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.

Fluttershy comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 25 May 2015 12:00AM

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

Comments (301)

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

Comment author: Evan_Gaensbauer 27 May 2015 01:42:50AM *  3 points [-]

A problem is that any attempt to improve attractiveness will lead some people to declare that you are evil or otherwise defective. Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a 'dickhead' according to members of my peer group.

  • #NotAllPeerGroups.

Seriously, though, I feel for you being in a peer group which could be better at encouraging fellow men* while still respecting women, rather than hitting some failure mode because of signaling. I know you wrote only some people will declare you evil or otherwise defective, but I don't see a reason not to leave them behind, all else equal. John Salvatier is a man I'm acquainted with, a member of this peer group who writes about improving attractiveness (not just sexual attractiveness, but general attractiveness based on fashion. He doesn't seem the sort who anyone I know accuses of being evil or otherwise defective. He hangs out on r/malefashionadvice, which seems to have an air of being more about becoming "a gentleman" rather than a "pick-up artist". Whether it's women or other men who are calling each other 'dickheads', I think we can find better peer groups which engender habits of expressing a desire for self-improvement better, and peer groups which won't punish individuals when desires are expressed.

In fact, its possible that LW rationality is training people to have bad social skills. "How to change your mind" might just be how to look like a weak-willed person who won't stick to their guns, or if you change your mind about politics, it makes you a traitor.

I agree that's very possible. It's an unfortunate trade-off for bad credence calibration. I'm not sure it's a trade-off worth undoing, though.

*I'm inferring from your comment you're a man, but pardon me if I'm assuming too much.

Comment author: Fluttershy 28 May 2015 05:14:52PM 4 points [-]

I don't necessarily think that social confidence and credence should be conflated to the extent that a few replies in this thread of posts have conflated them by use of the word "confidence" to refer to both concepts. It is possible to have confident body language, be an active participant in conversations, and even call others out on their overconfidence while still being a well-calibrated individual.