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.

RichardKennaway comments on Open Thread, Feb. 2 - Feb 8, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Gondolinian 02 February 2015 12:28AM

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

Comments (253)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 February 2015 08:22:02PM 2 points [-]

But AIUI, many PUA gurus nowadays understand that these are not just ethically problematic, but also have very real drawbacks for their more specific goals.

The point is that even some people who do have speaking slots at PUA events don't like to be called a PUA to disassociate from those values.

Many people only engage with PUA as far as they strictly need to. Once they've gotten a few dates and started a LTR, they just drop out of the scene. I'd argue that these should count as successes.

If you read David Burns "The Feel Good handbook" he makes the point that showing vunerability is a condition to get someone to love you. A lot of behavior that a lot of beginning PUA's adopt go in the other direction and might make it less likely that the person get's into a long term relationship.

If you listen to Tucker Max et al podcast you will find the advice to have a clean flat to signal consciousness when a woman comes over. For most people here, that's likely good advice. On the other hand most self labeled PUA will tell you that thinks like that don't matter. They have gotten women over when their flat was in an awful state and things still worked.

Tucker Max et al did run a study on mechanical turk to see what kind of shoes woman prefer men to wear on dates. The result is that leather shoes are good but the price doesn't really matter. I could go with a PUA who tells you to peacock or that looks don't matter but if you are a nerd, then likely just wearing leather shoes is a good bet.

Telling people to clean their flat and wear leather shoes doesn't help with selling bootcamps. Telling people to go cold approach in bars and clubs does. It's produces a lot of painful anxiety and makes guys think that it's important do spent large sums of money to learn to deal with it.

Some PUAs definitely have unhelpful attitudes towards women, and PUA jargon clearly shows a legacy of bad attitudes from past "gurus".

If someone who gives seminars to teach social skills uses vocabulary that has effects that he doesn't want, that says something about that persons abilities. In my experience the people I know who are skilled with language don't do that.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 11 February 2015 02:22:35PM 1 point [-]

If you read David Burns "The Feel Good handbook" he makes the point that showing vunerability is a condition to get someone to love you.

What does "vulnerable" mean in this context? People use the word a lot, but nothing listed against it in the dictionary strikes me as a positive thing: susceptible of receiving wounds or physical injury, open to attack or injury of a non-physical nature, in need of special care because of age, disability, risk of abuse or neglect. The general Google hits on the word are even more unattractive.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 11 February 2015 09:44:39PM 2 points [-]

I think he means it in Mark Manson's sense.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 February 2015 01:25:43PM 0 points [-]

Ah. I'll pass.

Comment author: Epictetus 11 February 2015 02:47:02PM 2 points [-]

What does "vulnerable" mean in this context?

Exactly what the dictionary says: open to attack or injury of a non-physical nature. It doesn't sound very good when put in those terms, granted, but the main idea is that showing vulnerability is a way of signalling trust. You give someone the power to harm you, but you trust them not to abuse it. One form is sharing secrets or personal details (if you read HPMOR, this point comes up).

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 February 2015 04:53:18PM 1 point [-]

open to attack or injury of a non-physical nature

You do need to be open to injury of a non-physical nature to empathize in a way with another person where you feel their pain. The act of caring about another person opens you up to feel bad when they get hurt.

But the openness for negative emotions also means an openness for positive emotions. You feel good when the other person feels good. If you are vulnerable to a girl and she smiles to you in deep happiness that feels good. The ability to do that makes the girl feel agentship. She's not just an object but an agent.

A lot of that is also unconscious. Emotional flow is part of most healthy relationships and a lot of people have barrier against that.