I feel like I’m restating the obvious, but things are nearly always more creepy when done by an unattractive person and nearly always less creepy when done by an attractive one, ceteris paribus.
I haven’t seen attractiveness mentioned in any of the examples in this topic so far.
A couple comments have pointed it out. If few people have mentioned it it is probably because it is the standard complaint against “creepiness” rhetoric.
I think there are times when it is basically used as a slur against unattractive people. But there is also a good reason to interpret a behavior from an attractive person and an unattractive person differently. This is because people generally have some idea of attractive they are.
Imagine you are an attractive women evaluating the intentions of men around you (say at a bar). A man displays some kind of body language or verbal behavior that suggests he is sexually attracted to you. You ask yourself “Why is he doing that?”. Well if he has reasoned that the two of you are similarly attractive than it is very likely that he has expressed attraction as a way of telling you he is attracted and seeing if the attraction is mutual (and could lead to a fun consensual relationship).
But if the man isn’t nearly as attractive as you are then it seems like he should know that and think it unlikely that you would want to be involved with him. Thus, you instinctively lower the probability that he is merely trying to gauge mutual attraction and raise the probability that he is just attracted to you and doesn’t care how you feel or is getting off on making you uncomfortable etc.
There are complications: like women can inflate that sensitivity to creepiness to signal high attractiveness and men who come on extra-strong (when calibrated correctly) can signal high attractiveness. But in general, I think the above is the basic reason for the phenomenon.
This is because people generally have some idea of attractive they are.
Do they? I’m under the impression that the Dunning–Kruger effect (for unattractive people) and the impostor syndrome (for attractive people) often apply.
This seems to be reifying “attractiveness”. It’s bad enough to treat it as a one-place function; this line of thinking seems to treat it as an unchangeable one-place function.
Take the “creepyness” part, which is also a multiplace function of the beholder and beholden and context, and you’ve got the same problem.
I guess I shouldn’t have assumed it was obvious that I was scope-masking both “creepy” and “attractive” under respective “as perceived by whoever is making the attractiveness/creepyness judgment at the time where this parameter is relevant” formulas.
So, to factor, unpack, inline and reiterate: Ceteris paribus, actions or behaviors or phrases always appear more creepy to a given observer or participant whenever said observer or participant finds the source of the actions, behaviors or phrases less attractive at the time of evaluation where the level of creepyness is evaluated by said observer or participant, and conversely appear less creepy when the source is found more attractive under the same circumstances.
To me, by charitable reading when taking LessWrong as context, the above paragraph and the first one in the grandparent seem equivalent. Should I not be reading others’ comments like this mentally? I’ve been doing this on every comment I read for months.
I feel like I’m restating the obvious, but things are nearly always more creepy when done by an unattractive person and nearly always less creepy when done by an attractive one, ceteris paribus.
I haven’t seen attractiveness mentioned in any of the examples in this topic so far.
(???)
A couple comments have pointed it out. If few people have mentioned it it is probably because it is the standard complaint against “creepiness” rhetoric.
I think there are times when it is basically used as a slur against unattractive people. But there is also a good reason to interpret a behavior from an attractive person and an unattractive person differently. This is because people generally have some idea of attractive they are.
Imagine you are an attractive women evaluating the intentions of men around you (say at a bar). A man displays some kind of body language or verbal behavior that suggests he is sexually attracted to you. You ask yourself “Why is he doing that?”. Well if he has reasoned that the two of you are similarly attractive than it is very likely that he has expressed attraction as a way of telling you he is attracted and seeing if the attraction is mutual (and could lead to a fun consensual relationship).
But if the man isn’t nearly as attractive as you are then it seems like he should know that and think it unlikely that you would want to be involved with him. Thus, you instinctively lower the probability that he is merely trying to gauge mutual attraction and raise the probability that he is just attracted to you and doesn’t care how you feel or is getting off on making you uncomfortable etc.
There are complications: like women can inflate that sensitivity to creepiness to signal high attractiveness and men who come on extra-strong (when calibrated correctly) can signal high attractiveness. But in general, I think the above is the basic reason for the phenomenon.
Do they? I’m under the impression that the Dunning–Kruger effect (for unattractive people) and the impostor syndrome (for attractive people) often apply.
But you’re right that those biases happen. Also, the women making the judgment may not be taking these biases into account sufficiently.
Well, of course few people in the 10th percentile will incorrectly believe they are in the 90th percentile or vice versa (or at least, I hope not).
This seems to be reifying “attractiveness”. It’s bad enough to treat it as a one-place function; this line of thinking seems to treat it as an unchangeable one-place function.
Take the “creepyness” part, which is also a multiplace function of the beholder and beholden and context, and you’ve got the same problem.
I guess I shouldn’t have assumed it was obvious that I was scope-masking both “creepy” and “attractive” under respective “as perceived by whoever is making the attractiveness/creepyness judgment at the time where this parameter is relevant” formulas.
So, to factor, unpack, inline and reiterate: Ceteris paribus, actions or behaviors or phrases always appear more creepy to a given observer or participant whenever said observer or participant finds the source of the actions, behaviors or phrases less attractive at the time of evaluation where the level of creepyness is evaluated by said observer or participant, and conversely appear less creepy when the source is found more attractive under the same circumstances.
To me, by charitable reading when taking LessWrong as context, the above paragraph and the first one in the grandparent seem equivalent. Should I not be reading others’ comments like this mentally? I’ve been doing this on every comment I read for months.