Interesting question! However I think that we’d need to agree on a definition of “dominated” before any estimate would be meaningful. I’m happy to supply my estimate of prevalence for any definition that suits you.
For the definition I had in mind, which might be something like “in a relationship where one partner routinely makes the majority of important decisions on the basis of superior status” I would be surprised if it was below 0.1% or above 5%.
Did what you wrote agree with the parenthetical paragraph I wrote explaining my interpretation? If so, we’re on the same page.
Well no, I wouldn’t agree with that either, but that’s a separate issue. I don’t think it can be philosophically consistent to apply techniques which purportedly manipulate people by spoofing social signals that act on an unconscious level, distorting their sense of time and so forth and then excuse this on the basis that the agent you are manipulating has autonomy. If they had autonomy in the sense that excused you for attempts at manipulation you could not manipulate them, and if you can manipulate them then they lack the kind of strong autonomy that would give you a moral blank cheque.
Let’s go back to a question I asked a while back that wasn’t answered that is now relevant again, and explore it a little more deeply. What is a utility function? It rank orders actions*. Why do you think stating regret is more indicative of utility than actions taken?
I think it’s more indicative for a few reasons. Firstly conclusions made sober, rested and with time to reflect are more reliable than conclusions made drunk, late at night, horny and in the heat of the moment, and both parties to any such decisions know this in advance. Secondly wishful thinking (which you could also call self-delusion) plays a role, and before being—to borrow a phrase from Roissy—“pumped and dumped” by a PUA a woman might be a victim of cognitive bias that makes her act as if a long-term relationship with a supportive partner is a possibility whereas with hindsight this bias is less likely to distort her calculations. Thirdly the PUA literature that I have read explicitly advocates playing on these factors by not giving the target time to pause and reflect, and by deflecting questions about the future direction of the relationship rather than answering those questions honestly.
I conclude from this that part of PUA strategy is to attempt to manipulate women into making decisions which the PUA knows the women are less likely to make when they are behaving rationally. So not only do I think that stated regret is more indicative of someone’s reflective preferences than their actions the night before in general, but I also think that PUAs know this too.
As always there will be individual exceptions to the general rule.
But it’s not clear to me that it’s unethical for a salesman to sell to reluctant buyers.
Considering only the two parties directly involved, the salesperson and the buyer, it seems fairly clear to me that on average reluctant buyers are more likely to regret the purchase, and that transactions in which one party regrets the transaction are win/lose and not win/win.
Being a highly effective salesperson is not seen as unethical conduct in our current society, and that tends to very strongly influence people’s moral judgements, but I think from a utilitarian standpoint salesmanship that goes beyond providing information is obviously ethically questionable once you get past the default socialisation we share that salespersons are a normal part of life.
It seems odd to me to suggest a utilitarian should act as though Carols are Dianas.
I’m not completely clear on the Carol/Diana distinction being made here. Could you give me the definitions of these two characters as you were thinking of those definitions at the time you posted the parent?
Interesting question! However I think that we’d need to agree on a definition of “dominated” before any estimate would be meaningful. I’m happy to supply my estimate of prevalence for any definition that suits you.
For the definition I had in mind, which might be something like “in a relationship where one partner routinely makes the majority of important decisions on the basis of superior status” I would be surprised if it was below 0.1% or above 5%.
Well no, I wouldn’t agree with that either, but that’s a separate issue. I don’t think it can be philosophically consistent to apply techniques which purportedly manipulate people by spoofing social signals that act on an unconscious level, distorting their sense of time and so forth and then excuse this on the basis that the agent you are manipulating has autonomy. If they had autonomy in the sense that excused you for attempts at manipulation you could not manipulate them, and if you can manipulate them then they lack the kind of strong autonomy that would give you a moral blank cheque.
I think it’s more indicative for a few reasons. Firstly conclusions made sober, rested and with time to reflect are more reliable than conclusions made drunk, late at night, horny and in the heat of the moment, and both parties to any such decisions know this in advance. Secondly wishful thinking (which you could also call self-delusion) plays a role, and before being—to borrow a phrase from Roissy—“pumped and dumped” by a PUA a woman might be a victim of cognitive bias that makes her act as if a long-term relationship with a supportive partner is a possibility whereas with hindsight this bias is less likely to distort her calculations. Thirdly the PUA literature that I have read explicitly advocates playing on these factors by not giving the target time to pause and reflect, and by deflecting questions about the future direction of the relationship rather than answering those questions honestly.
I conclude from this that part of PUA strategy is to attempt to manipulate women into making decisions which the PUA knows the women are less likely to make when they are behaving rationally. So not only do I think that stated regret is more indicative of someone’s reflective preferences than their actions the night before in general, but I also think that PUAs know this too.
As always there will be individual exceptions to the general rule.
Considering only the two parties directly involved, the salesperson and the buyer, it seems fairly clear to me that on average reluctant buyers are more likely to regret the purchase, and that transactions in which one party regrets the transaction are win/lose and not win/win.
Being a highly effective salesperson is not seen as unethical conduct in our current society, and that tends to very strongly influence people’s moral judgements, but I think from a utilitarian standpoint salesmanship that goes beyond providing information is obviously ethically questionable once you get past the default socialisation we share that salespersons are a normal part of life.
I’m not completely clear on the Carol/Diana distinction being made here. Could you give me the definitions of these two characters as you were thinking of those definitions at the time you posted the parent?