(b) A woman sends signals of romantic interest, either accidentally, or whimsically. I mistakenly assume that she's carefully deliberating over the possibility of dating me, as I would be in her position. I decide to express interest in her.

She hasn't been thinking about whether or not she'd like to date me at all, she was instead engaging in casual preliminary flirting and/or wasn't carefully guarding against accidentally sending signals of romantic interest. So from her point of view it looks like "This guy expressed romantic interest in me without paying attention to how I'm feeling." She reactively reprimands me, or cuts contact with me, usually with connotations (even if slight) that I might not respect her boundaries.

I mistakenly think that she had carefully deliberated on how to respond to my expression of romantic interest. So I mistakenly perceive the false dichotomy:

 I'm a delusional potential rapist, and she sees this.
I'm not a delusional potential rapist, she knows that she's made me feel like I might be one. The woman who I loved has turned out to have so little empathy that she doesn't mind the fact that she's done this.

Both of these possibilities are extremely upsetting, and I fall into severe depression, totally oblivious to the fact that she was behaving in a reactive way and that her reaction is neither evidence that I'm a potential rapist, nor evidence that she doesn't mind me feeling like a potential rapist.

I am not a "Social Justice Warrior" (more a social justice wizard/rogue) but I am considering responding to this as someone who has tried to multiclass in both rationality and social justice.

My previous forays in this direction on LW (admittedly not very skilled or persuasive) were not well received. Is there interest in discussing social justice fails as a subset of social skill fails and thus as rationality fails?

This is a good point.

I wonder if it's worth even making the distinction between "lifestyle" and "act". Thus, poly could be an orientation ("I'm not poly because I don't want multiple partners"), lifestyle ("I'm not poly because I don't have and I'm not actively seeking multiple partners"), and act ("I'm not poly because I don't currently have multiple partners").

I used to always use the "act" definition when discussing sexual orientation ("I don't have one - I haven't had sex with anyone lately") to the confusion of all interlocutors.

Well, I think you can probably break it down as follows, given just the data we have:

• 0 partners
• 1 partner, looking
• 1 partner, not looking
• 2 partners+

Of those, I would say the second and fourth are unambiguously practicing poly, the third could go either way but you could say is presumptively mono, and the first probably doesn't count (since they are actively practicing neither mono nor poly.)

If someone wants to run those numbers, I'd be curious how they come out.

It still seems to add up to that I (as a white person) am supposed to show unlimited patience. Also, the sort of anger you're describing doesn't just show up against people who show up in a dedicated online group which isn't interested in doing 101 yet another time.

Recent example-- gender issues, not race.

Moreover acting as if you need to justify yourself (or your group) to others already represents a significant loss of standing.

boggled] Isn't that what we're all doing here at LW? Arguing and justifying our arguments? Did you just lower your standing with your justification? At time of writing I see quite the reverse.

LW is a freakishly abnormal social setting, even for internet fora. Most people here care more about figuring out what's true than winning arguments. This is unique in my experience of the internet. "facts" are not the primary use case for language., social politics are.

If someone justifies their request for me to justify my personal choices, I may do so. However, generally speaking, justifying one's choices is a super low-status move and requesting (or, more frequently, demanding) justification is a high-status move.

Justification of belief, although having status connotations, can usually be treated differently.

That was my question though, albeit not stated so clearly: is it really an opportunity cost?

The thing is convincing people on the internet about something is very different from talking to people in your personal life.

Does fetishising intelligence, sex positivity, communicative effectiveness, intersectional social justice, and active informed consent really turn off mainstream conventional women?

I'm just wondering what is intersectional social justice? I found it challenging to unpack the meaning behind the words used in the wikipedia article. Please try to idiot proof the explanation in accordance with this while retaining as much accuracy as possible.

What's the downside?

Time and effort spent are a very real costs as is opportunity cost.

Adopting PUA techniques and values: arguably improves sex and/or relationship outcomes with some women.

...

Perhaps you're saying you think it's better to cut your losses, completely give up on any women alienated by PUA and focus on those who don't notice or don't care?

I'm not sure why women who are alienated by PUA would be off the table as potential romantic partners. I'm sure it has a cost, but I'm not sure the kind of person who sough out PUA in the first place doesn't still have better odds using game and paying the price, rather than doing what he would have done before.

Visibly adopting and affiliating with PUA: definitely worsen sex and/or relationship outcomes with some (other but not wholly disjoint set of) women.

I'm sceptical of claims that PUA being practised in the wild is easy to spot. To bring in ancedotes from my social life, I've had both false positives and negatives when guessing which strangers (later acquaintances and friends) where running game and which had never heard of it.

I've had very positive experience talking to my gfs about game as I see and practice it (sprinkled with general Hansonian observations about status and behaviour), they are very interested and often talk to me about it. One became very enthusiastic to the point of reading the same gaming blogs as I do and reporting gossip in the jargon, which makes it almost fun to listen to. Not to mention the opportunity for great inside jokes. :)

I think it made communication about desire, sexuality, socialization and relationships easier. Maybe I would be even better off if I hadn't shared this interest or didn't have it in the first place, but I don't think that is the case.

PUA doesn't seem to have responded well to those critiques (or even particularly to think they need to be responded to, as far as I can tell).

Why would they find that worth their time?

Why would they find that worth their time?

Agree and my own reaction took this a step further---I was glad to hear that JoeW, as someone who seems to affiliate with people politically opposed to PUA, got the impression that the PUA community felt no obligation to engage or respond. I would have thought less of the community if it did.

PUAs are not political activists. They are people who enjoy, practice and develop a specific set of skills with a specific purpose. Their comparative advantage really isn't in engaging in moral and political debate to convince others that they deserve respect, acceptance or special treatment. Moreover acting as if you need to justify yourself (or your group) to others already represents a significant loss of standing. That is one aspect of politics in general that PUAs should be expected to be familiar with, since it overlaps so much with the rules of the social game that they are dedicated to mastering.

(This is different from simply explaining their own personal ethical values completely divorced from any reference to external critics and in terms of conveying information rather than giving excuse. That is something that PUA-instructor types seem to enjoy doing.)