There no way to develop a well-calibrated model without making some mistakes along the way.
Would you say you were a proficient driver before you had your first car accident? We learn skills in fault intolerant contexts all the time. There’s a bunch of learning theory work about Bayesian models not needing negative examples too, although I don’t really think it’s relevant here.
I don’t think the potential downside of having to reject someone is much bigger than getting rejected.
There’s two things here. First, even if that’s true, the person who’s doing the rejecting didn’t ask to be approached. So even if the downsides are small, you’re playing dice on their behalf. And if you’re wrong a lot, and generate a bunch of negative utility for people who didn’t sign up for any risks, I think you deserve some culpability.
As for just how bad giving out a rejection is, again, I think it really depends on the advance.
Here’s the idea taken to the extreme: sometimes, waking someone up with oral sex is a very welcome advance. But you better be damn sure, because if you’re wrong, you’ve potentially done a great deal of harm. There’s a continuum of less presumptuous advances, through the press-them-against-the-wall example, to something like putting your arm out in front of them to block a door, or even just making the move in an elevator, that may make someone more or less uncomfortable if they have to reject the advance. This is the sense of “confident” that I’m talking about.
The answer isn’t, “that’s a consent violation and nobody should do that ever”. It’s that if you do do that, and you were wrong, you can’t excuse yourself from culpability by claiming it was an honest mistake.
I made mistakes ALL THE TIME when learning to drive, and my driving instructor normally caught them and yelled at me in time for it not to be a problem. You’re creating a false dichotomy when you compare any mistakes with a car crash.
There’s two things here. First, even if that’s true, the person who’s doing the rejecting didn’t ask to be approached.
It depends. Last week I was at a seminar where most seats are filled with people. I sat down next to the place where a girl put her bag and jacket with whom I chatted previously.
She sat the lecture next to me. Afterwards she asked me whether I was okay with her sitting next to me. In her mind she did make a choice to sit next to me for which I didn’t ask.
I don’t think it’s automatically more ethical to engineer a situation in a way where the other person thinks they are making the approach and proclaim you have no responsibility for being approached.
Most people are pretty bad at interpreting what goes on in an interaction and who actually initiates various things. Sometimes people interpret things wrong and do make honest mistakes.
As for just how bad giving out a rejection is, again, I think it really depends on the advance.
I grant that point. It makes sense to calibrate with acts that don’t produce much harm. Especially with acts that don’t contrain the ability of the other person to issue the rejection.
or even just making the move in an elevator, that may make someone more or less uncomfortable if they have to reject the advance. This is the sense of “confident” that I’m talking about.
I don’t think making a move in an elevator is an expression of confidence. I haven’t read a specific analysis of the situation from a PUA guy but I would expect them to advice against that behavior.
I don’t think making a move in an elevator is an expression of confidence. I haven’t read a specific analysis of the situation from a PUA guy but I would expect them to advice against that behavior.
I think tabooing “confidence” would end up being revealing here. I suspect yours, confidence-1, would read something like “not signalling anxiety or nervousness”, whereas I’m talking about confidence-2, the anticipated probability of success, which informs the expected value of an approach.
I accept responsibility for the miscommunication. In my initial post I talked about PUAs advocating “confidence”, and equated that to confidence-2. You and others have pointed out that actually some or all of the advocacy is for confidence-1, which I didn’t at first appreciate. I haven’t read all that much PUA stuff, so I’ll accept what you’ve said and leave it at that.
Anticipating success in an approach in no way implies that it’s a good idea to constrain another person to reject you.
If a girl thinks that she only gave you her phone number because you coerced her to give it to you, why should she answer the phone when you call and look forward to going on a date with you?
The way people backwards rationalize their behavior matters a lot.
Would you say you were a proficient driver before you had your first car accident? We learn skills in fault intolerant contexts all the time. There’s a bunch of learning theory work about Bayesian models not needing negative examples too, although I don’t really think it’s relevant here.
There’s two things here. First, even if that’s true, the person who’s doing the rejecting didn’t ask to be approached. So even if the downsides are small, you’re playing dice on their behalf. And if you’re wrong a lot, and generate a bunch of negative utility for people who didn’t sign up for any risks, I think you deserve some culpability.
As for just how bad giving out a rejection is, again, I think it really depends on the advance.
Here’s the idea taken to the extreme: sometimes, waking someone up with oral sex is a very welcome advance. But you better be damn sure, because if you’re wrong, you’ve potentially done a great deal of harm. There’s a continuum of less presumptuous advances, through the press-them-against-the-wall example, to something like putting your arm out in front of them to block a door, or even just making the move in an elevator, that may make someone more or less uncomfortable if they have to reject the advance. This is the sense of “confident” that I’m talking about.
The answer isn’t, “that’s a consent violation and nobody should do that ever”. It’s that if you do do that, and you were wrong, you can’t excuse yourself from culpability by claiming it was an honest mistake.
I made mistakes ALL THE TIME when learning to drive, and my driving instructor normally caught them and yelled at me in time for it not to be a problem. You’re creating a false dichotomy when you compare any mistakes with a car crash.
It depends. Last week I was at a seminar where most seats are filled with people. I sat down next to the place where a girl put her bag and jacket with whom I chatted previously.
She sat the lecture next to me. Afterwards she asked me whether I was okay with her sitting next to me. In her mind she did make a choice to sit next to me for which I didn’t ask.
I don’t think it’s automatically more ethical to engineer a situation in a way where the other person thinks they are making the approach and proclaim you have no responsibility for being approached.
Most people are pretty bad at interpreting what goes on in an interaction and who actually initiates various things. Sometimes people interpret things wrong and do make honest mistakes.
I grant that point. It makes sense to calibrate with acts that don’t produce much harm. Especially with acts that don’t contrain the ability of the other person to issue the rejection.
I don’t think making a move in an elevator is an expression of confidence. I haven’t read a specific analysis of the situation from a PUA guy but I would expect them to advice against that behavior.
I think tabooing “confidence” would end up being revealing here. I suspect yours, confidence-1, would read something like “not signalling anxiety or nervousness”, whereas I’m talking about confidence-2, the anticipated probability of success, which informs the expected value of an approach.
I accept responsibility for the miscommunication. In my initial post I talked about PUAs advocating “confidence”, and equated that to confidence-2. You and others have pointed out that actually some or all of the advocacy is for confidence-1, which I didn’t at first appreciate. I haven’t read all that much PUA stuff, so I’ll accept what you’ve said and leave it at that.
Anticipating success in an approach in no way implies that it’s a good idea to constrain another person to reject you.
If a girl thinks that she only gave you her phone number because you coerced her to give it to you, why should she answer the phone when you call and look forward to going on a date with you?
The way people backwards rationalize their behavior matters a lot.