Anyway, we’re actually arguing for the same thing—the pickup community is not composed of altruists (with regards to their sexual partners).
While that may be the same conte_n_t it seems to be missing valuable conte_x_t. The pickup community is not composed of altruists, but it seems likely to me that anyone who considers themselves an altruist when it comes to romance is self-deceiving.
I can’t speak for the pickup community, but I’m only interested in win/win relationships, which seems to me to be your primary concern. Do either lies or manipulation preclude win-win relationships? No, of course not. Thus, any unqualified complaints about lies or manipulation do not interest me.
I share your low opinion of people who pursue win/lose relationships, and hope they change their ways. But I think that’s where the real issue is.
I’d agree—if one “side” doesn’t have all the facts—it’s harder for them to make an accurate prediction and an effective negotiation and thereby come to an optimal “win”.
There are many kinds of lies, and many kinds of manipulation. Some are healthy, some are unhealthy, and it takes a fair measure of skill and knowledge of the other person to tell them apart. Honesty is the first order approximation to the best policy, but is not the best policy.
Okay, I think that’s simply a definitional disagreement—by altruism I meant “interested in win/win relationships”, basically.
What I take issue with is the idea that
PUA doesn’t prominently involve techniques that preclude win/win or are unconcerned with the difference between win/lose and win/win (e.g. sabotaging existing relationships). That is, manipulation in the “on-net harmful” sense.
therefore, people who have a problem with PUA are just not able to deal with science / analysis.
PUA doesn’t prominently involve techniques that preclude win/win or are unconcerned with the difference between win/lose and win/win (e.g. sabotaging existing relationships). That is, manipulation in the “on-net harmful” sense.
This seems true as an independent premise. (I agree that it does not lead to the conclusion in the second bullet.)
One thing that came up quickly on a cursory search:
http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/boy-friend-destroyer-bfd/
I suppose I should correct myself though—I intended to refer to techniques and attitudes etc. (based on the descriptions of people familiar with the culture, I expect that mysogyny is fairly common, even if not in the majority).
Pardon me Cu. It seems you caught the reply before I deleted it. I had reread the premise in question and noticed it said ‘prominently’ rather than ‘predominantly’. Those two letters make a big difference!
While it is not unlikely that I still disagree on the degree to which kind of behavior is popular within the relevant subculture it certainly wouldn’t be enough to quibble over whether it counts as ‘prominent’. I can just agree that to the extent that such behaviors exist they are undesirable.
A philosophy I hold dear is that it is important not to judge a whole subculture based on the worst traits of those within it. The pickup arts and feminism both have features (and acolytes) that we would do well to be wary of and reject. We don’t want self-centered manipulative misogyny and we don’t want hypocritical sexist judgementalness either (which refers not to the behavior of anyone here but to the analogous extreme fringe in feminism to the extreme fringe in PUA). Instead we want to take the lessons of practical rationality, personal development, overcoming of emotional biases, sexual liberation, social justice, equality and empowerment from both. Perhaps one of the most desirable feature common to both of those subcultures is that they cut through bullshit cultural traditions that serve to hold people back from experiencing life to the fullest.
You mentioned before the necessity to abandon a ‘soldier’ - and that is an important point. There really are bad things related to pickup arts—and one of those is certain behaviors that basically amount to being a bitchy asshole. If someone is so caught up with advocating PUA that they aren’t even willing to admit the legitimate problems that are there then the conversation is doomed and their own cause may be undermined. For this reason it disheartens me when discourse reverts to ‘sides’. Nothing good is likely to come.
The above is why I feel no dissonance at all as I disapprove of and reject the use of bitchy relationship sabotaging tactics and the use of particularly powerful persuasion techniques on vulnerable women while at the same time appreciating and advocating the use of PUA training as a form of healthy personal development that is a net benefit to society in general.
I agree quibbling about precise levels would be pointless, particularly because I couldn’t give good estimates for those precise levels. I emphatically agree that we shouldn’t judge groups by the worst traits they hold within their borders—and in fact, in my research job I am planning to look into some basic pickup literature to see if there’s anything useful (regarding first impressions, specifically), as it is (or so I am told) one of the few places where social interactions are subjected to numerical analysis. (The sociological and psychological research I’ve read has been frustratingly qualitative! It’s almost like it wasn’t intended for use by robots.)
What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.
It sounds like you agree that this isn’t the case (and I imagine you’d agree that it’s dismissive, simplistic, and possibly misogynistic), but it comes up disturbingly often (frequently accompanied by arguments like “manipulation isn’t a precise or universally negative concept → dismiss all claims that some form of manipulation is bad”).
What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.
Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
manipulation isn’t a precise or universally negative concept → dismiss all claims that some form of manipulation is bad
Many important concepts aren’t precisely defined, yet they are still meaningful (e.g. status). We shouldn’t throw out these concepts. Yet sometimes we should try to nail them down a bit more precisely and examine the intuitions behind them.
I’ve been trying to figure out what people actually mean by “manipulation” on LW, and the ethical theory behind it, but I haven’t had much success. I don’t want to make people abandon it, because I think that it is a meaningful concept. I’ve proposed my own definition: “unethical social influence.” But I am a bit disappointed that people constantly fling it around without examining it.
My worry is that it is used overbroadly, constraining the personal development of people who need to intentionally learn social skills. Furthermore, I feel that some behaviors get tagged as “manipulation” when they are analogous to other behaviors that are considered ethical: it’s just that people are accustomed to one, and not the other.
And I think people just intentional social influence too harshly when calling it manipulation, and/or don’t judge unintentional social influence harshly enough. (Didn’t learn social skills by age 18? Too bad… if you try now, you’ll be manipulating people, so stop trying to get above your station, and return to the back of the bus.)
Finally, the charge of “manipulation” often seems directed to social influence that is framed in a way that triggers a disgust heuristic. I’m not claiming that the disgust heuristic is the entire reason that people use the word manipulation, and disgust can be a pointer to a valid argument, but I do see people getting icked out by social influence around sex, intentional social influence, or social influence that they haven’t seen before or don’t understand very well.
Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
Vaniver did, at least by negligence when making oversimplified replies. The rest of this group seems to be populated by straw men. Conveniently demonstrated as a reply to you here by taryneast. That is one issue that is mentioned at times by yourself and others but certainly never as ‘the only’ - which is what you would be being condemned for. Chances are I have mentioned the subject myself—and it is so in keeping with the entirety of OvercomingBias that I don’t even recall whether Robin Hanson has said anything directly.
Didn’t learn social skills by age 18? Too bad… if you try now, you’ll be manipulating people, so stop trying to get above your station, and return to the back of the bus.
Of course, back when I was in school the back of the bus was where all the cool kids got to sit. In fact, when I managed to get myself to the back seat of the bus it was much easier to flirt with my female fellow passengers. I was the impressive senior back-seat-sitting cool guy after all!
Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
Um… you did. See the comment that I originally replied to. I quote:
Many of the common criticisms of pickup demonstrate an anger against the use of rationality and scientific thinking in the supposedly sacred and mystical area of sex and romance.
and also
I’ve been trying to figure out what people actually mean by “manipulation” on LW, and the ethical theory behind it, but I haven’t had much success.
Well, in response to one of cousin_it’s comments, I’ve given my own definition:
“deliberately doing something with the intent to hurt a person (without their consent) and thereby to gain advantage over them”
It’s pretty clear cut what does and does not count as “unethical” here.
Furthermore, I feel that some behaviors get tagged as “manipulation” when they are analogous to other behaviors that are considered ethical: it’s just that people are accustomed to one, and not the other.
Can you give me some examples of these behaviours?
Please note: I am quite interested in a lot of the analysis-side of PUA—I am totally unopposed to guys gaining more confidence, understanding and social skill—especially through analysis of what actually makes women happy and how guys can go about gaining it. I just don’t like the Dark Arts parts of it. I think it can be performed with win-win in mind. No manipulation necessary.
I’d love to hear the opposite side too. Is there an equivalent PUA community for women? if not—why not?
What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.
Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
Um… you did. See the comment that I originally replied to. I quote:
Many of the common criticisms of pickup demonstrate an anger against the use of rationality and scientific thinking in the supposedly sacred and mystical area of sex and romance.
(emphasis added)
That comment does not state that it is the only reason some people are uncomfortable with pickup—rather, it says that it is demonstrated in many of the common criticisms, which is quite different.
ETA: BTW, that’s an American ‘quite’ - I meant “which is very different”.
Ok I’ll restate the actual point that I believe CuSithBell was trying to make:
What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the main reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.
Emphasis added to make the point.
And I might point out that I feel it’s a case of Logical Rudeness (on the part of HughRistik) to jump on the single word “only” and totally ignore the rest of the point being made here. Which is why I countered with a quote directly from his own previous comment.
When you use a word like ‘only’, you’re inviting that sort of interpretation. I read your statement and it seemed like you meant it literally, that is, “I’m resisting the interpretation that there are not other reasons at all...”, and I read the response as confused because nobody said anything about there being no other reasons.
Even if HughRistik was being in some way uncharitable, I fail to see how it’s an instance of Logical Rudeness, as it was a matter of correctly parsing your statement, rather than changing his position in the middle of an argument.
Whether somebody says “only” or says “mainly” shouldn’t matter too much, if the main point is actually something else entirely. In this case—the main point was about “what it is that upsets people about PUA”, not whether it’s the main point, or the only point that upsets people.
From my reading of CuSithBell’s comment—I think she said “only” but probably meant “mainly”—and thus jumping on the word “only” makes HughRistik’s comment seem like he was jumping on a side-point to avoid the main issue
Yes, on this site, using “only” to mean “mainly” opens you up to the kind of jumping-on that is common on this site… but I believe Logical Rudeness includes the situation where you jump onto a side-point at the expense of the main point. That’s why I mentioned it.
That said, I totally believe that we all should use the more correct word. If CuSithBell really meant “mainly” instead of “only” then that’s what she should have said to be more precise.
I restated and re-worded what she said because what I am most interested in is exactly what she said… with only one word of difference that does not (in my view) change anything from the Main Point.
Because they are busy being feminists instead? (But more serious factors are the relative ease at finding a willing mate and qualitatively different consequences for being a poor player at the social game.)
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?
First, the technique: I don’t see a problem with the BFD. One who is satisfied cannot be seduced. The other man loses, but any success in romance is necessarily a loss for one’s competitors. (There’s even a reminder that cheating on her while she’s still dating the guy could hurt him deeply.)
Which makes me somewhat skeptical about the attitudes: I expect the prevalence of misogyny in the PUA is far above what I’d like it to be. But from everything I’ve seen, most of their rancor is pointed at the guys they feel superior to, not their targets. That they’ve attempted to put women under a microscope and figure out what they respond best to seems like it will make them interact with women better. A general improvement in the game of men should also correspond to a general improvement in the lives of women, as relationship satisfaction will increase.
That is, could this be base rate neglect? It’s unfortunate, but a lot of men are misogynists.
Erm, this statement is clearly false as soon as you reflect on it?
Personally, if I was going to come up with a clever rationalization for BFDs, it would be something like, “Any boyfriend who keeps her locked up in a closed relationship must clearly be a patriarchal bastard.”
Personally, if I was going to come up with a clever rationalization for BFDs, it would be something like, “Any boyfriend who keeps her locked up in a closed relationship must clearly be a patriarchal bastard.”
Only allowed if the BFD actually personally uses that justification in the course of persuading a woman to leave her boyfriend for him.
Erm, this statement is clearly false as soon as you reflect on it?
Are you skilled at either seduction or being satisfied?
I have reflected upon it, and it still seems to me to be true. Perhaps rewording it will reveal our disagreement; what do you think of “Satisfaction is the best defense against seduction”?
First, the technique: I don’t see a problem with the BFD. One who is satisfied cannot be seduced. The other man loses, but any success in romance is necessarily a loss for one’s competitors. (There’s even a reminder that cheating on her while she’s still dating the guy could hurt him deeply.)
As they say, ‘all is fair in love and war’. There is a lot to that sentiment and there is only so much use in judging people for acting in self interest in an inherently self interested game. But do you know another thing that has traditionally been fair in love and war? Killing anyone who is a clear threat to your territory. So challenging these guys to duels to the death isn’t legal any more but this is certainly a behavior that I would want to see prevented by cooperative collective punishment if it is possible. Because I don’t want that crap anywhere near me.
(Note: I make no distinction as to whether the perpetrators learned BFDs explicitly, whether they are naturally inclined that way or they learned it on ‘desperate housewives’. Or, for that matter, whether it is a male or female doing the aggressive seduction of the non-single target. Although I probably would be squeamish about challenging the girl to a duel to the death.)
One who is satisfied cannot be seduced.
Pffft. Nonsense. They can so. Maybe you just need to spend some more manipulative effort making them feel like they are unsatisfied. Or distracting them from that which was satisfying sufficiently. If you are going to go around seducing women who have boyfriends don’t try to sugar coating it by pretending it always means that the relationship was unsatisfying.
Killing anyone who is a clear threat to your territory.
Hence why one should attempt to induce the girl to break up with her boyfriend, rather than attempt to induce her to cheat on him. As you point out, that has a distressingly high chance of ending in murder.
If you are going to go around seducing women who have boyfriends don’t try to sugar coating it by pretending it always means that the relationship was unsatisfying.
I don’t swing that way. Regardless, I suspect our disagreements about the axiom are definitional. The terrible thing about satisfaction is that it is relative; it seems fair to say that one who willingly ends a relationship does it because it is unsatisfying. If it was made unsatisfying because one put forward a better offer, I have a hard time seeing that as villainous. (If one is fraudulent about the quality of the offer, that fraud is villainous- but that’s a separate issue from the BFD.)
That’s not a very charitable interpretation.
Anyway, we’re actually arguing for the same thing—the pickup community is not composed of altruists (with regards to their sexual partners).
Yeah. It’s nice that we can agree.
While that may be the same conte_n_t it seems to be missing valuable conte_x_t. The pickup community is not composed of altruists, but it seems likely to me that anyone who considers themselves an altruist when it comes to romance is self-deceiving.
I can’t speak for the pickup community, but I’m only interested in win/win relationships, which seems to me to be your primary concern. Do either lies or manipulation preclude win-win relationships? No, of course not. Thus, any unqualified complaints about lies or manipulation do not interest me.
I share your low opinion of people who pursue win/lose relationships, and hope they change their ways. But I think that’s where the real issue is.
I assume that lies and/or manipulation make win-win relationships less likely. Am I missing something?
I’d agree—if one “side” doesn’t have all the facts—it’s harder for them to make an accurate prediction and an effective negotiation and thereby come to an optimal “win”.
There are many kinds of lies, and many kinds of manipulation. Some are healthy, some are unhealthy, and it takes a fair measure of skill and knowledge of the other person to tell them apart. Honesty is the first order approximation to the best policy, but is not the best policy.
Okay, I think that’s simply a definitional disagreement—by altruism I meant “interested in win/win relationships”, basically.
What I take issue with is the idea that
PUA doesn’t prominently involve techniques that preclude win/win or are unconcerned with the difference between win/lose and win/win (e.g. sabotaging existing relationships). That is, manipulation in the “on-net harmful” sense.
therefore, people who have a problem with PUA are just not able to deal with science / analysis.
This seems true as an independent premise. (I agree that it does not lead to the conclusion in the second bullet.)
One thing that came up quickly on a cursory search: http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/boy-friend-destroyer-bfd/ I suppose I should correct myself though—I intended to refer to techniques and attitudes etc. (based on the descriptions of people familiar with the culture, I expect that mysogyny is fairly common, even if not in the majority).
Pardon me Cu. It seems you caught the reply before I deleted it. I had reread the premise in question and noticed it said ‘prominently’ rather than ‘predominantly’. Those two letters make a big difference!
While it is not unlikely that I still disagree on the degree to which kind of behavior is popular within the relevant subculture it certainly wouldn’t be enough to quibble over whether it counts as ‘prominent’. I can just agree that to the extent that such behaviors exist they are undesirable.
A philosophy I hold dear is that it is important not to judge a whole subculture based on the worst traits of those within it. The pickup arts and feminism both have features (and acolytes) that we would do well to be wary of and reject. We don’t want self-centered manipulative misogyny and we don’t want hypocritical sexist judgementalness either (which refers not to the behavior of anyone here but to the analogous extreme fringe in feminism to the extreme fringe in PUA). Instead we want to take the lessons of practical rationality, personal development, overcoming of emotional biases, sexual liberation, social justice, equality and empowerment from both. Perhaps one of the most desirable feature common to both of those subcultures is that they cut through bullshit cultural traditions that serve to hold people back from experiencing life to the fullest.
You mentioned before the necessity to abandon a ‘soldier’ - and that is an important point. There really are bad things related to pickup arts—and one of those is certain behaviors that basically amount to being a bitchy asshole. If someone is so caught up with advocating PUA that they aren’t even willing to admit the legitimate problems that are there then the conversation is doomed and their own cause may be undermined. For this reason it disheartens me when discourse reverts to ‘sides’. Nothing good is likely to come.
The above is why I feel no dissonance at all as I disapprove of and reject the use of bitchy relationship sabotaging tactics and the use of particularly powerful persuasion techniques on vulnerable women while at the same time appreciating and advocating the use of PUA training as a form of healthy personal development that is a net benefit to society in general.
I think we’re on the same page, then!
I agree quibbling about precise levels would be pointless, particularly because I couldn’t give good estimates for those precise levels. I emphatically agree that we shouldn’t judge groups by the worst traits they hold within their borders—and in fact, in my research job I am planning to look into some basic pickup literature to see if there’s anything useful (regarding first impressions, specifically), as it is (or so I am told) one of the few places where social interactions are subjected to numerical analysis. (The sociological and psychological research I’ve read has been frustratingly qualitative! It’s almost like it wasn’t intended for use by robots.)
What I am resisting here is the notion, repeated several times in the LW PUA discussion, that the only reason people (or, alternately, women) are uncomfortable with PUA is discomfort with applying analysis to sex and romance.
It sounds like you agree that this isn’t the case (and I imagine you’d agree that it’s dismissive, simplistic, and possibly misogynistic), but it comes up disturbingly often (frequently accompanied by arguments like “manipulation isn’t a precise or universally negative concept → dismiss all claims that some form of manipulation is bad”).
Cheers, in any case :)
Just to clarify, who has said that this is the only reason that some people may be uncomfortable with pickup?
Many important concepts aren’t precisely defined, yet they are still meaningful (e.g. status). We shouldn’t throw out these concepts. Yet sometimes we should try to nail them down a bit more precisely and examine the intuitions behind them.
I’ve been trying to figure out what people actually mean by “manipulation” on LW, and the ethical theory behind it, but I haven’t had much success. I don’t want to make people abandon it, because I think that it is a meaningful concept. I’ve proposed my own definition: “unethical social influence.” But I am a bit disappointed that people constantly fling it around without examining it.
My worry is that it is used overbroadly, constraining the personal development of people who need to intentionally learn social skills. Furthermore, I feel that some behaviors get tagged as “manipulation” when they are analogous to other behaviors that are considered ethical: it’s just that people are accustomed to one, and not the other.
And I think people just intentional social influence too harshly when calling it manipulation, and/or don’t judge unintentional social influence harshly enough. (Didn’t learn social skills by age 18? Too bad… if you try now, you’ll be manipulating people, so stop trying to get above your station, and return to the back of the bus.)
Finally, the charge of “manipulation” often seems directed to social influence that is framed in a way that triggers a disgust heuristic. I’m not claiming that the disgust heuristic is the entire reason that people use the word manipulation, and disgust can be a pointer to a valid argument, but I do see people getting icked out by social influence around sex, intentional social influence, or social influence that they haven’t seen before or don’t understand very well.
Vaniver did, at least by negligence when making oversimplified replies. The rest of this group seems to be populated by straw men. Conveniently demonstrated as a reply to you here by taryneast. That is one issue that is mentioned at times by yourself and others but certainly never as ‘the only’ - which is what you would be being condemned for. Chances are I have mentioned the subject myself—and it is so in keeping with the entirety of OvercomingBias that I don’t even recall whether Robin Hanson has said anything directly.
Of course, back when I was in school the back of the bus was where all the cool kids got to sit. In fact, when I managed to get myself to the back seat of the bus it was much easier to flirt with my female fellow passengers. I was the impressive senior back-seat-sitting cool guy after all!
Um… you did. See the comment that I originally replied to. I quote:
and also
Well, in response to one of cousin_it’s comments, I’ve given my own definition:
It’s pretty clear cut what does and does not count as “unethical” here.
Can you give me some examples of these behaviours?
Please note: I am quite interested in a lot of the analysis-side of PUA—I am totally unopposed to guys gaining more confidence, understanding and social skill—especially through analysis of what actually makes women happy and how guys can go about gaining it. I just don’t like the Dark Arts parts of it. I think it can be performed with win-win in mind. No manipulation necessary.
I’d love to hear the opposite side too. Is there an equivalent PUA community for women? if not—why not?
Jumping in here, this is not correct:
(emphasis added)
That comment does not state that it is the only reason some people are uncomfortable with pickup—rather, it says that it is demonstrated in many of the common criticisms, which is quite different.
ETA: BTW, that’s an American ‘quite’ - I meant “which is very different”.
Thanks, thomblake, you got it.
Ok I’ll restate the actual point that I believe CuSithBell was trying to make:
Emphasis added to make the point.
And I might point out that I feel it’s a case of Logical Rudeness (on the part of HughRistik) to jump on the single word “only” and totally ignore the rest of the point being made here. Which is why I countered with a quote directly from his own previous comment.
When you use a word like ‘only’, you’re inviting that sort of interpretation. I read your statement and it seemed like you meant it literally, that is, “I’m resisting the interpretation that there are not other reasons at all...”, and I read the response as confused because nobody said anything about there being no other reasons.
Even if HughRistik was being in some way uncharitable, I fail to see how it’s an instance of Logical Rudeness, as it was a matter of correctly parsing your statement, rather than changing his position in the middle of an argument.
Whether somebody says “only” or says “mainly” shouldn’t matter too much, if the main point is actually something else entirely. In this case—the main point was about “what it is that upsets people about PUA”, not whether it’s the main point, or the only point that upsets people.
From my reading of CuSithBell’s comment—I think she said “only” but probably meant “mainly”—and thus jumping on the word “only” makes HughRistik’s comment seem like he was jumping on a side-point to avoid the main issue
Yes, on this site, using “only” to mean “mainly” opens you up to the kind of jumping-on that is common on this site… but I believe Logical Rudeness includes the situation where you jump onto a side-point at the expense of the main point. That’s why I mentioned it.
That said, I totally believe that we all should use the more correct word. If CuSithBell really meant “mainly” instead of “only” then that’s what she should have said to be more precise.
I restated and re-worded what she said because what I am most interested in is exactly what she said… with only one word of difference that does not (in my view) change anything from the Main Point.
See HughRistik’s comment regarding the Playettes.
Because they are busy being feminists instead? (But more serious factors are the relative ease at finding a willing mate and qualitatively different consequences for being a poor player at the social game.)
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?
First, the technique: I don’t see a problem with the BFD. One who is satisfied cannot be seduced. The other man loses, but any success in romance is necessarily a loss for one’s competitors. (There’s even a reminder that cheating on her while she’s still dating the guy could hurt him deeply.)
Which makes me somewhat skeptical about the attitudes: I expect the prevalence of misogyny in the PUA is far above what I’d like it to be. But from everything I’ve seen, most of their rancor is pointed at the guys they feel superior to, not their targets. That they’ve attempted to put women under a microscope and figure out what they respond best to seems like it will make them interact with women better. A general improvement in the game of men should also correspond to a general improvement in the lives of women, as relationship satisfaction will increase.
That is, could this be base rate neglect? It’s unfortunate, but a lot of men are misogynists.
Erm, this statement is clearly false as soon as you reflect on it?
Personally, if I was going to come up with a clever rationalization for BFDs, it would be something like, “Any boyfriend who keeps her locked up in a closed relationship must clearly be a patriarchal bastard.”
Only allowed if the BFD actually personally uses that justification in the course of persuading a woman to leave her boyfriend for him.
(’cuz I like the mental image, that’s all.)
Are you skilled at either seduction or being satisfied?
I have reflected upon it, and it still seems to me to be true. Perhaps rewording it will reveal our disagreement; what do you think of “Satisfaction is the best defense against seduction”?
As they say, ‘all is fair in love and war’. There is a lot to that sentiment and there is only so much use in judging people for acting in self interest in an inherently self interested game. But do you know another thing that has traditionally been fair in love and war? Killing anyone who is a clear threat to your territory. So challenging these guys to duels to the death isn’t legal any more but this is certainly a behavior that I would want to see prevented by cooperative collective punishment if it is possible. Because I don’t want that crap anywhere near me.
(Note: I make no distinction as to whether the perpetrators learned BFDs explicitly, whether they are naturally inclined that way or they learned it on ‘desperate housewives’. Or, for that matter, whether it is a male or female doing the aggressive seduction of the non-single target. Although I probably would be squeamish about challenging the girl to a duel to the death.)
Pffft. Nonsense. They can so. Maybe you just need to spend some more manipulative effort making them feel like they are unsatisfied. Or distracting them from that which was satisfying sufficiently. If you are going to go around seducing women who have boyfriends don’t try to sugar coating it by pretending it always means that the relationship was unsatisfying.
Hence why one should attempt to induce the girl to break up with her boyfriend, rather than attempt to induce her to cheat on him. As you point out, that has a distressingly high chance of ending in murder.
I don’t swing that way. Regardless, I suspect our disagreements about the axiom are definitional. The terrible thing about satisfaction is that it is relative; it seems fair to say that one who willingly ends a relationship does it because it is unsatisfying. If it was made unsatisfying because one put forward a better offer, I have a hard time seeing that as villainous. (If one is fraudulent about the quality of the offer, that fraud is villainous- but that’s a separate issue from the BFD.)