so the modern respectable opinion, even in venues like LW, is appalled at the idea that these aspects of human life—which are in our society treated with an extreme level of both idealization and ideologization—can be analyzed in such an undignified and desecrating but nevertheless correct way.
This idea—that everyone skeptical of PUA is simply too prudish to handle the truth—sounds like a self-flattering way to avoid engaging with critics on a substantive level. I haven’t seen a single comment here that can be accurately described as “appalled at the idea that these aspects of human life...can be analyzed.” By contrast, many of the comments that raise some criticism of PUA, or simply register skepticism, start by ceding that skeptic can see helpful or useful aspects to the techniques.
However, PUA is not settled science, and the idea that the simplified evopsych theories behind PUA represent incontrovertible and unassailable truth—that’s a statement of faith, not reason.
I think “prudish” is a completely wrong characterization of the problem here. The idea that this aspect of human life is surrounded by some sacred mystery and that it works (or could or should work) according to some idealized principles, as well as the tendency to instantly sniff out and be struck by the ideological implications (intended or not) of people’s expressed opinions about it, are not at all limited to people who could be described as “prudish” in any meaningful way.
Now, of course that such biases will usually not manifest themselves in a transparent way, especially not in a place like this. Rather, they take the form of biased treatment of evidence, judging people’s attitudes and behavior with unusual and inconsistent ethical standards, turning up one’s sensitivity to offense, etc., etc. For a lot of evidence of these phenomena, see the numerous discussions in which the commenter HughRistik, who has a particular interest and expertise in this area, has had to deal with them. (He writes with great clarity and invariably treats his interlocutors with saintly patience and kindness, and these biases are thus especially apparent in his discussions.)
Also, regarding the folk evo-psych theories often heard in this context, I agree that they are more often than not just idle speculation; in fact, I don’t have very high opinion even about much of the academic evolutionary psychology. I am much more interested in first establishing an accurate phenomenological view of things before moving on to any such speculation.
This idea—that everyone skeptical of PUA is simply too prudish to handle the truth—sounds like a self-flattering way to avoid engaging with critics on a substantive level. I haven’t seen a single comment here that can be accurately described as “appalled at the idea that these aspects of human life...can be analyzed.” By contrast, many of the comments that raise some criticism of PUA, or simply register skepticism, start by ceding that skeptic can see helpful or useful aspects to the techniques.
However, PUA is not settled science, and the idea that the simplified evopsych theories behind PUA represent incontrovertible and unassailable truth—that’s a statement of faith, not reason.
I think “prudish” is a completely wrong characterization of the problem here. The idea that this aspect of human life is surrounded by some sacred mystery and that it works (or could or should work) according to some idealized principles, as well as the tendency to instantly sniff out and be struck by the ideological implications (intended or not) of people’s expressed opinions about it, are not at all limited to people who could be described as “prudish” in any meaningful way.
Now, of course that such biases will usually not manifest themselves in a transparent way, especially not in a place like this. Rather, they take the form of biased treatment of evidence, judging people’s attitudes and behavior with unusual and inconsistent ethical standards, turning up one’s sensitivity to offense, etc., etc. For a lot of evidence of these phenomena, see the numerous discussions in which the commenter HughRistik, who has a particular interest and expertise in this area, has had to deal with them. (He writes with great clarity and invariably treats his interlocutors with saintly patience and kindness, and these biases are thus especially apparent in his discussions.)
Also, regarding the folk evo-psych theories often heard in this context, I agree that they are more often than not just idle speculation; in fact, I don’t have very high opinion even about much of the academic evolutionary psychology. I am much more interested in first establishing an accurate phenomenological view of things before moving on to any such speculation.