I didn’t say I understand your model. I just mentioned that I might have an idea about it from what you said so far.
I meant the statement:
If a PUA technique is deceptive or untruthful then it deprives the person to be seduced from relavent information that could help them make a better decision.
I wonder where the ‘relevant information’ plays in, and how. And when the person to be seduced makes the ‘decision’ about it. The description gives the impression of a rehearsed ritual where all parties involved already know upfront what will result from it.
Most people looking toward business are looking for something effective,
The comparison between business life and PU is not particularly helpful. Usually people do not approach their love life as a business event. And when they do bad stuff can happen.
This statement is the equivalent of saying:
That makes me inquire about which PUA techniques you are referring too. As such the statement is trivially true.
Am I correct in assuming that you had jumped to conclusions and believed I held a stronger view point then you now infer with the above these additional comments?
I don’t think so. But that is a common failure mode for me which i work on, so it might be true in this case. If so it is not with intention.
I didn’t say I understand your model. I just mentioned that I might have an idea about it from what you said so far.
You stated that I had a “flawed model.” I was unsure how strong a claim you were trying to make with this statement and pointed out that you do not have solid ground to make a strong claim because there is little information available on what my model would be and therefore weather or not it is flawed. Were you making a weak claim?
I wonder where the ‘relevant information’ plays in, and how. And when the person to be seduced makes the ‘decision’ about it. The description gives the impression of a rehearsed ritual where all parties involved already know upfront what will result from it.
I am not thinking of anything formal or a ritual. The decision can be conscience or completely subconscience. The decision could be about having sex, kissing, going on a date, or simply continuing or discontinuing a conversation or pretty much anything else.
If someone is willing to preform deception around a piece of information then I would probably consider it ‘relevant information’.
I might have to think about if your initial claim is trivially true (which then makes me wonder why you made it in the first place.)
And of course I am still slightly curious about what your model is. But I can see enough reasons not to pursue this topic.
It was a method of finding common ground with HughRistik. If we both agree to a few trivially few statements it is easy to then define each others arguments in those trivially true things, find what the fundamental differences in our evidence/logic discuss and hopefully resolve.
I didn’t say I understand your model. I just mentioned that I might have an idea about it from what you said so far.
I meant the statement:
I wonder where the ‘relevant information’ plays in, and how. And when the person to be seduced makes the ‘decision’ about it. The description gives the impression of a rehearsed ritual where all parties involved already know upfront what will result from it.
I don’t think so. But that is a common failure mode for me which i work on, so it might be true in this case. If so it is not with intention.
You stated that I had a “flawed model.” I was unsure how strong a claim you were trying to make with this statement and pointed out that you do not have solid ground to make a strong claim because there is little information available on what my model would be and therefore weather or not it is flawed. Were you making a weak claim?
I am not thinking of anything formal or a ritual. The decision can be conscience or completely subconscience. The decision could be about having sex, kissing, going on a date, or simply continuing or discontinuing a conversation or pretty much anything else.
If someone is willing to preform deception around a piece of information then I would probably consider it ‘relevant information’.
No.
I might have to think about if your initial claim is trivially true (which then makes me wonder why you made it in the first place.) And of course I am still slightly curious about what your model is. But I can see enough reasons not to pursue this topic.
It was a method of finding common ground with HughRistik. If we both agree to a few trivially few statements it is easy to then define each others arguments in those trivially true things, find what the fundamental differences in our evidence/logic discuss and hopefully resolve.