Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
Well, let’s see. This seems to be an argument against the notion that there are other considerations. This comment regards removing such a claim from the top-level post, and repeats the claim. Here is another one.
I know that earlier in this thread you pointed out this aspect of distaste with PUA, but acknowledged more legitimate criticisms as well.
I’ve been trying to figure out what people actually mean by “manipulation” on LW [...]
Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn’t the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that’s imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that’s missing the point.
In these contexts, I use ‘manipulation’ the same way you suggest, and often qualify it with additional terms - ‘harmful’, ‘dark arts’, etc. - to clarify.
The wider meaning of manipulation I take to mean a collection of behaviors of varying levels of sinister-ness which may or may not be deliberate. In this less serious sense, both learned and innate social skills involve some level of manipulation.
I still think, just as you do if I recall correctly, that some aspects of pickup practice and culture are extremely undesirable—my main point is that attributing people’s discomfort with this to unrelated matters is disingenuous and unhelpful.
Does this sound fair and reasonable?
Edit: My choice of analogy was poor, and I withdraw it completely. In its place, consider “People ( / Women) don’t become card counters because they don’t like math.”
Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn’t the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that’s imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that’s missing the point.
I don’t accept this analogy, because it places pickup techniques as analogous to rape. Your analogy shows more about the potential ugh fields that people may have around pickup.
What actually occurs is that pickup is mentioned, and someone says that pickup (or some pickup techniques) are “manipulative.” In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to approach an agreed upon conceptualization of “manipulation.”
In these contexts, I use ‘manipulation’ the same way you suggest, and often qualify it with additional terms - ‘harmful’, ‘dark arts’, etc. - to clarify.
I still think, just as you do if I recall correctly, that some aspects of pickup practice and culture are extremely undesirable
Yes.
my main point is that attributing people’s discomfort with this to unrelated matters is disingenuous and unhelpful.
I’m not sure that some critics of pickup are only uncomfortable with the parts of pickup that I would stipulate as undesirable; their views seem to be broader and more sweeping.
I would simply maintain that some people’s discomfort with a scientific/rational approach to dating underlies some criticisms of pickup. Does that sound fair?
For instance, I’ve seen many criticisms that are uncomfortable with analysis used as the foundation for an intentional approach (though I’m not sure if I’ve seen that particular one on LW). Edit: example:
By moving from incidental to intentional you’re changing the dynamic. You’re no longer pursuing the relationship between two people but a specific agenda designed around realizing the needs and desires of one.
That person believe that as soon as you start being intentional, you are suddenly being selfish… which makes absolutely no sense.
As another example, I think that some women here are uncomfortable that certain default pickup behaviors are counter to their own preferences… while not recognizing that the priors of PUAs (acting on limited information) are highly influenced by the preferences of other women with dramatically different phenotypes.
I don’t accept this analogy, because it places pickup techniques as analogous to rape. Your analogy shows more about the potential ugh fields that people may have around pickup.
The analogy is accurate, you’re just being irrational as an emotional reaction to its content.
[Only, that sort of response is condescending and insulting.]
What actually occurs is...
I’m sure that does happen. It’s not the topic under discussion. Yes, there are nuances and shades of gray and people with incorrect opinions and people uncomfortable with explicit analysis of social phenomena.
There are also people here on lesswrong who say that the reason people in general (or women in general) are uncomfortable with pickup is because of such discomfort with analysis. That is also “what actually happens”, and it is explicitly what I have been talking about this whole time.
(I guess I shouldn’t have used rape in the analogy. The point of it was to illustrate the content of the discourse, not to compare the topics. It would work equally well if it were, say… “People who don’t move to Vegas and become card counters avoid it because they dislike math.” Or something.)
Edit: I withdraw the analogy as noted above, and apologize.
The analogy is accurate, you’re just being irrational as an emotional reaction to its content.
You said:
Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn’t the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that’s imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that’s missing the point.
In a discussion on LW about how to rape people, the nuances of consent would indeed be a distraction, but only if there was a consensus that the behavior is rape. So I thought that by making pickup analogous to rape, you were presenting it an something that everyone ought to recognize as wrong, such that debating the concept of “manipulation” would be missing the point. That’s what objected to in your analogy.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point. But if that’s what you meant, then I don’t know why you made the analogy, because it proves my point, not yours.
(As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.)
There are also people here on lesswrong who say that the reason people in general (or women in general) are uncomfortable with pickup is because of such discomfort with analysis. That is also “what actually happens”, and it is explicitly what I have been talking about this whole time.
To the extent that people hold this view, I disagree with them. After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
I apologize for my metaphor. It was poorly chosen. I let my desire to make a point forcefully overcome my sense of decency. It is retracted. Perhaps you could consider the card-counting metaphor in its place.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point.
The point is that there was a mis-attribution regarding the reasons to object. There is even what seems to be a general consensus that these reasons are legitimate (see cousin_it’s posts, or your own criticisms of PUA).
After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
The posts in the second and third links are part of a larger discussion. In context, the discussion goes something like—“It’s not that women don’t like analysis, it’s that they don’t like PUA” is followed by “Of course they don’t, people don’t like analysis”, then “I don’t dislike analysis” is followed by “no one dislikes analysis, they just become angry when observing it.” I made the above claim then, and no one denied it.
If you are skeptical of my point, I would like to request a summary of said point adjoining a response, if possible.
As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.
Would such an arrangement typically involve safe words or would the knowledge of that power of injunction destroy the thrill the experience for the subordinate partner?
Well, let’s see. This seems to be an argument against the notion that there are other considerations. This comment regards removing such a claim from the top-level post, and repeats the claim. Here is another one.
I know that earlier in this thread you pointed out this aspect of distaste with PUA, but acknowledged more legitimate criticisms as well.
Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn’t the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that’s imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that’s missing the point.
In these contexts, I use ‘manipulation’ the same way you suggest, and often qualify it with additional terms - ‘harmful’, ‘dark arts’, etc. - to clarify.
The wider meaning of manipulation I take to mean a collection of behaviors of varying levels of sinister-ness which may or may not be deliberate. In this less serious sense, both learned and innate social skills involve some level of manipulation.
I still think, just as you do if I recall correctly, that some aspects of pickup practice and culture are extremely undesirable—my main point is that attributing people’s discomfort with this to unrelated matters is disingenuous and unhelpful.
Does this sound fair and reasonable?
Edit: My choice of analogy was poor, and I withdraw it completely. In its place, consider “People ( / Women) don’t become card counters because they don’t like math.”
I don’t accept this analogy, because it places pickup techniques as analogous to rape. Your analogy shows more about the potential ugh fields that people may have around pickup.
What actually occurs is that pickup is mentioned, and someone says that pickup (or some pickup techniques) are “manipulative.” In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to approach an agreed upon conceptualization of “manipulation.”
“Dark arts” doesn’t really help, because that term has problems of its own.
Yes.
I’m not sure that some critics of pickup are only uncomfortable with the parts of pickup that I would stipulate as undesirable; their views seem to be broader and more sweeping.
I would simply maintain that some people’s discomfort with a scientific/rational approach to dating underlies some criticisms of pickup. Does that sound fair?
For instance, I’ve seen many criticisms that are uncomfortable with analysis used as the foundation for an intentional approach (though I’m not sure if I’ve seen that particular one on LW). Edit: example:
That person believe that as soon as you start being intentional, you are suddenly being selfish… which makes absolutely no sense.
As another example, I think that some women here are uncomfortable that certain default pickup behaviors are counter to their own preferences… while not recognizing that the priors of PUAs (acting on limited information) are highly influenced by the preferences of other women with dramatically different phenotypes.
The analogy is accurate, you’re just being irrational as an emotional reaction to its content.
[Only, that sort of response is condescending and insulting.]
I’m sure that does happen. It’s not the topic under discussion. Yes, there are nuances and shades of gray and people with incorrect opinions and people uncomfortable with explicit analysis of social phenomena.
There are also people here on lesswrong who say that the reason people in general (or women in general) are uncomfortable with pickup is because of such discomfort with analysis. That is also “what actually happens”, and it is explicitly what I have been talking about this whole time.
(I guess I shouldn’t have used rape in the analogy. The point of it was to illustrate the content of the discourse, not to compare the topics. It would work equally well if it were, say… “People who don’t move to Vegas and become card counters avoid it because they dislike math.” Or something.)
Edit: I withdraw the analogy as noted above, and apologize.
You said:
In a discussion on LW about how to rape people, the nuances of consent would indeed be a distraction, but only if there was a consensus that the behavior is rape. So I thought that by making pickup analogous to rape, you were presenting it an something that everyone ought to recognize as wrong, such that debating the concept of “manipulation” would be missing the point. That’s what objected to in your analogy.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point. But if that’s what you meant, then I don’t know why you made the analogy, because it proves my point, not yours.
(As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.)
To the extent that people hold this view, I disagree with them. After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
I apologize for my metaphor. It was poorly chosen. I let my desire to make a point forcefully overcome my sense of decency. It is retracted. Perhaps you could consider the card-counting metaphor in its place.
The point is that there was a mis-attribution regarding the reasons to object. There is even what seems to be a general consensus that these reasons are legitimate (see cousin_it’s posts, or your own criticisms of PUA).
The posts in the second and third links are part of a larger discussion. In context, the discussion goes something like—“It’s not that women don’t like analysis, it’s that they don’t like PUA” is followed by “Of course they don’t, people don’t like analysis”, then “I don’t dislike analysis” is followed by “no one dislikes analysis, they just become angry when observing it.” I made the above claim then, and no one denied it.
If you are skeptical of my point, I would like to request a summary of said point adjoining a response, if possible.
I think we are just agreeing violently, at this point.
I suppose that’s a good call. See you in another thread, then.
Would such an arrangement typically involve safe words or would the knowledge of that power of injunction destroy the thrill the experience for the subordinate partner?