Imagine each person P has a number X, called their “statusvalue”, and the way we respond to others is a function of the statusvalue difference between us and the person we respond to.
The way we respond to others has a lot more to it than that. If I’m approached by someone of the wrong sexual orientation for me, then my declining their advances has nothing to do with status. The same with 15-year-old girls (the only example in the original version of your comment). My response to these people will be whatever is necessary to get them to give up on the sexual advances. This does not strike me as a useful response to someone that I would like to get together with.
Perhaps the idea you are trying to get across is that you should begin by trying to put the other person off, but (if you still want to get together with them) take care not to do so too effectively? I am familiar with the custom of ritually refusing a gift before accepting it—is this something similar?
Are you speaking from personal experience or is this something you have only worked out on paper?
If I’m approached by someone of the wrong sexual orientation for me, then my declining their advances has nothing to do with status.
That’s why I said statusvalue—i.e. something that is a combination of their overall status and their value to you.
you should begin by trying to put the other person off,
Not really—as I said, it is more abstract than that—the idea is to approach the interaction from a higher-statusvalue frame, because ultimately (in this case) that is what the other person is testing for.
Are you speaking from personal experience or is this something you have only worked out on paper?
This particular example is taken from the world of pick-up, which has been tested more extensively than you can imagine.
EDIT: though the idea of a “social coprocessor” is speculation.
You think it’s abnormal to ever show up at bars and clubs? Most young people go to either a bar or a club (or party, cafe, music gig, etc) at least, say, once a month.
I think a lot of people, when they first turn 21 (or whatever the legal drinking age is in their jurisdiction) go through a phase of going to meat-markety type places, but eventually become disillusioned with that ‘scene’ and grow out of it.
That’s why I said statusvalue—i.e. something that is a combination of their overall status and their value to you.
I would call that simply value. If their status matters to me, it is part of their value to me; if it does not, it is irrelevant.
This particular example is taken from the world of pick-up, which has been tested more extensively than you can imagine.
Tested by you? Ok, maybe that’s too personal a question, but I’m aware in general terms of the PUA stuff, and I have only a limited interest in soup of the soup.
On the first day, you have a delicious chicken. The next day you make soup with the bones and leftovers. On the third day you make soup from the leftover soup.
In other words, an exposition only indirectly connected with the source, unrefreshed by contact with real life.
I’m one of them. I’m not committed to the view that the rather crude theory Roko outlines is true, but acting as if it’s true indeed seems to be useful. I’m not a PUArtist, I’m a PUInstrumentalist.
The way we respond to others has a lot more to it than that. If I’m approached by someone of the wrong sexual orientation for me, then my declining their advances has nothing to do with status. The same with 15-year-old girls (the only example in the original version of your comment). My response to these people will be whatever is necessary to get them to give up on the sexual advances. This does not strike me as a useful response to someone that I would like to get together with.
Perhaps the idea you are trying to get across is that you should begin by trying to put the other person off, but (if you still want to get together with them) take care not to do so too effectively? I am familiar with the custom of ritually refusing a gift before accepting it—is this something similar?
Are you speaking from personal experience or is this something you have only worked out on paper?
That’s why I said statusvalue—i.e. something that is a combination of their overall status and their value to you.
Not really—as I said, it is more abstract than that—the idea is to approach the interaction from a higher-statusvalue frame, because ultimately (in this case) that is what the other person is testing for.
This particular example is taken from the world of pick-up, which has been tested more extensively than you can imagine.
EDIT: though the idea of a “social coprocessor” is speculation.
On a very narrow and self-selecting sample, i.e. people who show up at bars and clubs with the express intention of getting “picked up”
You think it’s abnormal to ever show up at bars and clubs? Most young people go to either a bar or a club (or party, cafe, music gig, etc) at least, say, once a month.
I think a lot of people, when they first turn 21 (or whatever the legal drinking age is in their jurisdiction) go through a phase of going to meat-markety type places, but eventually become disillusioned with that ‘scene’ and grow out of it.
I would call that simply value. If their status matters to me, it is part of their value to me; if it does not, it is irrelevant.
Tested by you? Ok, maybe that’s too personal a question, but I’m aware in general terms of the PUA stuff, and I have only a limited interest in soup of the soup.
soup of the soup?
On the first day, you have a delicious chicken. The next day you make soup with the bones and leftovers. On the third day you make soup from the leftover soup.
In other words, an exposition only indirectly connected with the source, unrefreshed by contact with real life.
This is a legitimate concern—but there are plenty of people here who have used such methods successfully.
I’m one of them. I’m not committed to the view that the rather crude theory Roko outlines is true, but acting as if it’s true indeed seems to be useful. I’m not a PUArtist, I’m a PUInstrumentalist.
Indeed the instrumentality of certain worldviews is an interesting topic in rationality…
Sure—though the two are very strongly linked, value is really the key.