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

In response to comment by gjm on The Sally-Anne fallacy
Comment author: Elo 12 April 2016 11:05:01PM 0 points [-]

Can I take the credit for writing things I did not write? Cause that would be sweet.

In response to comment by Elo on The Sally-Anne fallacy
Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:58:37PM 1 point [-]

Only if you're also willing to take the blame for writing stupid things you did not wright.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 April 2016 01:54:38AM 0 points [-]

an epidemic of girls falsely believing that they can have sex without emotional consequences, finding out the hard way that this is not the case

So, would you be willing to put some numbers on that? Percentages of girls? percentages of sexual encounters? How these percentages changed compared to, say, ancient times like the 1970s or 80s?

'Cause, y'know, the sexual revolution happened in the 1960s, that was a loooong time ago...

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:58:14PM 1 point [-]

'Cause, y'know, the sexual revolution happened in the 1960s, that was a loooong time ago...

The generation that launched the sexual revolution was exposed to the idea that sex has consequences by the previous generation that raised them. Most of them in fact did not participate in the "sexual revolution" which was a small self-selected group. It wasn't until the "sexually liberated" came to dominate the culture that a generation was raised many of whom were never taught about the consequences of sex.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 April 2016 05:04:02PM *  10 points [-]

While I don't play Rust, my impression is that the devs are being dicks (heh) for what looks to be ideological reasons. They say:

"Technically nothing has changed, since half the population was already living with those feelings. The only difference is that whether you feel like this is now decided by your SteamID instead of your real life gender."

They are wrong, of course, what changed was that there was no choice possible and now there is a choice (which they dangle in front of you and then deny to you).

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:57:36PM 1 point [-]

Not to mention that even the most rabid proponents of "transgenderism" claim that it's prevalence is anywhere near 50%.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 April 2016 01:37:05AM -1 points [-]

Who are "they" and are you talking about isolated cases or you think there's a rape epidemic in contemporary society?

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:57:14PM 1 point [-]

I believe there is an epidemic of what could be described as "bad sex". Or more accurately, an epidemic of girls falsely believing that they can have sex without emotional consequences, finding out the hard way that this is not the case (either after the encounter itself, after they break up, or even after the boy starts dating someone else thus making it impossible for her to pretend that the relationship isn't over). Then a subset of them attempting to declare the encounter rape because that is the only sex crime current society recognizes.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 April 2016 03:20:02PM -2 points [-]

Rust, a video game, has a veil of ignorance

After you've had a character for a while, gender is imposed randomly and permanently.

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:56:46PM 1 point [-]

Ah, yes. The "we hate our customers" school of game design.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 April 2016 11:26:39PM *  -1 points [-]

Depends on how much alcohol is involved

You did specify "very drunk".

Except these hook-ups do not make people happy, as judging by the subsequent developments.

Revealed preferences say otherwise.

And anyway, Eugene, aren't you forgetting the great enabler of the sexual revolution: the Pill? It was (and is) a much much important reason why women don't feel obliged to find one male and stick to him for the rest of their lives. They might prefer to, of course, but they mostly they don't have to.

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:54:48PM 1 point [-]

Revealed preferences say otherwise.

What are you revealing them based on? The fact that they go through with at the time, while in a state of impaired judgement. Or the fact that the women feel sufficiently bad enough about it afterwards that many of them feel like retroactively declaring it "rape"?

Comment author: Lumifer 12 April 2016 09:32:51PM 0 points [-]

like not having a party where people of mixed company will get very drunk together.

Could lead to dancing :-/

Reminds me of Mencken's definiton of Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"...

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:54:14PM 1 point [-]

Could lead to dancing :-/

Depends on how much alcohol is involved.

Reminds me of Mencken's definiton of Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"...

Except these hook-ups do not make people happy, as judging by the subsequent developments.

Comment author: gjm 12 April 2016 07:24:53PM -2 points [-]

there were a lot fewer instances of women getting that drunk

That might well be true, but I doubt it was because of the no-sex-before-marriage rule.

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:53:40PM 1 point [-]

Having an explicit no-sex-before-marriage rule, means that "it's likely to lead to premarital sex" is a good reason not to do something, like not having a party where people of mixed company will get very drunk together.

Comment author: gjm 11 April 2016 12:55:04PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't know what fraction of women attending college are victims of rape there now -- for reasons already aired by others in this thread, the figures often quoted don't seem terribly trustworthy. But I doubt that an official no-sex-before-marriage norm, as such, makes much difference.

Explicit social norms of this kind notoriously make less difference than you might think. (Warning: most of the things below are single studies which could be wrong or misleading in all kinds of ways; but I know of no reason to expect them all to be wrong in the same direction.)

But I bet a no-sex-until-marriage norm was quite effective in making it harder for women to say they'd been raped. Not for the stranger-leaping-out-of-a-bush sort of rape. But for the sort that I think is much more common on college campuses, where someone gets you too drunk to resist or slips drugs into your drink or just declines to stop when you say "look, this feels very nice but I really don't want to go any further" -- well, with those social norms in place you can't tell that sort of story without getting labelled a Bad Girl, in which case you lose even if your story is believed.

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:53:13PM 1 point [-]

But I bet a no-sex-until-marriage norm was quite effective in making it harder for women to say they'd been raped. Not for the stranger-leaping-out-of-a-bush sort of rape. But for the sort that I think is much more common on college campuses, where someone gets you too drunk

If you actually look at what happened, there were a lot fewer instances of women getting that drunk. Not to mention there would be a lot few "find someone to sleep with at the end"-type parties.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 April 2016 09:40:43PM *  1 point [-]

If this is true, shouldn't activists support shutting down most colleges?

Only if they believe the situation outside of colleges is different.

Comment author: vision2 25 April 2016 10:52:27PM 1 point [-]

And look what's happening in places where an actual rape culture develops, e.g., the parts of Europe most affected by the migrant crisis. Ok, many feminists are doing the best to deny what's going on so as not to be "Islamophobic", but aside from that. Politicians are advising women to dress extremely modestly and not go out alone at night without male escort. Swimming pols are creating women only hours, trains are acquiring women-only cars.

View more: Next