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

Comment author: juliawise 09 September 2011 10:29:15PM 3 points [-]

As far as I know, there's not pickup literature for the folk dance scene.

Yes, in a general way, I find confidence and social competence attractive in any environment. But at least consciously, my strategy was to look for nerdy boys who weren't overconfident - because desperate boys would value me more. Devotion alone doesn't make for a good relationship, so the trick was to find one who was both devoted and interesting. (And a folk dancer.)

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 20 October 2011 03:47:20PM *  2 points [-]

Are you on "The Pill" - Recent scientific studies have indicated that taking birth control hormones actually affects a woman's attraction triggers. Essentially the pill causes a woman to more highly value masculine traits that indicate stability (because it tricks the body into believing its pregnant, the body decides it wants to mate with a male who will take care of it, rather than the best possible sperm).

There is some discussion that the pill could be in part responsible for the increase in divorce rates as women come off the pill after marriage and suddenly find themselves no longer attracted to their husbands.

While there isn't any literature specific to folk dancing, there is significant literature on the subject of using Niche Hobbies for pickup... As well, while "appearing desperate" is certainly advised against in basically any pickup literature, there is a significant body of work on the subject of appearing interesting (breakdowns on how to structure your conversation with someone new so that you can appear to have common interests... essentially how to make a cold read on someone).

I would be surprised if you don't find real desperation a complete turn-off... guys who are actually desperate are almost universally despised by women and are generally called "creepy".

On a side note - Pickup Theory asserts (This is even part of Mystery's work) that showing vulnerability mixed in with confidence is an effective method in demonstrating your Long Term potential if your cold read of your target indicates that she is looking for an LTR.

Comment author: juliawise 06 September 2011 04:30:36PM 10 points [-]

The women I ask about this are not even remotely close to being a representative sample of all women. They're the kind of women whom a shy and somewhat geeky guy knows and talks about psychology with.

This is why I find pickup theory so incomprehensible. It all seems to be aimed at people looking for sex in bars. I don't know anyone who does this (at least to my knowledge), so I have no mental model for how it works. I'm pretty sure the methods advocated would not work on me or most people I know, but I trust pickup artists to be right about how it works on people who hang out in bars.

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 09 September 2011 08:42:05PM 7 points [-]

You are mistaking all pickup theory for a subset of pickup theory that happens to be very effective at picking up at bars. Due to the nature of the beast (picking up in bars) it also tends to be the pickup theory that is the least politically correct... and therefore receives the most attention outside of the pickup community.

If you don't go to clubs you are probably right that the routines in the Mystery Method probably wouldn't work on you... they make sense in the club where they don't seem out of place and are congruent with the general atmosphere. Those same methods attempted in some situations would seem incongruent... like the guy has no social awareness. A lack of social awareness being unattractive is as close to a universal rule of attraction as you can get.

Read pickup theory related to social situations that you generally find yourself in - You'll probably find that guys that you have found yourself attracted to in the past acted at least partly in accordance with that theory.

In response to comment by mstevens on Learned Blankness
Comment author: SRStarin 19 April 2011 03:00:49PM 7 points [-]

The people I know who think of themselves as "bad with computers" are generally worried that they are going to destroy hardware, software, or data files if they make a mistake. They know enough to know that, in the abstract, they really can do severe damage with a few button pushes, but they don't know precisely where the danger areas lie. It's an area in which people have a strong incentive to pretend to know very little so they can more easily convince knowledgeable friends and relatives to help them.

My mother is one such person, and one thing that has helped her a lot was for me to set up an admin account on her laptop and to explain how she should always use her non-admin account, but the admin account would pop up when she needs those privileges. It's a flag for her that, if she doesn't get asked for her admin password, the most harm she can do is delete files, and even those might be recoverable.

In response to comment by SRStarin on Learned Blankness
Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 19 April 2011 04:49:51PM 1 point [-]

I'd agree that many people have a learned helplessness when dealing with computers because of a fear that they can easily break their computer.

I disagree that really destroying your computer is a very easy thing to do (sans going into the BIOS or touching the actual hardware)

In response to comment by Swimmer963 on Being a teacher
Comment author: Emile 14 March 2011 09:52:37PM 3 points [-]

I think it would be because it's a "brown spider" more than a "big spider", i.e. "brown" would be more important/more permanent/more "fundamental" in describing it than "big".

That would explain why you would say a "sad little boy" and "short sad song" ("little boy" and "sad song" being "closer" descriptions of the object in question than if the order was reversed).

I'm not sure that's the full story though (the explanations on grammar we come up with are often wrong ), and don't know the "proper" linguistic explanation.

In response to comment by Emile on Being a teacher
Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 18 March 2011 09:32:32PM *  0 points [-]

Marius makes a good point with the chameleon - Although when describing something as skinny/fat the color comes first (Red Faced Fat Man vs. Large/Huge Red-faced man)

Almost seems to me that we place words that categorize the object closest to the object - Brown Spider/Green Chameleon/Fat Man are all categories of those objects whereas a Big spider isn't as much of a category as it describes the size of the spider relative to other spiders in the same category.

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 14 October 2010 05:27:38PM 4 points [-]

When you manipulate a person's distressed emotional state to convince them into an action, even when that action is a positive one (sponsoring a child) there is always the potential that the person who was manipulated will later realize the manipulation.

Essentially - If he had convinced the crying woman to sponsor the child she very well have felt better on an ongoing and permanent basis (a positive result for everyone involved), however there is also the potential that at some later date she would have realized the manipulation.

My understanding of being manipulated is that the later realization has a highly negative outcome - I.E. making the woman more depressed than she was before the manipulation, more likely to believe that all people are manipulators (less trusting), etc.

Whenever you piggy-back a distressed emotional state to manipulate a person into an action you risk breaking that person (Causing them to stop trusting people).

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 10 September 2010 03:00:39PM 5 points [-]

Count me in as well - I've gained a great deal of useful knowledge from the PUA community despite having found it while in a fine, and still ongoing, long term relationship.

For a smart person it is relatively easy to take PUA advice and gain utility for non pick-up activities.

Comment author: Nisan 27 August 2010 04:22:25AM 15 points [-]

Any new education method will show increases in student test scores if people believe it results in increases in student test scores, because only interested parents will sign up for that method.

For example, Freakonomics tells the story of high school students in Chicago who participated in a lottery for the chance to switch schools. The students who were reassigned to new schools were more likely to graduate; but the students who applied for the lottery but lost did just as well. The explanation given is that the students (or parents) who care about education will attempt to switch to a better school, but the "better" school won't confer an advantage.

Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt. "The Impact of School Choice on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Chicago Public Schools". J. Public Econ. 200?.

Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt. "The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries". National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, 2003.

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 27 August 2010 09:38:30PM 2 points [-]

I was thinking of that exact example with regards to the posts discussion on hypothetical Montessori schools.

The filtering effect still wouldn't vanish - instead of filtering FOR the most engaged parents it would filter AGAINST the least engaged (I.E. all the parents that cared would put their kids into Montessori, the parents who didn't care would just put their kids into whatever school was the most convenient for them)

In response to Book Recommendations
Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 10 August 2010 09:24:16PM 0 points [-]

Definitely in agreement with Pirsig's Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Also in non-fiction - Both Rand novels - Fountainhead AND Atlas Shrugged

Comment author: MarcTheEngineer 02 July 2010 03:41:55PM *  18 points [-]

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

Robert A. Heinlein

View more: Next