Social phenomena exist like anything else and can be analyzed, but how it is discussed matters almost entirely. It is a high-status behavior to make observations about social phenomena, but analysis sends a bad signal.
I don’t think it’s bad to analyze social phenomena. I do think it’s bad to engage in or endorse (unwanted) sexually manipulative behavior. I also think it’s bad to equate distaste for unwanted sexually manipulative behavior with distaste for analysis.
I don’t think it’s bad to analyze social phenomena.
Neither does anyone else. It’s just that if one actually analyses social phenomena instead of consciously or subconsciously taking the opportunity to judge/play ploitics, one pisses off many, many people very quickly.
I do think it’s bad to engage in or endorse (unwanted) sexually manipulative behavior.
I summon HughRistik! But even if I were to accept manipulation as a natural kind, which I don’t, rather than as a continuum with communication and influence, where are you going to draw the line?
I also think it’s bad to equate distaste for unwanted sexually manipulative behavior with distaste for analysis.
PUA is up there with psychology, sales and marketing in the ranks of useful insights into how people actually work. It is unfortunate that there are some desperate misogynists among them, but if one is to denounce it then sales, marketing, PR, they all gotta burn too.
I have a big crush on HughRistik. It is important to note that he is not an accurate representation of PUAs. He is considerably more concerned with ethics, more friendly to feminism, more willing to acknowledge systemic problems in the PUA subculture, and smarter than the vast majority of PUAs. Quotation from one of his writings:
Long post. I hope I’ve managed to express this stuff clearly, I feel like I’m leaving stuff out, but I guess we can get to whatever that is when it comes up.
I don’t think it’s bad to analyze social phenomena.
Neither does anyone else. It’s just that if one actually analyses social phenomena instead of consciously or subconsciously taking the opportunity to judge/play ploitics, one pisses off many, many people very quickly.
… What I am saying is, I will not become angry if someone “actually analyses social phenomena”. I do not think it is bad. That is not the issue.
I do think it’s bad to engage in or endorse (unwanted) sexually manipulative behavior.
I summon HughRistik! But even if I were to accept manipulation as a natural kind, which I don’t, rather than as a continuum with communication and influence, where are you going to draw the line?
This seems disingenuous. It looks like you’re saying, essentially, “Ah, but nothing has inherent meaning!”. Are you unable to understand the concept of “manipulation” in non-technical terms?
(As an aside: following the pattern “Even if I thought X were an A rather than a B, something something,” typically one treats X as an A rather than a B.)
I also think it’s bad to equate distaste for unwanted sexually manipulative behavior with distaste for analysis.
PUA is up there with psychology, sales and marketing in the ranks of useful insights into how people actually work. It is unfortunate that there are some desperate misogynists among them, but if one is to denounce it then sales, marketing, PR, they all gotta burn too.
As I understand it, people did not on the whole have a problem with the PUA discussion because some pick-up artists are misogynists, but rather because of the parts of the discussion that weren’t analysis but were instead themselves casually misogynistic or exclusionary or clueless or whatever. Like, for example, “with women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”, or “bayes tells us we should all bang hot chicks”.
It’s partially a PR thing, but PR isn’t just waving your hands about in a mystical pattern to calm people down—it’s also about effectively communicating. You don’t want the most rational response to your comments to be “this person rejects sexual equality”, for example.
This seems disingenuous. It looks like you’re saying, essentially, “Ah, but nothing
has inherent meaning!”. Are you unable to understand the concept of “manipulation”
in non-technical terms?
I think it is useful to compare/contrast the terms manipulation and influence. Barry Cotter did talk about a “continuum of influence”, and I think this is the point that you’re missing. Between two people, if one person is far more influential in their relationship than the other, then we call it manipulative. But there is an area in the middle of the continuum where their influence on each other isn’t one-sided.
I don’t know a whole lot about the whole PUA thing, but of the things I’ve read here and there online, one interesting point is that sexual attraction isn’t this innate thing that you either have or don’t have. So yeah, you can influence other people by presenting yourself in a more appealing way. But this shouldn’t be seen as “manipulation”, unless you’re doing something underhanded.
But if we’re going to exaggerate all influence by calling it manipulation, then we have an extremely inhibited view of society. A society where members didn’t influence each other could hardly be considered a society at all.
Certainly, I agree with this. But there are prominent pickup techniques that are manipulative and undesirable—you know, stuff like undermining someone’s self-esteem. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m using “manipulative” to refer to these “bad influences” or, if you prefer, “Dark Arts”.
Edit: Or, in other words, I’m not exaggerating all influence by calling it manipulation—I’m using the word to refer to basically the same thing you are (“influence other people by… doing something underhanded”).
This seems disingenuous. It looks like you’re saying, essentially, “Ah, but nothing has inherent meaning!”. Are you unable to understand the concept of “manipulation” in non-technical terms?
I understand the non-technical meaning of manipulation. It’s when someone uses private information, or a power/skill imbalance to bring about a result that would not have occured given equality of capabilities. I don’t see how you can avoid it without forbidding interaction between agents who are not of implausibly rare equalcapability.
Like, for example, “with women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”, or “bayes tells us we should all bang hot chicks”.
That’s an attitude I can get behind. Everyone has cheat codes. You may not have access to cheat codes for someone, if so this is weak evidence they have cheat codes for you, stronger evidence that either they are at least at your level or they are playing a different game.
You don’t want the most rational response to your comments to be “this person rejects sexual equality”, for example.
I reject one interpretation of that statement. I’m a gender egalitarian but I do not believe men and women have an equal distribution of capabilities or interests
.
This seems disingenuous. It looks like you’re saying, essentially, “Ah, but nothing has inherent meaning!”. Are you unable to understand the concept of “manipulation” in non-technical terms?
I understand the non-technical meaning of manipulation. It’s when someone uses private information, or a power/skill imbalance to bring about a result that would not have occured given equality of capabilities. I don’t see how you can avoid it without forbidding interaction between agents who are not of implausibly rare equalcapability.
There is a reply to the grandparent leading to a brief discussion on the intended meaning. Does it solve your objection?
Like, for example, “with women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”, or “bayes tells us we should all bang hot chicks”.
That’s an attitude I can get behind. Everyone has cheat codes. You may not have access to cheat codes for someone, if so this is weak evidence they have cheat codes for you, stronger evidence that either they are at least at your level or they are playing a different game.
Which is an attitude you can get behind? “With women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Did you understand my assertion?
You don’t want the most rational response to your comments to be “this person rejects sexual equality”, for example.
I reject one interpretation of that statement. I’m a gender egalitarian but I do not believe men and women have an equal distribution of capabilities or interests .
Okay, this is a reasonable position and I’m sure you’re aware of its caveats. But can you clarify—in context, do you believe that my analysis accurately reflects your beliefs?
I agree that associating with PUA is distasteful and an immediate fail, and have removed the link from the post. The link is here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/298/more_art_less_stink_taking_the_pu_out_of_pua
Social phenomena exist like anything else and can be analyzed, but how it is discussed matters almost entirely. It is a high-status behavior to make observations about social phenomena, but analysis sends a bad signal.
I don’t think it’s bad to analyze social phenomena. I do think it’s bad to engage in or endorse (unwanted) sexually manipulative behavior. I also think it’s bad to equate distaste for unwanted sexually manipulative behavior with distaste for analysis.
Neither does anyone else. It’s just that if one actually analyses social phenomena instead of consciously or subconsciously taking the opportunity to judge/play ploitics, one pisses off many, many people very quickly.
I summon HughRistik! But even if I were to accept manipulation as a natural kind, which I don’t, rather than as a continuum with communication and influence, where are you going to draw the line?
PUA is up there with psychology, sales and marketing in the ranks of useful insights into how people actually work. It is unfortunate that there are some desperate misogynists among them, but if one is to denounce it then sales, marketing, PR, they all gotta burn too.
I have a big crush on HughRistik. It is important to note that he is not an accurate representation of PUAs. He is considerably more concerned with ethics, more friendly to feminism, more willing to acknowledge systemic problems in the PUA subculture, and smarter than the vast majority of PUAs. Quotation from one of his writings:
“There are a lot of problems with the seduction community that feminists correctly observe, including misogyny, cynicism towards relationships, and a few tactics that are bad for consent.” from: http://feministcritics.nfshost.com/blog/about/seduction-communitypickup-artists/
(edited for grammar)
Long post. I hope I’ve managed to express this stuff clearly, I feel like I’m leaving stuff out, but I guess we can get to whatever that is when it comes up.
… What I am saying is, I will not become angry if someone “actually analyses social phenomena”. I do not think it is bad. That is not the issue.
This seems disingenuous. It looks like you’re saying, essentially, “Ah, but nothing has inherent meaning!”. Are you unable to understand the concept of “manipulation” in non-technical terms?
(As an aside: following the pattern “Even if I thought X were an A rather than a B, something something,” typically one treats X as an A rather than a B.)
As I understand it, people did not on the whole have a problem with the PUA discussion because some pick-up artists are misogynists, but rather because of the parts of the discussion that weren’t analysis but were instead themselves casually misogynistic or exclusionary or clueless or whatever. Like, for example, “with women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”, or “bayes tells us we should all bang hot chicks”.
It’s partially a PR thing, but PR isn’t just waving your hands about in a mystical pattern to calm people down—it’s also about effectively communicating. You don’t want the most rational response to your comments to be “this person rejects sexual equality”, for example.
I think it is useful to compare/contrast the terms manipulation and influence. Barry Cotter did talk about a “continuum of influence”, and I think this is the point that you’re missing. Between two people, if one person is far more influential in their relationship than the other, then we call it manipulative. But there is an area in the middle of the continuum where their influence on each other isn’t one-sided.
I don’t know a whole lot about the whole PUA thing, but of the things I’ve read here and there online, one interesting point is that sexual attraction isn’t this innate thing that you either have or don’t have. So yeah, you can influence other people by presenting yourself in a more appealing way. But this shouldn’t be seen as “manipulation”, unless you’re doing something underhanded.
But if we’re going to exaggerate all influence by calling it manipulation, then we have an extremely inhibited view of society. A society where members didn’t influence each other could hardly be considered a society at all.
Certainly, I agree with this. But there are prominent pickup techniques that are manipulative and undesirable—you know, stuff like undermining someone’s self-esteem. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m using “manipulative” to refer to these “bad influences” or, if you prefer, “Dark Arts”.
Edit: Or, in other words, I’m not exaggerating all influence by calling it manipulation—I’m using the word to refer to basically the same thing you are (“influence other people by… doing something underhanded”).
I understand the non-technical meaning of manipulation. It’s when someone uses private information, or a power/skill imbalance to bring about a result that would not have occured given equality of capabilities. I don’t see how you can avoid it without forbidding interaction between agents who are not of implausibly rare equalcapability.
That’s an attitude I can get behind. Everyone has cheat codes. You may not have access to cheat codes for someone, if so this is weak evidence they have cheat codes for you, stronger evidence that either they are at least at your level or they are playing a different game.
I reject one interpretation of that statement. I’m a gender egalitarian but I do not believe men and women have an equal distribution of capabilities or interests .
There is a reply to the grandparent leading to a brief discussion on the intended meaning. Does it solve your objection?
Which is an attitude you can get behind? “With women, you have to pretend that they don’t have cheat codes (unlike with us tough-minded rational men)”? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Did you understand my assertion?
Okay, this is a reasonable position and I’m sure you’re aware of its caveats. But can you clarify—in context, do you believe that my analysis accurately reflects your beliefs?