Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: hg00 21 July 2016 10:36:14AM *  0 points [-]

assuming infidelity is legal

http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessmaximizers/

Anyway, it sounds like you've gone through a lot. I'm sorry to hear of your suffering. I hope that someday you will have joyful experiences that help you put your current suffering in perspective.

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 05:56:10PM 1 point [-]

Thank you for the kind words.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 July 2016 04:41:48AM -1 points [-]

It's safest to assume that any woman will dump/manipulate/cheat me the second it's in her best interest to do so.

Ask and ye shall receive.

You're setting yourself up for an unhappy life.

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 04:52:43AM 2 points [-]

"What good is life experience to someone who plays Quidditch?" said Professor Quirrell, and shrugged. "I think you will change your mind in time, after every trust you place has failed you, and you have become cynical."

"You have to get seriously burnt by friends/employers/family members (ideally all three) over women/money/jobs (again ideally all three) before you realise that you create more hassle for yourself and crush opportunities if people perceive you to be smart/rich/well connected. Most people simply are not worth knowing and are too insecure to be good friends with."

Comment author: hg00 20 July 2016 10:08:55AM *  -1 points [-]

Sounds like you're saying lying is OK.

Sure, in certain circumstances. I think I agree with Chris Hallquist at least.

That's selfishness...maximizing one's own utility at the expense of total utility. Apparently this is OK.

A person who's maximizing total utility is not going to grant every favor asked of them.

Red Pill ideology says women want a "naturally" successful guy, and seeing how the sausage is made is disgusting to them (male struggles, male suffering, time at the gym, time reading weird forums, steroids, shoe lifts, etc.). Roosh's blog reveals that he is a fake, low-status, STD-spreading manipulator, which is disgusting to most women.

Women cried when they found his blog. They did not blow a raspberry in disgust. They cried because they thought they had some kind of connection with a guy who turned out to be callously manipulating them.

The Red Pill explained some painful mistakes I had made, more clearly than any other source.

I agree it's a perspective worth keeping in mind and I said so above. I'm just saying that the case the RP folks make is overstated.

Think about it this way: Crime happens. Sometimes people get mugged. And it makes sense to take steps to protect yourself from getting mugged. Maybe you're going to learn martial arts. Maybe you're going to avoid walking through sketchy areas at night. Maybe you're going to pack heat. But even though crime happens, that doesn't mean that everyone is a criminal. It's easy for a person who had one or two really emotionally significant muggings to update on those experiences and start assuming the world is full of criminals even if that isn't actually the case.

I spent years in sexless relationships

I don't think it's normal for unmarried men to stick with women who don't have sex with them for years, so if you don't mind I'm going to psychoanalyze you a little bit.

It sounds to me like what might have happened in your case is that you focused really hard on being "good" and not so much on being "powerful" (see my good * power attraction equation from above). You were passed over by women looking for monogamous relationships, because they thought they could do better than you in the "power" department, and get a respected brave instead of a disrespected one. However, you were an ideal mate for "dual mating strategy" bad actor women. For these women, the fact that your "power" stat was low did not matter since they were just looking for a provider to work their dual strategy. Since your relationship prospects were filtered in this way, this gave you a distorted picture of what a typical woman is like.

Another possibility is that in the same way some neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods that have a lot of crime, you live in a city that has a dog-eat-dog dating culture.

Thank you for permission to turn evil. I make my own rules from now on. My revenge will be legal, general (not targeting any specific group, people or company), and anonymous.

It seems kind of pointless and counterproductive to take revenge on randoms that have not done anything to harm you...? BTW, I gave you "permission" to take revenge only on people who harmed you.

Consider a world in which nondirected revenge is normal. In such a world, revenge does not act as a deterrent to bad actions (because nondirected revenge isn't likely to result in bad consequences for a particular bad actor) and it also results in an expanding circle of harm (because victims of nondirected revenge are liable to engage in nondirected revenge themselves--consider the possibility that the bad actors you were harmed by were themselves acting in aggression in response to some bad situation like growing up with an absent father).

For the sake of argument, if my sexual fetish was nuking densely populated cities and fucking in the heat of the fireball while listening to the screams of the dying, can you say with certainty that this is morally wrong?

Jesus christ dude. I'm a moral anti-realist but I certainly would prefer you did not do that.

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 03:59:09AM *  1 point [-]

Jesus christ dude.

I put a check mark for today on the calendar I use to track my Quirrelmort-inspired cynicism.

But even though crime happens, that doesn't mean that everyone is a criminal.

Brains evolved to enable people to exploit dumber people.

It sounds to me like what might have happened in your case is that you focused really hard on being "good" and not so much on being "powerful"

I naively believed the best way to get a good wife was to act like a good husband.

It turns out that the best way to get a good wife is to be powerful...and the way to become powerful is to selfishly build up skills/power/experience, including sexual experience.

you live in a city that has a dog-eat-dog dating culture.

Welcome to any metropolitan city.

consider the possibility that the bad actors you were harmed by were themselves acting in aggression in response to some bad situation like growing up with an absent father

Probably. But what difference does it make? They still hurt me, violating norms of civil behavior, and were not (and cannot) be punished for it. Thus, the rational thing for me to do is to do unto others first.

Justice is a lie told by the powerful.

A person who's maximizing total utility is not going to grant every favor asked of them.

I am a "happiness monster". My utility deserves a 1000x multiplier.

Comment author: hg00 20 July 2016 10:10:53AM *  0 points [-]

Over 1% risk for unsuspecting men is enough that I'll paternity-test all of my children prior to claiming legal fatherhood.

As would I--there's no reason not to. But I think you are putting too much emphasis on the importance of this. In a healthy relationship, a paternity test is like an air bag: it's a safety measure to guard against something that has a very low chance of happening. Don't let the fact that bad female actors exist deter you from having happy relationships with good female actors. There's a woman on this very forum who precommitted to having her kids paternity tested.

Test pilots are not scientists...most of test pilot work is routine precision flying, and it's the engineers, not the pilots, who typically design the test program.

He invented the rigid flight helmet.

The woman ideal is getting support/resources from the brave (good resources) while cheating with the chief (better genes).

Nope, the best case scenario is to marry the chief or otherwise secure the commitment of a high status man. Cheating has a huge downside: it's possible to get caught and become ostracized. In the EEA, if a single mother was ostracized, her child's chance of success was considerably diminished. This created evolutionary pressure for women to be loyal, and that's why over 90% of births are non-cuckold births. That's why loyalty to a respected brave is a strategy that has higher expected value than cheating on a respected brave with the chief.

It doesn't take a genius to think of stuff like this, but it does not trigger male outrage and thus does not gather tons of pageviews and get repeated ad nauseum.

BTW I recommend http://reddit.com/r/purplepilldebate for getting some perspective on Red Pill ideas. But just in general keep in mind that they're presenting the ideas in the way that gets you maximally riled up due to memetic selection effects (see outrage link).

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 03:45:28AM 2 points [-]

Don't let the fact that bad female actors exist deter you from having happy relationships with good female actors.

"Good" = doing what benefits others. "Bad" = doing what benefits me.

It's safest to assume that any woman will dump/manipulate/cheat me the second it's in her best interest to do so.

It's safest to assume all guns are loaded.

Nope, the best case scenario is to marry the chief or otherwise secure the commitment of a high status man.

Nope, for any given high status man the woman is able to marry, there exists an even higher status man the woman would be able to fuck, but not marry, given a large population, and assuming infidelity is legal. Thus, in the real world, a woman marrying the most wealthy man who wants to marry her and then cheating with the most attractive man who wants to fuck her gives her the best combination she can achieve. A man who was both as rich as her husband and as hot as her affair partner would never marry her.

It doesn't take a genius to think of stuff like this

Any time this phrase occurs: think about it harder, and insist domain experts check it.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 July 2016 03:08:34PM 0 points [-]

"Being surprised" is privileging your own beliefs over others.

What?? Sense makes not.

Surprise is the sensation you get when you prior beliefs (even if weak) were overturned or at least contradicted by empirical evidence. How is that "privileging your own beliefs"?

Besides, I certainly privilege my own beliefs over beliefs of other people. I don't know how one can function otherwise.

rich people who own the brands that own your mind

No they don't. I'm quite sure that my mind isn't owned by any brands (among other things I actively dislike advertising).

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2016 03:25:00AM 0 points [-]

You're still doing it. Surprise + shaming instead of argument.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 July 2016 08:12:44PM 0 points [-]

I was explaining my surprise, not arguing the content, but do you want me to argue against the the claim that the class struggle is the main driver behind social organization and social relationships? I think it's a well-trodden ground.

On the basic level, the Marxist approach lacks explanatory power and makes wrong predictions.

Comment author: Algernoq 20 July 2016 02:50:55AM 0 points [-]

"Being surprised" is privileging your own beliefs over others.

Denying the realities of class doesn't make them go away. Your beliefs are the map, but the terrterritory includes rich people who own the brands that own your mind.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 July 2016 03:51:00PM -1 points [-]

As I mentioned, I associate your approach with the idea of a "class enemy". This comes straight out of Marxism and was a popular approach around the turn of the century -- the XX century, so more than a hundred years ago.

Marxism (and in particular the whole idea that social interactions are defined by the class struggle) has been pretty much discredited by now. Outside of some diehard pockets (in academia and hard-left organizations) no one really tries to claim that the class struggle is what drives social relationships. LW isn't particularly Marxist, either.

So that's why I was surprised to see what to me is an old and unpopular idea here -- and moreover, see it applied to a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, not even to employment or something like that.

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 07:52:28PM 1 point [-]

Can you argue the content? "Old" and "unpopular" are weak refutations.

Classism is part of current politics, as well as my personal experience.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 July 2016 05:33:20AM -1 points [-]

Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.

Sometimes. And sometimes it will lead you astray. Especially if your classification scheme is... suspect.

Your surprise implies criticism.

Why? I am surprised at a lot of things, finding something unexpected and finding something worthy of criticism are orthogonal things.

I assume you believe "it's dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it's especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people".

I am sorry to disappoint you, I believe no such thing. Nothing even close to that.

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 06:06:10AM 1 point [-]

I don't follow what about my beliefs is surprising to you, then.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 July 2016 05:19:48PM 0 points [-]

If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her.

Heh. "My sister got lucky, married a yuppie..." :-) But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she's a proletarian and the about that man is that he's bourgeoisie.

This is liberal shaming language.

I do not intend to shame. How do you think I can express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 04:59:16AM *  1 point [-]

But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she's a proletarian and the about that man is that he's bourgeoisie.

Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.

express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?

Your surprise implies criticism. I assume you believe "it's dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it's especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people". I appreciate the criticism, though I imagine you find my beliefs repugnant.

Comment author: root 17 July 2016 01:07:40PM 0 points [-]

Interpretation: you think that despite all the supposed/possible/theoretical/whatever goodwill, your effort will not actually be rewarded with anything. And not only that, you fear that while you're putting effort in that, other people put effort in themselves and once the great disaster is averted, your standing will be worse off compared to those that invested in themselves.

Confirm/deny?

Comment author: Algernoq 19 July 2016 04:54:21AM 1 point [-]

Pretty accurate. Why sacrifice, when the payment is shame, not praise? Why be a good person, when I am called a weak coward for not taking as much as I can?

View more: Next