A's life is so hard and people are being so harsh to A" in order to avoid talking about fixing the situation for B, the injured party.

Comment author: bogus 26 November 2014 12:15:07AM *  1 point [-]

That's derailing: Person A changing the subject from "A hurt B, and B wants it fixed" to "A's life is so hard and people are being so harsh to A" in order to avoid talking about fixing the situation for B, the injured party.

Let's pick an example to make things more concrete. Person B owns a field, and Person A runs trains on a nearby railroad that throw dangerous sparks onto the field. Person B demands that Person A either stop the trains from passing near his property, or else fit them with a mechanism that will prevent sparks. Now Person A complains that the trains are used by low-income commuters who will be forced to pay unreasonably high prices in order to cover these additional costs. Is Person A "derailing the conversation", or is this a valid point? Extra credit: What might influence your answer to this question?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 26 November 2014 01:11:35AM -1 points [-]

Yes, I agree that it's not unique to situations involving gender.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit