I have extensive knowledge in that matter and I would say that the techniques are value neutral. To make an analogy, think of Cialdini’s science of influence and persuasion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini).
What Evolutionary Psychology, Cialdini and others showed is that we humans can be quite primitive and react in certain predetermined ways to certain stimuli. The dating community has investigated the right stimuli for women and figured out the way to “get” her. You have to push the right buttons in the right order and we males are not different(although the type of buttons is different).
In other words, what you learn in the dating community will teach you how to win the hearts of women. It’s up to you how to use this skillset(yes, it’s a skillset) IF you manage to acquire it, which btw. is not easy at all. It’s just a technique, you can use it for good or bad, although admittedly it lends itself more for selfish purposes IMHO.
Btw, women are also very selfish creatures, so don’t make the mistake to hold yourself to a too high moral standard.
I also think that you might be misguided in that you start with the wrong assumption of what dating is all about. Evolutionarily speaking, dating alias mating is not to make the other people better off. On the contrary, having kids is mostly a disadvantage for the parents, but most people do it anyways because we have this desire to have kids. Rationally speaking we all would probably be better off without them. Of course if you factor in emotions it becomes more complicated.
Also there is a fundamental difference between males and females. Males don’t get pregnant, they want to have as much sex(pleasure) with as many partners as possible. Women get pregnant(at least before birth control was invented) and so their emotional circuitry is designed to be extremely selective towards which males they will have sex with. Also they want their males to stick around as long as possible(to help them take care of the offspring). So you have to be aware that there is a fundamental difference in the objectives of the two which will make it extremely difficult or impossible to make BOTH happy at the same time. In practice usually one will suffer and/or have to concede some ground and it’s usually the “weaker” one. Weak in this context means the one with less options in dating. Usually women are stronger in this respect so the dating community is essentially a way to empower males.
This is getting long, I could write more, if you guys are interested I could start a post on this topic.
In general, I would agree that the teachings are value-neutral. Yet some of these tools are more conducive towards negative uses, while others are more conducive towards positive uses.
I also think that you might be misguided in that you start with the wrong assumption of what dating is all about. Evolutionarily speaking, dating alias mating is not to make the other people better off.
It’s true that people are not adapted to necessarily make each other optimally happy. Yet in spite of this, our skills give us the capability to find solutions that make both people at least somewhat happy.
So in my case, winning is “defined to include, indeed to require, respect for the happiness, well-being, and autonomy of the pursued,” as MBlume puts it.
Also there is a fundamental difference between males and females.
Yes, but the description in your post is contaminated by the oversimplified presumptions about evolutionary psychology in the community. I think you would get a lot out of reading more of real evolutionary psychologists, not just reading popularizations, or what the community says evolutionary psychologists are saying. I can find some cites when I’m at home.
Males don’t get pregnant, they want to have as much sex(pleasure) with as many partners as possible.
Typically, males are more oriented towards seeking multiple partners than women, yet that doesn’t mean that they want “as many partners as possible.” Some males are wired for short-term mating strategies, and other males are more wired for long-term mating strategies.
Women get pregnant(at least before birth control was invented) and so their emotional circuitry is designed to be extremely selective towards which males they will have sex with.
Yes, and this is well-demonstrated experimentally. I don’t have the citations on hand because I’m not at home, but a guy named Fisman has done some interesting work in this area.
Also they want their males to stick around as long as possible(to help them take care of the offspring).
Yet this is again oversimplified, because some present day females follow short-term mating strategies and do not necessarily want males to stick around.
So you have to be aware that there is a fundamental difference in the objectives of the two which will make it extremely difficult or impossible to make BOTH happy at the same time.
True, though pretty good compromises exist. In a lot of cases, dating is like a Prisoner’s Dilemma (though many other payoff matrices are possible). Personally, what I like the most about the community is that it gives me the tools to play C while simultaneously raising the chance that the other person will play C.
Even when happiness for both people can’t be achieved, it’s at least possible for both people to treat each other with respect, even if someone can’t give the other person what they would want.
This is getting long, I could write more, if you guys are interested I could start a post on this topic.
I’m not really sure how you can claim “techniques are value-neutral” without assuming what values are. For example, if my values contain a term for someone else’s self-esteem, a technique that lowers their self-esteem is not value-neutral. If my values contain a term for “respecting someone else’s requests”, techniques for overcoming LMR are not value-neutral. Since I’ve only limited knowledge of the seduction techniques advanced by the community, I did not offer more—after seeing some of the techniques, I decided that they are decidedly not value neutral, and therefore chose to not engage in them.
A top-level post would be very welcome, I don’t want to take this one too far off track. I’ve slept (and continue to sleep) with a lot of people, and my experience very much contradicts what you say here.
So you have to be aware that there is a fundamental difference in the objectives of the two which will make it extremely difficult or impossible to make BOTH happy at the same time.
ciphergoth:
my experience very much contradicts what you say here.
That’s because it’s a great example of theory being used to persuade people to take a certain set of “actions that work”. There are other theories that contradict those theories, that are used to get other people to take action… even though the specific actions taken may be quite similar!
People self-select their schools of dating and self-help based on what theories appeal to them, not on the actual actions those schools recommend taking. ;-)
In this case, the theory roland is talking about isn’t theory at all: it’s a sales pitch, that attracts people who feel that dating is an unfair situation. They like what they hear, and they want to hear more. So they read more and maybe buy a product. The writer or speaker then gradually moves from this ev-psych “hook” to other theories that guide the reader to take the actions the author recommends.
That people confuse these sales pitches with actual theory is a well-understood concept within the Marketing Conspiracy. ;-) Of course, the gurus don’t always know themselves what parts of their theories are hook vs. “real”… I just found out recently that a bunch of stuff I thought was “real” was actually “hook”, and had to go through some soul-searching before deciding to leave it in the book I’m writing.
Why? Because if I change the hook, I won’t be able to reach people who have the same wrong beliefs that I did. Better to hook people with wrong things they already believe, and then get them to take the actions that will get them to the place where they can throw off those beliefs. (And of course, believing those things didn’t stop me from making progress.) But I’ve restricted it to being only in chapter 1, and the revelation of the deeper model will happen by chapter 5.
Anyway. Actually helping people change their actions and beliefs—as opposed to merely telling them what they should do or think—is the very Darkest of the Dark arts.
Perhaps we should call it “The Coaching Conspiracy”. ;-)
What exactly would you like to know? The subject is very broad, it would be easier if you made me a list of questions that are relevant to LW. There are already TONS of sites about this topic so please don’t ask me to write another post about seduction in general.
I think a post tailored to the particular interests and language of LW/OB readers would be fairly different from the ones already out there, but if you have a pointer that you think would be particularly appealing to us lot I’m interested.
I have extensive knowledge in that matter and I would say that the techniques are value neutral. To make an analogy, think of Cialdini’s science of influence and persuasion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini).
What Evolutionary Psychology, Cialdini and others showed is that we humans can be quite primitive and react in certain predetermined ways to certain stimuli. The dating community has investigated the right stimuli for women and figured out the way to “get” her. You have to push the right buttons in the right order and we males are not different(although the type of buttons is different).
In other words, what you learn in the dating community will teach you how to win the hearts of women. It’s up to you how to use this skillset(yes, it’s a skillset) IF you manage to acquire it, which btw. is not easy at all. It’s just a technique, you can use it for good or bad, although admittedly it lends itself more for selfish purposes IMHO.
Btw, women are also very selfish creatures, so don’t make the mistake to hold yourself to a too high moral standard.
I also think that you might be misguided in that you start with the wrong assumption of what dating is all about. Evolutionarily speaking, dating alias mating is not to make the other people better off. On the contrary, having kids is mostly a disadvantage for the parents, but most people do it anyways because we have this desire to have kids. Rationally speaking we all would probably be better off without them. Of course if you factor in emotions it becomes more complicated.
Also there is a fundamental difference between males and females. Males don’t get pregnant, they want to have as much sex(pleasure) with as many partners as possible. Women get pregnant(at least before birth control was invented) and so their emotional circuitry is designed to be extremely selective towards which males they will have sex with. Also they want their males to stick around as long as possible(to help them take care of the offspring). So you have to be aware that there is a fundamental difference in the objectives of the two which will make it extremely difficult or impossible to make BOTH happy at the same time. In practice usually one will suffer and/or have to concede some ground and it’s usually the “weaker” one. Weak in this context means the one with less options in dating. Usually women are stronger in this respect so the dating community is essentially a way to empower males.
This is getting long, I could write more, if you guys are interested I could start a post on this topic.
In general, I would agree that the teachings are value-neutral. Yet some of these tools are more conducive towards negative uses, while others are more conducive towards positive uses.
It’s true that people are not adapted to necessarily make each other optimally happy. Yet in spite of this, our skills give us the capability to find solutions that make both people at least somewhat happy.
So in my case, winning is “defined to include, indeed to require, respect for the happiness, well-being, and autonomy of the pursued,” as MBlume puts it.
Yes, but the description in your post is contaminated by the oversimplified presumptions about evolutionary psychology in the community. I think you would get a lot out of reading more of real evolutionary psychologists, not just reading popularizations, or what the community says evolutionary psychologists are saying. I can find some cites when I’m at home.
Typically, males are more oriented towards seeking multiple partners than women, yet that doesn’t mean that they want “as many partners as possible.” Some males are wired for short-term mating strategies, and other males are more wired for long-term mating strategies.
Yes, and this is well-demonstrated experimentally. I don’t have the citations on hand because I’m not at home, but a guy named Fisman has done some interesting work in this area.
Yet this is again oversimplified, because some present day females follow short-term mating strategies and do not necessarily want males to stick around.
True, though pretty good compromises exist. In a lot of cases, dating is like a Prisoner’s Dilemma (though many other payoff matrices are possible). Personally, what I like the most about the community is that it gives me the tools to play C while simultaneously raising the chance that the other person will play C.
Even when happiness for both people can’t be achieved, it’s at least possible for both people to treat each other with respect, even if someone can’t give the other person what they would want.
Sure, I would find it interesting.
I’m not really sure how you can claim “techniques are value-neutral” without assuming what values are. For example, if my values contain a term for someone else’s self-esteem, a technique that lowers their self-esteem is not value-neutral. If my values contain a term for “respecting someone else’s requests”, techniques for overcoming LMR are not value-neutral. Since I’ve only limited knowledge of the seduction techniques advanced by the community, I did not offer more—after seeing some of the techniques, I decided that they are decidedly not value neutral, and therefore chose to not engage in them.
A top-level post would be very welcome, I don’t want to take this one too far off track. I’ve slept (and continue to sleep) with a lot of people, and my experience very much contradicts what you say here.
roland:
ciphergoth:
That’s because it’s a great example of theory being used to persuade people to take a certain set of “actions that work”. There are other theories that contradict those theories, that are used to get other people to take action… even though the specific actions taken may be quite similar!
People self-select their schools of dating and self-help based on what theories appeal to them, not on the actual actions those schools recommend taking. ;-)
In this case, the theory roland is talking about isn’t theory at all: it’s a sales pitch, that attracts people who feel that dating is an unfair situation. They like what they hear, and they want to hear more. So they read more and maybe buy a product. The writer or speaker then gradually moves from this ev-psych “hook” to other theories that guide the reader to take the actions the author recommends.
That people confuse these sales pitches with actual theory is a well-understood concept within the Marketing Conspiracy. ;-) Of course, the gurus don’t always know themselves what parts of their theories are hook vs. “real”… I just found out recently that a bunch of stuff I thought was “real” was actually “hook”, and had to go through some soul-searching before deciding to leave it in the book I’m writing.
Why? Because if I change the hook, I won’t be able to reach people who have the same wrong beliefs that I did. Better to hook people with wrong things they already believe, and then get them to take the actions that will get them to the place where they can throw off those beliefs. (And of course, believing those things didn’t stop me from making progress.) But I’ve restricted it to being only in chapter 1, and the revelation of the deeper model will happen by chapter 5.
Anyway. Actually helping people change their actions and beliefs—as opposed to merely telling them what they should do or think—is the very Darkest of the Dark arts.
Perhaps we should call it “The Coaching Conspiracy”. ;-)
What exactly would you like to know? The subject is very broad, it would be easier if you made me a list of questions that are relevant to LW. There are already TONS of sites about this topic so please don’t ask me to write another post about seduction in general.
I think a post tailored to the particular interests and language of LW/OB readers would be fairly different from the ones already out there, but if you have a pointer that you think would be particularly appealing to us lot I’m interested.