Um, wow. Clearly you’ve pattern-matched to something completely different than the objection I was trying to convey. I’m so not in any way offended by sexual behavior reductionism.
To me, the author of MMSL only seems to care about creating something that looks like an intimate relationship from the outside. And he’s other-optimizing; very egregiously so. My revulsion stems from my belief that I wouldn’t be any happier living the way he advocates than I am now. I want something that feels like an intimate relationship from the inside, and the sort of relationship he depicts as ideal wouldn’t.
That’s what I mean by hollow.
I also doubt I could ever feel safe with someone with whom, to use the metaphor, appealing to the elephant is more effective than appealing to the rider, but he seems to live in an isolated bubble where he only interacts with other riders through the intermediary of their elephants, which I would find just as lonely as my current life of no interaction at all.
I’m totally with you there, in that it wouldn’t be any fun to be in a relationship with someone who wasn’t aware of this stuff.
You have to be aware though that sometimes appealing to the elephant IS more effective than appealing to the rider. It is not possible to consciously reason myself into being turned on. I am /not/ in conscious control of my hormone emitters. I need my environment to influence them for me. Even if I’m consciously aware that you’re a great guy and super smart and all that, if you don’t press my elephant buttons, so to speak, being in a relationship with you just isn’t any fun. Placating the elephant isn’t a terminal value for sufficiently awake people, but for most people it’s an important instrumental value.
Also, the impression he usually gives is not that he interacts with only his wife’s elephant, just that his rider-rider interaction is fine and he never struggled with it. He also occasionally gives advice for female riders regarding male elephants.
Also, take it from me that this stuff adds to rather than detracts from intimate relationships. From the inside. (If it helps you believe me, this is what Athol’s wife thinks.)
No you aren’t. You’re saying something entirely different—a mix of orthogonal points and contradictory ones—but using the form “I’m with you there” because it is typically an amazingly effective tool for leading around and getting along with metaphorical elephants.
It is not possible to consciously reason myself into being turned on.
Impossible is such a strong term. I’d suggest possible but completely unrealistically implausible, possibly take years of unnatural mental training and being ultimately far less satisfying than just finding a mate that is actually attractive.
Would it be offensive to claim that I’m a woman and I can’t help doing that, re your first comment? (The “it wasn’t me it was my elephant!” defence?) I’ve subtly edited the phrasing so it’s less objectionable.
And I suppose Buddhists have meditated their way into their reptilian-level hardware before. Though I’m not sure it’d be worth a lifetime of meditation training just so I can think myself into releasing testosterone and oestrogen and dopamine ;) Instrumental and terminal values and all that.
Though if I could release dopamine at will then it’s the wireheading discussion all over again...
Would it be offensive to claim that I’m a woman and I can’t help doing that, re your first comment?
I imagine some women may conceivably be offended by the stereotyping.
I’ve subtly edited the phrasing so it’s less objectionable.
I wouldn’t have said “objectionable” so much as “fascinating example of exactly the kind of influence technique either a PUA or business social skills adviser may recommend”.
Though I’m not sure it’d be worth a lifetime of meditation training just so I can think myself into releasing testosterone and oestrogen and dopamine ;)
Especially since any one of those things can be injected far more simply routinely. Purely mental wireheading tactics are just terribly inefficient these days!
You’re letting your elephant loose on this stuff? And it actually moves? Darn.
Mine’s just been standing there munching on some rationality leaves all along, completely uninterested. It’s more annoyed about the rider jumping in excitement on its back, if anything.
Letting my elephant loose? I don’t know about you, but my elephant is almost always loose. I just try to pay attention to what it does, because, well, isn’t that the point of this site?
This conversation is making my elephant very confused… Based on interpreting my reactions, did I just get negged?
Analyzing...
...Not in the pure sense of “negative compliment”. Because, well, I seem to have neglected the ‘compliment’ part. Let’s see… You have beautiful eyelashes… Are they real?
Nevertheless, the style of interaction could be used in a similar social role to the neg—that is, demonstrating playfulness, arrogance and a willingness to assert themselves higher in status (at least for the purpose of that one social transaction.)
To a certain extent there is the reverse of a neg. Surface level cavalier contradiction which nevertheless serves to overall lend support to your position. In particular the replies in the grandparent could be replaced with “Not to me.”, “Oh, no, I didn’t want to imply that you were being objectionable and using that strategy is OK.” and “You are totally right.” respectively without changing the object level meaning drastically. Yet that would have conveyed an entirely invalid connotations of supplication and wishy-washy backtracking. Complimentary-contradiction and then flippant elaboration avoids that frame.
In summary: No, but with that style of interaction adding negs would be overkill!
Um, wow. Clearly you’ve pattern-matched to something completely different than the objection I was trying to convey. I’m so not in any way offended by sexual behavior reductionism.
To me, the author of MMSL only seems to care about creating something that looks like an intimate relationship from the outside. And he’s other-optimizing; very egregiously so. My revulsion stems from my belief that I wouldn’t be any happier living the way he advocates than I am now. I want something that feels like an intimate relationship from the inside, and the sort of relationship he depicts as ideal wouldn’t.
That’s what I mean by hollow.
I also doubt I could ever feel safe with someone with whom, to use the metaphor, appealing to the elephant is more effective than appealing to the rider, but he seems to live in an isolated bubble where he only interacts with other riders through the intermediary of their elephants, which I would find just as lonely as my current life of no interaction at all.
That’s what I mean by dishonest.
I’m totally with you there, in that it wouldn’t be any fun to be in a relationship with someone who wasn’t aware of this stuff.
You have to be aware though that sometimes appealing to the elephant IS more effective than appealing to the rider. It is not possible to consciously reason myself into being turned on. I am /not/ in conscious control of my hormone emitters. I need my environment to influence them for me. Even if I’m consciously aware that you’re a great guy and super smart and all that, if you don’t press my elephant buttons, so to speak, being in a relationship with you just isn’t any fun. Placating the elephant isn’t a terminal value for sufficiently awake people, but for most people it’s an important instrumental value.
Also, the impression he usually gives is not that he interacts with only his wife’s elephant, just that his rider-rider interaction is fine and he never struggled with it. He also occasionally gives advice for female riders regarding male elephants.
Also, take it from me that this stuff adds to rather than detracts from intimate relationships. From the inside. (If it helps you believe me, this is what Athol’s wife thinks.)
No you aren’t. You’re saying something entirely different—a mix of orthogonal points and contradictory ones—but using the form “I’m with you there” because it is typically an amazingly effective tool for leading around and getting along with metaphorical elephants.
Impossible is such a strong term. I’d suggest possible but completely unrealistically implausible, possibly take years of unnatural mental training and being ultimately far less satisfying than just finding a mate that is actually attractive.
Would it be offensive to claim that I’m a woman and I can’t help doing that, re your first comment? (The “it wasn’t me it was my elephant!” defence?) I’ve subtly edited the phrasing so it’s less objectionable.
And I suppose Buddhists have meditated their way into their reptilian-level hardware before. Though I’m not sure it’d be worth a lifetime of meditation training just so I can think myself into releasing testosterone and oestrogen and dopamine ;) Instrumental and terminal values and all that.
Though if I could release dopamine at will then it’s the wireheading discussion all over again...
I imagine some women may conceivably be offended by the stereotyping.
I wouldn’t have said “objectionable” so much as “fascinating example of exactly the kind of influence technique either a PUA or business social skills adviser may recommend”.
Especially since any one of those things can be injected far more simply routinely. Purely mental wireheading tactics are just terribly inefficient these days!
This conversation is making my elephant very confused… Based on interpreting my reactions, did I just get negged? (more power to you if I did)
You’re letting your elephant loose on this stuff? And it actually moves? Darn.
Mine’s just been standing there munching on some rationality leaves all along, completely uninterested. It’s more annoyed about the rider jumping in excitement on its back, if anything.
Letting my elephant loose? I don’t know about you, but my elephant is almost always loose. I just try to pay attention to what it does, because, well, isn’t that the point of this site?
Analyzing...
...Not in the pure sense of “negative compliment”. Because, well, I seem to have neglected the ‘compliment’ part. Let’s see… You have beautiful eyelashes… Are they real?
Nevertheless, the style of interaction could be used in a similar social role to the neg—that is, demonstrating playfulness, arrogance and a willingness to assert themselves higher in status (at least for the purpose of that one social transaction.)
To a certain extent there is the reverse of a neg. Surface level cavalier contradiction which nevertheless serves to overall lend support to your position. In particular the replies in the grandparent could be replaced with “Not to me.”, “Oh, no, I didn’t want to imply that you were being objectionable and using that strategy is OK.” and “You are totally right.” respectively without changing the object level meaning drastically. Yet that would have conveyed an entirely invalid connotations of supplication and wishy-washy backtracking. Complimentary-contradiction and then flippant elaboration avoids that frame.
In summary: No, but with that style of interaction adding negs would be overkill!
...I think I’m just going to leave it at “you are far too good at this”. :P