See, ah, I think I’m against advocating deliberately unethical behavior / defection on LW.
The question is what ethical standard to use. Whether or not exaggeration is unfair in matters of romance has not been established, and I would argue that exaggeration has a far more entrenched position than radical honesty.
That is, I would argue that not exaggerating your desirability as a mate is defection, rather than cooperation, and defection of the lose-lose variety rather than the win-lose variety.
There’s a big difference between asserting something is “irrelevant” versus “incorrect” or “unestablished”.
What was irrelevant is that deceit is unethical in many spheres of life. If deceit is unethical for a scientist* but ethical for a general, then knowing that deceit is unethical for a scientist is irrelevant if discussing generals.
What has not been established is whether romance is more like science or war. I think the former position is far weaker than the latter.
* I had a hard time coming up with any role in which any form of deceit is questionable, and thus I suppose if I were out for points I would question the correctness of the assertion, rather than merely its relevance. Even for scientists, exaggeration- the original behavior under question- is often ethical.
The question is what ethical standard to use. Whether or not exaggeration is unfair in matters of romance has not been established, and I would argue that exaggeration has a far more entrenched position than radical honesty.
That is, I would argue that not exaggerating your desirability as a mate is defection, rather than cooperation, and defection of the lose-lose variety rather than the win-lose variety.
That’s… not what you said.
There’s a big difference between asserting something is “irrelevant” versus “incorrect” or “unestablished”.
The treatment of ethics in PUA threads makes me somewhat nervous.
What was irrelevant is that deceit is unethical in many spheres of life. If deceit is unethical for a scientist* but ethical for a general, then knowing that deceit is unethical for a scientist is irrelevant if discussing generals.
What has not been established is whether romance is more like science or war. I think the former position is far weaker than the latter.
* I had a hard time coming up with any role in which any form of deceit is questionable, and thus I suppose if I were out for points I would question the correctness of the assertion, rather than merely its relevance. Even for scientists, exaggeration- the original behavior under question- is often ethical.