My confusion with this whole business is quantitative. The assumption in Roko’s drink-buying model is that this is the right way to interact to attract the kind of women his audience would be interested in. That’s a statement of probability. It’s likely that you’ll be going to bars to meet women, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in engage in shit-testing, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in respond the way the girls in the Feynman story do. I’m really not sure about that.
There are, as I mentioned, very, very few autistic women. So Roko and Nancy lump in the less attractive women. Fine, in principle. I’m still not convinced that a typical straight male LW reader won’t find, in his dating pool, quite a few women who don’t behave like the prototypical chick in a PUA parable. I only have anecdotes, of course, but I and most of my female friends and family members don’t behave like that. We hit a lot of HughRistic’s bullet points. And we’ve stumbled into our fair share of good relationships.
In other words: I think nerdy women are pretty numerous, far too numerous to be diagnosable autistics, and do just fine on the dating market. And I suspect the typical straight male LW reader wouldn’t mind dating one.
The assumption in Roko’s drink-buying model is that this is the right way to interact to attract the kind of women his audience would be interested in. That’s a statement of probability. It’s likely that you’ll be going to bars to meet women, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in engage in shit-testing, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in respond the way the girls in the Feynman story do. I’m really not sure about that.
Actually, it’s a statement of conditional probability, conditioned on a woman asking a man for a drink in such a setting, often as a prelude to having any conversation at all.
(It’s not, however, a great example of a cacheable response. Really, the whole point of it as a status/social skill test is that it is hard to fake!)
Anyway, here’s the reasoning: if a man is asked for a drink, it may or may not be a test, conscious or unconscious. However, in all possible cases, the man is highly likely to improve the situation by skillfully declining or negotiating a quid pro quo, because the situation is still a signaling opportunity, even if the woman’s attraction wouldn’t have decreased upon acquiescence. (In other words, you either win, or don’t lose—a positive expected outcome over multiple trials.)
For example, let’s say it’s one of those “nerdy women”—she is not fishing for a drink, not consciously testing, and (probably) not unconsciously testing, but maybe has been taught that this is how you signal openness to being courted, or just doesn’t think about it at all.
Well, in that particular case, it’s an opportunity for a signal like, “Not a feminist, huh?”—probably leading to a thought-provoking conversation about feminism, chivalry, and the impact of social trends on dating behaviors...
A conversation that wouldn’t have happened if the response was a bland, “okay”. If he’d simply agreed without further comment, maybe he wouldn’t have lost any points, but he certainly wouldn’t have gained any either—he has simply failed to distinguish himself from any other man who lacks the social skill to finesse the situation. He is out a drink, and gets nothing except (maybe) the continuation of the conversation… assuming that her attraction doesn’t mysteriously evaporate shortly thereafter, due to her unconscious lowering of his status.
But the (extreme) case of a nerdy woman who’s both sincerely asking for a drink and won’t subconsciously decrease attraction upon compliance, is actually the worst case scenario for measuring the advantage of the “never buy a drink without quid pro quo” heuristic… and yet it still comes out well ahead of compliance in the best case, and only slightly better in worst-case!
And in all other scenarios, such as a woman using this to get rid of the guy or to get drinks, using it as a filter for non-interesting guys, or even a woman who thinks it’s normal but unconsciously feels less attracted to men who comply… the heuristic produces much better results on average than buying the drink does. (Assuming, again, the guy has developed the social skills to pull it off.)
Among other things, it’s also a counter-filter, since the woman who truly has no interest in the guy outside his ability to procure alcohol will immediately depart in search of another sucker, no matter how skillfully it’s done. For the rest, you still either win, or else you don’t lose.
Of course, this is all conditional on the man’s skill in making use of all the available information in the situation… for one thing, he’s got to be socially calibrated enough to be able to tell the difference between the woman who’ll respond to “Sure, bend over, you spoiled brat” vs. the one who’ll respond to “Not a feminist, eh?”… and preferably be able to tell that before even starting the conversation. (Oh, and let’s not forget that those two can be the same woman, in different moods!)
But that’s the “software” way of doing it… the “coprocessor” way is that the guy ideally just believes that it’d be silly to buy a woman a drink without a quid pro quo (like Feynman’s advisor) and lets their social hardware handle the details of responding.
Attempting to cache a specific behavioral response in “software” isn’t going to cut it, though; the PUA methods that revolve around “canned” material are necessarily probabilistic and essentially manipulative. So, if there’s a flaw in Roko’s example, that would be it: caching a specific response pretty much guarantees it’s not going to be done with a truly beneficial level of skill.
And yet, even in that case, it’s still probably positive-sum advice, as long as the man continues learning and improving over the long haul.
I only have anecdotes, of course, but I and most of my female friends and family members don’t behave like that.
Well, if “behave like that” is asking guys for drinks, then there’s no conflict with what Roko said, since the situation will never come up.
However, if “behave like that” is responding with increased attraction to a display of confidence, tact, humor, and/or other social skills, I’d be surprised. (It’s just that what you would personally consider to be such a display is going to depend on a lot of situational factors that a single canned response can’t possibly take into account.)
And yet, even in that case, it’s still probably positive-sum advice, as long as the man continues learning and improving over the long haul.
I think this needs to be emphasised a lot. Also the differences between types of women. While a nerdy girl may not ask for a drink, they may ask for help with a heavy box. Now from the canned advice given this can be seen as a shit test, will the guy demean himself by lugging a heavy box to try and get with someone of my level. If so they don’t want to be with a loser who lifts his own boxes. So a response like “Do I look like a shelf stacker?” said in a suitably amused tone, would be appropriate.
However the nerdy girl might just want the box moved and be interested in people who can just get stuff done with a minimal amount of prodding. The appropriate response in this case is to help. Grumbling (with a grin) while doing so, or making a light comment about being owed one might show you aren’t a complete push over and won’t put up with too much of that sort of thing without something in return, would be appropriate I think.
I’d have a lot less problem if advice were couched in term of normal human interaction rather than just trying to get into an extrovert girls pants.
Hauling a heavy box is not at all analogous to the drink example. When a woman asks a man for help with heavy physical work, this puts him in a much better initial position status-wise. She is the weaker party, asking for necessary assistance from his greater physical strength. Helping a weaker party from a position of greater power is a first-rank status-winning move. Therefore, it’s best for him to do it cheerfully with a “that’s nothing for a man like me” attitude; grumbling and saying “you owe me” is a bad idea since it suggests that he actually finds it hard, rather than an act of negligible difficulty from his superior position.
Of course, if a woman regularly exploits a man for such favors or makes him spend unreasonable time and effort helping her, that’s another story altogether. However, a random request for some small help with a hard physical task nearly always conforms to this pattern of status dynamics.
In contrast, when a woman asks a man to buy her a drink, she is asking him to satisfy a random and capricious whim, not help her as a weaker party from a superior position. Therefore, acceptance carries no positive status signals at all, but instead signals that he is willing to obey her whims for the mere privilege of her company. Compared to the box example, it’s like accepting to pay extortion money versus giving to charity. The former is an expression of weakness and submission, the latter a dispensation of benevolence.
My point was more that the situations could be confused by people with broken social coprocessors and inappropriate behaviour translated across from one domain to another. Without a lot of explanation of the appropriateness.
Buying drinks can also be seen as someone weaker (financially) asking someone stronger. Considering that men earn more on average than women, and if you are picking up college girls and have a real job that is likely to be even more the case. So I don’t see the way that these situations can be easily distinguished that way by someone without much social experience.
I agree about the grumbling, don’t grumble about the weight, grumble about the time taken.
Buying drinks can also be seen as someone weaker (financially) asking someone stronger. Considering that men earn more on average than women, and if you are picking up college girls and have a real job that is likely to be even more the case. So I don’t see the way that these situations can be easily distinguished that way by someone without much social experience
I have a few meta-rules of thumb in such matters:
Anything can mean anything.
Corollary: Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by intelligence.
The rules are never what anyone says they are.
The rules may not even be what anyone thinks they are.
Nevertheless, there are rules.
It is your job to learn them, and nobody’s job to teach them to you.
All advice, however universally it may be expressed, is correct only in some specific context.
Application of the last to the whole is left as an exercise. :-)
My point was more that the situations could be confused by people with broken social coprocessors and inappropriate behaviour translated across from one domain to another. Without a lot of explanation of the appropriateness.
Well, yes, but that’s what explanations are for. Once you grasp the underlying principles, it’s not that complicated—and more importantly, you gradually start to make correct judgments instinctively.
I agree about the grumbling, don’t grumble about the weight, grumble about the time taken.
No, if you understand the status dynamic fully, you’ll realize that you shouldn’t grumble at all. Grumbling, of whatever sort, indicates that you assign a significant cost to the act, and in order to come off as high-status, you must make it look like it’s a negligible expense of effort from your lofty high-status position, a casual dispensation of benevolent grace. As soon as you make it seem like you perceive the act as costly in any way, it looks like you’re making the effort to fulfill her wishes, clearly displaying inferior status to hers.
Remember we are talking about nerdy girls, that is not the norm that the PUA deals with. I remember a recent post by someone saying that nerdy girls prefer men who dominate everything but them. I can’t remember who posted it, at the moment.
Getting back to an earlier discussion of whether more women are wanted at LW..… anyone who’s likely to show up here is nerdy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember, and keep remembering, and make it clear in your writing, that “women” are not a monolithic block and don’t all want the same thing.
Assuming that there are non-Anglospheric folks here, this is probably an unjustified generalization due to a cultural bias. The idea that smart people interested in the sorts of things discussed here have to conform to the stereotype of “nerdiness” is a historically recent North American cultural phenomenon, which doesn’t necessarily hold in other places. It’s actually a rather curious state of affairs by overall historical standards.
Your observation is probably accurate statistically, though.
People who appear socially low-status can end up in economically high-status knowledge-based professions in an industrial society, which upsets people’s intuitions of how the social hierarchy should work. Put-downs have evolved for making things look right again.
I still find American anti-intellectualism kind of shocking. Do you know if there are other cultures where children reliably punish each other for getting good grades?
I don’t really know how it’s distributed. There seems to be a generally stronger streak of anti-intellectualism in America than in Europe, and kids probably pick that up. A poor primary education system may make the problems worse by making education gaps wider and by leaving children with a poor grasp on how the wider society functions.
I’ve the impressions that things are somewhat more US-like in Britain and that studying science is more appreciated in the former Soviet bloc, but I don’t know how accurate these are. Education seems to be very highly valued in China and India. I’ve no idea about the rest of the world.
Yes, Britain has a similar culture to the US in terms of children punishing those who get good grades. My personal experience was that getting good grades was not in itself a major problem as long as you didn’t appear to be trying too hard or to care about the outcome.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember, and keep remembering, and make it clear in your writing, that “women” are not a monolithic block and don’t all want the same thing.
A woman who doesn’t want a generalization applied to them? :)
However the nerdy girl might just want the box moved and be interested in people who can just get stuff done with a minimal amount of prodding. The appropriate response in this case is to help.
You haven’t clarified the all-important context. Is this a friend? Stranger? Do they need boxes moved often? What are your goals? Friendship? Company? Just getting a good feeling from helping people out?
Certainly, the default response, assuming a member in good standing of your extended tribe, is to help. This doesn’t make it the “appropriate” response for all goals and contexts, however.
I’d have a lot less problem if advice were couched in term of normal human interaction rather than just trying to get into an extrovert girls pants.
Agreed. Don’t see anyone talking about “just trying to get into an extrovert girls pants,” though. The rough consensus I’m seeing lately from proponents of learning normal social interaction is that it is useful for improving interaction with people in general.
For example, let’s say it’s one of those “nerdy women”—she is not fishing for a drink, not consciously testing, and (probably) not unconsciously testing, but maybe has been taught that this is how you signal openness to being courted, or just doesn’t think about it at all.
Well, in that particular case, it’s an opportunity for a signal like, “Not a feminist, huh?”—probably leading to a thought-provoking conversation about feminism, chivalry, and the impact of social trends on dating behaviors...
Aaaaaaaugh.
As someone who is fairly good at predicting my own behavior in various counterfactual situations, I’d like to hereby offer to tell people how I’d react to lines about which they are curious. I don’t know to what extent I’m in the reference class anyone’s aiming for, but if the information would be useful, there it is.
I know it’s an act of terrorism for me talk about Alicorn, especially given this topic, but …
She’s really not someone whose reactions are characteristic of the NT, average intelligence women that men would approach in bars, so knowing what she would do is probably not going to be helpful.
Strongly agreed. Alicorn is not the kind of girl one has in mind when one thinks about shit testing behavior—finding alicorn shit testing a guy would be like finding Ghandi at a KKK rally.
I would not actually say “Aaaaaaaugh.” in that situation. I’d probably say “Excuse me?” and then there would need to be a rather excellent recovery or I’d stop interacting with the person. (I’m granting for the sake of the exercise that I’d ask for a drink in the first place, even though in real life I don’t consume alcohol.)
(I’m granting for the sake of the exercise that I’d ask for a drink in the first place, even though in real life I don’t consume alcohol.)
Which is precisely why the offered hypothetical is worse than useless in this case.
Bear in mind that in the circumstance being discussed, asking for a drink is like asking someone to hand you $5 -- for no reason at all other than than that you asked, and the fact that they are a male.
To presume that you would react in a certain way, conditional upon first having done something so utterly foreign to you in the first place, is like saying what you’d do if the moon were made of green cheese, only ISTM you’d have a better chance of being right in that case. ;-)
Well, pretend the bar serves something I’d drink. Say I’d get a virgin pina colada. I could imagine asking for one of those. I might also ask girls, if the environment gave me high enough priors on them being bi/gay.
So, your moral compass allows you to use other people’s sexual preferences as a money pump?
(And no, that’s not a line, although now that I’ve said it, I suppose it could be reworked into a LW-friendly response to a drink request. Needs more humor, less judgment, though! Hm, maybe “Are you trying to exploit my hardware preferences as a money pump?” A little too double-entrendreish, though. These things are really situational, and not at all suited to cached responses.)
I can’t actually think of any situation where asking a question seems to me to be immoral. It can’t be a denotative falsehood, so it’s clear on the “lying” front; there’s nothing else obvious it could be that would be wrong. I suppose it could be mean, or impolite, but this doesn’t even appear to be that to me. I wouldn’t badger anybody about buying me the beverage, which would be mean.
This is a request which is slightly different from a question. Some requests are considered immoral when there is a power or status differential. University lecturers and students provide an example where some requests are widely considered immoral.
Point. Questions/requests that predictably create a sense of obligation in the hearer to do something they ought not feel obligated to perform may be wrong. I don’t think I can, let alone do, project enough power in a casual setting to make anyone feel obliged to buy me the liquid of my choice, although I suppose it’s possible I’m mistaken.
There is also an implied contract with most requests. Many people if asked to buy a stranger a drink will assume that agreeing to the request will result in an opportunity for conversation at least. If someone makes the request with an understanding of the implied trade and no intention of fulfilling their half of the bargain then that seems at least dishonest if not actually immoral.
I wouldn’t request a favor like this from someone I didn’t plan to have at least a short conversation with. (I would ask smaller favors, like that they tell me the time, or more urgent favors, like that they loan me their cell phone so I can call my ride, but a drink is neither negligible nor particularly important.)
I don’t think I can, let alone do, project enough power in a casual setting to make anyone feel obliged to buy me the liquid of my choice, although I suppose it’s possible I’m mistaken.
Refusing makes the guy look bad, unless he has a particularly adept response. The request becomes “buy me a drink, or go through status shenanigans to not look bad.” That’s not exactly obligation, but it is a form of social pressure.
Asking for $5 (well, probably $7-8 if it’s not a beer) isn’t exactly obligation, either. Is that a request you would make of both men and women? If not, why not? And how it is different to a request from a drink, other than the latter being wrapped up in more social frills (and combined with more social pressure)?
If anyone is saying “excuse me?” shouldn’t it be the person being asked for the drink (aka $7)? The only problem is that if men make this response, they look bad, due to the context-specific social power differential.
I would not ask a stranger for money unless I had an urgent, immediate need for it and no other way to get it. Asking for a drink seems different in much the same way that asking my friends for books instead of money on my birthday seems different. The drink provides a context for some sort of interaction; the money doesn’t.
The drink provides a context for some sort of interaction; the money doesn’t.
Which is precisely why it’s a status move: you are placing an implicit pricetag on your continued interaction, and therefore implicitly asserting that your status/value is such that you can demand a payment of tribute for nothing more than the chance of remaining in your good graces.
Whether this were your intention or not, it’s the situation the man is placed in, unless he has the cojones (and possibly training) to be able to refuse with impunity.
Or they are just showing a sign of desiring social interaction and they have culturally ingrained that the way to do so is to ask for a drink (disclaimer: I’ve never actually seen this occur). One may be assuming a lot more about unconscious status inquiring that is more in the category of just silly cultural norms.
Or they are just showing a sign of desiring social interaction and they have culturally ingrained that the way to do so is to ask for a drink
As I said in an earlier comment, there is almost no benefit to treating this possibility as a special case, especially since it is so cheap for her to claim that this is what she’s doing, even when it’s not.
Many women who are actually status-testing no doubt sincerely believe in their conscious model of their actions, and you cannot inexpensively separate them from the ones who are also correct!
One reason, by the way, why this situation is so useful for women as a test of a man’s social skills, is that it requires considerable social calibration to pull off a declination or negotiation that also acknowledges and continues the “game” in progress, rather than simply refusing to play.
I think that the women who’ve been involved in this thread have actually been modeling Roko’s original statement as though it’s a refusal to interact, when in fact to be functional it has to actually take the interaction up a notch, by giving a nod to something you’ve noticed about her, or something she said, etc. (IOW, men who think women want them to be mind-readers are only partly correct; they just want to know you’ve been paying attention)
But if this is what they are doing then the ideal response may be to actually buy a drink since at least in pop culture depictions of this sort of scenario (at least in movies I’ve seen) seems to be that the male is actually supposed to do that. Failure to do so might be interpreted as a lack of interest.
Failure to do so might be interpreted as a lack of interest.
Not compared to refusing in a way that shows you’re paying attention. A drink without attention isn’t nearly as flattering as the attention without the drink. And giving too much of either or both is counterproductive at Byrnema’s hypothetical level 2.
I’m a little mystified by your analogy, and what you are intending to show with it. Being treated like the birthday girl (or boy) is a form of special treatment that happens once a year. It’s not your birthday every time you go out, right? Giving birthday presents between friends is generally mutual, yet you’ve made no mention of the drink buying being mutual. Furthermore, giving birthday presents happens when people know each other and already have an interaction, rather than being a precondition for an interaction occurring.
Since getting presents on one’s birthday is a form of special treatment, doesn’t your analogy suggest that expecting/requesting drinks to be bought for oneself is an expectation/request for year-round special treatment? And doesn’t asking for drinks look even worse when we remember that buying birthday presents among friends in mutual, while women asking for drinks aren’t expecting to reciprocate and buy the guy a drink the next night?
I actually receive a fair number of gifts on non-special occasions too, but I suppose that’s neither here nor there.
I haven’t mentioned buying a reciprocal drink, but this is largely because I have idiosyncratic neuroses about money, not because it wouldn’t occur to me as something appropriate to do.
I haven’t mentioned buying a reciprocal drink, but this is largely because I have idiosyncratic neuroses about money, not because it wouldn’t occur to me as something appropriate to do.
I’ve noticed something interesting about your “social processing” in these posts—your reasoning does not appear to include anything about what other people think or feel; in fact, it barely seems to include them at all! (For example, how would anyone you ask know whether you intend to reciprocate, or not?)
And I would guess that this apparent lack of consequential modeling of others’ visceral experience of you, would lead to other sorts of situations in which your NT friends/co-workers find you “weird”.
NTs pay lip service to deontological rules, but are mostly consequentialists with respect to their social behavior. As others here have pointed out, one of the key rules of NT social interaction is that everyone must show loyalty to the rules, while not being so clueless as to actually follow them or expect others to do so, when the real rules are about status and its consequences.
IOW, it’s insanely irrational to treat NT social interactions as being truly rule-driven. (By which I mean it’s irrational to think you will accomplish anything besides driving the NT’s insane!)
Unfortunately, it’s also similarly irrational/insane to try to convince non-NTs of this, unless they have some relevant personal experience. Me, I learned a little from a mentor in the business world who taught me how to see the power and affiliation subtexts of business interactions, but I’ve consistently erred on the side of assuming that those situations were special cases, and that I didn’t need to think like that with some group of trusted allies.
And in pretty much every case, I’ve found it to be a tragic error to assume that people are NOT playing games, no matter how sincerely they themselves believe they “really aren’t”. (When that’s really just the game of “not playing games”. Ever wonder why everybody claims to hate office politics, and yet it still exists?)
Geeks, of course, just use a different rulebook for their game, where (among other things) we get status for valuing “what you know” and “what’s right” over “who you know” and “what’s cool/popular/socially calibrated”. (However, this doesn’t change the game itself, just what the points get awarded for.)
I don’t know why in general. In my case, I hate surprises, and am pretty good at getting my friends to indulge this hate by not getting me things that I haven’t pre-approved. Since I’m neurotic about money and tend to not spend it unless it’s really, really important, this means that the average gift I get from a friend is more useful to me than the equivalent amount of money (which I’d basically never spend), especially since when I use the gift I think of the friend and get some utility from that.
I would not actually say “Aaaaaaaugh.” in that situation. I’d probably say “Excuse me?” and then there would need to be a rather excellent recovery or I’d stop interacting with the person.
That’s quite princessy behavior—worthy of a cute 10/cheerleader type! Go Alicorn!
Okay, this has me curious—is there actually a subset of pickup that is designed to tell me what to do, instead of telling people what to do to me? That would be news to me.
And apparently a “Playette FAQ” as well. (It makes heavy use of PUA terminology like “one-itis” and “IOI”, though.)
I haven’t really read ASFin almost 20 years, so I didn’t know about the Playette stuff. Funny story, though: I can attest to the value of the “whiff” technique in the Playette FAQ, because my wife used it in our first email and phone conversations, back in 1992… and well, um, it worked out pretty well for both of us. ;-)
That depends on what exactly your goal is. Typical men can boost their sexual attractiveness to women by changing their behavior far more than vice versa, so it’s unsurprising that there is a much greater body of expertise aimed at men in this regard. Also, getting sex is pretty much trivial for women and requires no particular skill. However, commitment and long-term relationship strategies are important and nontrivial for women too, and on better game-oriented blogs, I’ve often seen good discussions about the mistakes women make in this regard. Trouble is, realistic treatments of this issue tend to bring up even more ugly truths and end up sounding even less PC than the ordinary PUA stuff.
Like in everything else, humans make bad decisions due to biases in matters of mating and pairing too. However, these particular biases are male- and female-specific, and pointing out the latter is easily perceived by women as an affront to their sex, which makes realistic discussion very hard.
But since you’re asking, here are some instances of such biases. None of them are universal, but each is held strongly by non-negligible numbers of women and leads them to decisions they later regret. One example is when women overestimate the attractiveness of men they can realistically hope to attract for serious permanent commitment, given the higher attractiveness of men they can attract for temporary relationships and short-term flings without any real commitment on the man’s part. Another is when women underestimate the speed with which their looks and reproductive abilities deteriorate with age. Yet another is the refusal to acknowledge that women can be greatly attracted to some very nasty personality types of men, not despite them but because of them (google “dark triad”), which leads some women to entering disastrous relationships with such men. Then there are also many wrong beliefs about what personality characteristics of women are truly attractive and pleasant to men and apt to attract their loyalty and commitment in the long run.
There are other examples too, many of which would probably sound more controversial. Even these I listed can provoke much worse reactions when put in less abstract and detached terms, which is typically necessary when forming concrete advice.
This is a general comment about the PUA material I’ve read.
It comes off as lonely. There’s no hint of enjoying someone’s company, or hope that a someone could enjoy the writer’s company if not manipulated into it.
Yes. Sometimes I get a sense of simmering resentment underneath it all, especially on the subject of “nice guys” vs. “jackasses”.
What the PUA people call “day game” (approaching women in everyday life, instead of bars and clubs) can verge on the concept of enjoyable company, but from my limited reading on the subject they don’t seem to cover day game nearly as much. They say it’s more difficult than “night game”.
It’s a little like something in a famous essay by Eric Raymond on “good porn” vs. “bad porn”. (Just google on those phrases to find a copy—I don’t care to do that search from a machine at work.) Following a personally conducted scientific examination of porn pictures on the web, he concluded that men looking for porn are not looking for depictions of attractive young women posed as if about to have enjoyable sex with the viewer. The porn industry knows what sells, and pictures of that sort, that Raymond called “good porn”, formed only a small minority. They are looking for what he classified as “bad porn”: pictures of an absolutely joyless activity, all hard faces, cold stares, and fetishistic trappings.
ETA: Eric Raymond’s essay is on his own blog here, and he’s updated some of the links that were broken when I first read it, so you can see some of his experimental samples.
I find the resentment off-putting too, and as in any other area of human concern, there is indeed a lot of unjustified feeling of entitlement. However, it should be noted that the main reason for the resentment is the rules-hypocrisy. Many men are indeed too clueless to figure out the disconnect between the official attitudes and values that are professed piously in our culture and the actual rules of the status game that it’s taboo to discuss openly (so that such discussions are corralled off to disreputable venues like the PUA culture). Can you really blame them for being frustrated when they naively play by the official rules and end up scorned as low-status losers, or for acting out a bit when they finally realize what’s been going on?
an you really blame them for being frustrated when they naively play by the official rules and end up scorned as low-status losers, or for acting out a bit when they finally realize what’s been going on?
This isn’t about blame, it’s about revulsion, and possibly about anger and fear.
You’re sympathizing with the men, which is natural—without speculating about details, your experience is more like theirs. Try imagining dating one of them, or being in a relationship with them—if that’s too much of a strain, try imagining reading a forum of women who are that hurt and angry about men.
This isn’t about blame, it’s about revulsion, and possibly about anger and fear.
Fair enough. However, I would say that women tend to display at least two major biases when they encounter this sort of stuff. (I don’t think these biases completely account for the fear and revulsion you mention, but they do mean that it often goes too far.)
First, women often don’t take into account that they’re observing men’s in-clique behavior, which they rarely, if ever, see in real life. Many young men whom they’d perceive as decent, polite, overall good guys (and who indeed are that by any reasonable standards) sometimes spew out stuff that’s just as extreme when they loosen up over beers among their male buddies, complete with foul language, frustrated trashing of women who have hurt them, etc. It’s just that polite men instinctively watch their mouths when women or authority figures are within hearing distance, so when they’re caught off guard rambling, or when they’re writing anonymously on the internet, they tend to come off much worse than they really are.
Second, I understand that women might fear getting involved with a man whose attractive surface hides an angry, frustrated, manipulative PUA underneath, whose nasty nature will only later come to prominence. However, this fear is entirely out of proportion when you consider a similar, but much more prevalent and dangerous natural phenomenon. Namely, there are significant numbers of men around whose personalities are naturally fundamentally nasty but nevertheless wildly attractive to women—many of whom ruin their lives big time by pursuing relationships with such men. See, for example, the Dark Triad paper by Jonason et al. for a discussion along these lines, which is nowhere near a complete account of this entire phenomenon. This is realistically a far greater danger than encountering a PUA, who is anyway more likely to be just a regular guy who undertook some self-improvement than a monster lurking below a smooth surface.
From the PUAs I’ve known, they are unlikely to be wolves in sheep’s clothing… they are more likely to be sheep in wolves’ clothing. There are a few guys who are badly adjusted and have weird antisocial ideas in the local PUA group, and other guys make fun of them behind their backs.
Do you have that sort of distance when women vent about men?
As for the Dark Triad guys, I agree that they should be a matter of more concern—the only specific advice I’ve seen about avoiding them is to not get involved with a man who’s rude to waitresses.
Do you have that sort of distance when women vent about men?
I would say yes. I have a hobby of sorts that consists of exploring obscure corners of the web where various sorts of fringe people with unconventional (and often disreputable) ideas gather, and attempting to understand their perspectives in a detached manner, as free of bias as possible. As an example relevant for your question, I have read radical feminist websites where the level of anger against men far surpasses any venting against women you’ll see on even the worst PUA forums.
Now, my conclusion is that out of all these fringe groups, most of them just form their own echo chambers where they vent and reinforce their peculiar biases, but a small minority actually manage to come up with non-trivial accurate insight that is nowhere to be found in more reputable and mainstream sources. The PUA community just happens to be one such example. In contrast, I have never come across any analogous women’s community, where lots of valid and interesting insight would be offered alongside anti-male anger and venting, but if I hypothetically did, I have no doubt I would enjoy reading it. (There are also communities full of angry venting men where, in contrast to PUAs, I’ve never seen any particularly interesting ideas.)
As for the Dark Triad guys, I agree that they should be a matter of more concern—the only specific advice I’ve seen about avoiding them is to not get involved with a man who’s rude to waitresses.
Trouble is, some very strong biases are present here, because the ugly and hard to admit truth is that some personalty types of this sort are attractive as such to many women—not all women, of course, and I won’t speculate on the percentage, but it’s certainly non-negligible. Note that I don’t mean the situations where such dark characteristics are hidden under a nice surface only to emerge later, but when they are truly attractive by themselves, causing irresistible urges in women to engage in dangerous, self-immolating adventures with such men. You can view it as a specifically female form of extreme akrasia, I guess. The prevailing bias, however, is to interpret all such situations as women having been manipulated by a wolf in sheep’s clothing, even when the wolf was howling and brandishing his fangs from day one, only to get an enthusiastic response.
In contrast, I have never come across any analogous women’s community, where lots of valid and interesting insight would be offered alongside anti-male anger and venting, but if I hypothetically did, I have no doubt I would enjoy reading it.
I would love to read material from a female analogue to PUA. Looking back on past relationships I can see some patterns for behavior that ‘hooked’ me, but I’m sure I’m missing a lot of potentially valuable insights.
People often meet a person they like but can’t commit to romantically because of small ‘defects’ in the person’s behavior as it relates to the relationship. Personally, I’d be all in favor of my significant other using PUA equivalent methods on me, provided I was aware it and had studied the material myself (in the same way that I’m in favor of my significant other wearing certain clothing, etc).
So, two main upshots of wide dissemination of PUA style material: better understanding of myself, and heightened attraction to my partner.
You’re response in the subthread was more a list of biases exhibited by females (an interesting list though). What I’m looking for is a set of actionable techniques a woman can use in the context of a relationship to keep a man more interested.
The Rules is probably the best known example. I haven’t read it and don’t know whether there is any validity to the claims. I suspect there’s some truth in there but that it is not terribly rigorous or accurate.
I haven’t read this book either, but a significant piece of evidence against it is that one of the authors divorced her husband only a few years after it was published. Otherwise, I’ve seen it get mixed to negative comments on game websites, the principal complaint being that a man who lets himself be played by those rules may easily ipso facto signal low status to the point where he’ll destroy her respect for (and thus attraction to) him. Some of the tactics allegedly advocated by the book indeed sound that way, but I won’t pass any definite judgments since I haven’t read it.
What I’m looking for is a set of actionable techniques a woman can use in the context of a relationship to keep a man more interested.
Certainly such products exist (e.g. catchhimandkeephim.com, husbandscantresist.com) but I’m not familiar with any free online resources comparable to the vast assortment available for men. Catchhimandkeephim.com has some articles, but skimming through I found it difficult to judge how useful a woman would find this advice, as it sounded all very obvious and straightforward to me… but then, I’m a man, and the articles are about how men react and think. It’s possible that the information would be a revelation for someone who wasn’t a man. ;-)
There are many books giving that sort of advice, but I haven’t read any, so I can’t recommend them. Just from the titles and blurbs I’ve seen, it can be reliably concluded that many are very bad.
Anecdotally, I can say that in the best discussions of women’s relationship strategies and techniques I’ve ever read on game-related sites, I’ve never seen anyone point out a book or any other source of systematic advice whose message closely matches the best evidence-supported conclusions of these discussions. I see this as a strong piece of evidence against the whole existing literature. This is not that surprising considering that the best evidence-supported conclusions sound, to a large degree, highly un-PC and shattering lots of pleasant-sounding illusions.
Yes, it’s harder to do experiments on parts of the interaction that occur later down the line. I think that’s a lot of the reason that PUAs talk so much more about pickup than relationships (though PUA forums typically have active relationships boards): the conversion funnel of approaches to dating to relationships gets narrower and narrower. PUAs spend most of their time stuck at particular interaction points prior to relationships, such as getting numbers and women not calling them back, going on dates with women and not being able to kiss them, or only successfully attracting women who don’t quite meet their relationship criteria. I’ve noticed that once PUAs get all that stuff handled, they start talking about relationships more than the mechanics of pickup, and actually get really picky.
What insights have you found in odd corners of the web?
As for the Dark Triad, I don’t know what’s going on there. I tentatively assume that some people like danger, and what attracts some to motorcycles and mountain-climbing can also attract people to mates who have TROUBLE written all over them.
Alternatively, some women choose men like their fathers—they’re imprinted on a bad idea of what a man is.
Also, I hope it’s less common in the culture, but some women believe that they can turn a bad guy into a good one by being a sufficiently good wife. I’m not going to say it never happens, but making the attempt can be a powerful emotional hook.
It’s clear that how reliable people’s survival instincts are (and about what parts of their lives) vary tremendously, and I’ve never seen a substantial discussion of how the “this is good for me, that is bad for me” sense works.
You might find The Fantasy of Being Thin interesting.
Yes, I am familiar with this particular community. They do discuss some common biases in an interesting way, but ultimately, my conclusion is that they generate their own more severe ones, without adding much clarity to anything overall.
What insights have you found in odd corners of the web?
Well, that could be a topic for a whole book, not a mere blog comment. I’d rather not just drop concrete names and places I’ve found interesting, since without lots of painstaking explanations and disclaimers, it would send off a thunderous signal of affiliation with all kinds of disreputable people.
It’s just that polite men instinctively watch their mouths when women or authority figures are within hearing distance
This would be extremely surprising to me if true. This sounds like something that was true in the 1950s, but does this really match your experience today? In my experience, at least among people under 30 or so, there is no difference between how guys and girls act in social situations when there are, or are not, members of the opposite sex around. (Business or formal situations are different.)
Well, I have no evidence except anecdotal to present, but yes, this does match my experience. It surely doesn’t apply to all individuals, social groups, and occasions, but I observe it regularly, and I have to personally plead guilty to a certain degree of such inconsistency. Especially when, for example, a guy gets dumped or rejected and wants to vent a bit by rambling about the evilness of the girl in question, or women in general, it definitely seems likely to me that much cruder rants can be produced in an exclusive company of close, trusted male friends than otherwise.
In any case, even if this is true only for a minority of men, my main point still holds, i.e. there are non-negligible numbers of men around who, despite being perfectly respectable by all other criteria, engage in crude language about women and male-female relations on some occasions when no women are around to hear it. For this reason, women are often biased in that they tend to interpret such language, when observed, as unrealistically strong evidence of serious character flaws in the man in question.
Can you really blame them for being frustrated when they naively play by the official rules and end up scorned as low-status losers, or for acting out a bit when they finally realize what’s been going on?
I have often been bitterly amused at how the “Yes, but...” speeches on the misogyny often perpetrated by Western socially/sexually deprived men, on the one hand, and the crime often perpetrated by lower-class Afro-Americans, on the other hand, often end up disquietingly similar.
And with good reason; in both cases, we have angry, alienated young men who are least able to cope with the systemic oppression of their social group, least willing to play by the rules that treat them unfairly, spiral into hatred and evil, bringing even more scorn upon their group and the peaceful advocates in it, and inadverently creating good conditions for the “natural-born” antisocial/immoral assholes who wear their colors.
“It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”
-Martin Luther King
Sadly, for now the MRAs/gender egalitarians seem to be doing far worse than even American blacks—see the bitter split with feminism, and the inability of similarly-minded feminists and MRAs to leave behind the sectarianism. (This collective blog that HughRistik writes for is the kind of collaboration that I’d like to see way more of on the gender front.)
I think you have had your opinion coloured by encountering people in the anger phase of the denial, anger, acceptance progression of changing beliefs in the light of new evidence.
Depends where you look. Some of that stuff is indeed written in such tone, and it’s true that some of it advises sly and dishonest tactics. On the other hand, here’s the story of a man who saved his marriage by applying insights he gained on game websites (the blog might be NSFW for foul language, though it’s on the blogroll of Overcoming Bias): http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
For me, that story seems awfully depressing. Nothing in the story suggested to me that the man loved his wife or that his wife loved him. Game may have permitted them to have a more harmonious marriage, and evidently better sex, but not a relationship that seemed based on mutual love and respect.
It may be that the marriage was just too flawed to begin with; it’s also possible, given that the writer was writing for Roissy’s blog, that he consciously left details and color about love out of his narrative. But from what he has actually written, he’s not describing the sort of marriage that I would want to be a part of.
Agreed. I also noticed that there was basically nothing about the wife’s individual personality. She could have been anybody, as long as she was gameable.
And the couple of tidbits that don’t sound dreadful and nasty to me, do sound like they are okay by accident—the theory sounds like bullshit, it’s just a stopped clock right twice a day. Example:
Panicking when one’s faithfulness is questioned is bad, but not because it’s “beta” and signifies fear of the wife or something—but because if the question causes panic, that might be because there’s cheating going on and he fears being caught. The post recommends teasing. That is better than panic (ymmv), but my guess would be that even better would be a perfectly calm and deadpanned: “No.” Or a longer sentence, but just as declarative: “I am not cheating on you.” No details or explanations or protestations. Presenting concrete evidence (unless asked for it!) might or might not hurt, but it probably won’t help, especially if you can come up with it too quickly—readily thought-of evidence could be planted, or might signify that you’ve already considered what to say if asked because there’s some reason to expect her to ask you wanted to be prepared for.
The post recommends teasing. That is better than panic (ymmv), but my guess would be that even better would be a perfectly calm and deadpanned: “No.” Or a longer sentence, but just as declarative: “I am not cheating on you.” No details or explanations or protestations.
The problem with this approach is that factual statements can be argued with, putting you back into the same place as before—i.e., having an argument where you’re being accused of something. The “agree and amplify” approach has the tactical advantage that it leaves the other person with no place to escalate to, and can be repeated more or less indefinitely.
(Note: I’m not commenting here on the (un)desirability of having an adversarial relationship like that to begin with, just pointing to a tactical advantage of the proposed “agree and amplify” over a flat assertion or denial. Another advantage, btw, is that it can actually make the accuser paradoxically feel listened to/accepted/validated in a way that disagreement does not. My wife has actually successfully used this tactic on me when I’ve been annoyed at some minor thing—the old, “yes, I did do that, and I did it just to annoy you” routine. ;-) )
I was generalizing. The examples of “before” conversations make it sound like he thinks he’s being accused of some sort of infidelity (however minor) and that he’s scared of being so accused.
As I mentioned once before but should mention again since you linked to his blog, Roissy is not representative of PUAs. He is like most of the worst things about PUAs, plus some other flaws of his own, all packed together. He’s attracted a lot of attention outside the seduction community, but virtually nobody inside it knows who he is or cares about him.
I think you’re making the mistake of judging him for his theatrics and shock-value approach. Once you get past the swaggering style, tune in to his sense of humor, and figure out which commenters are worth reading, I’d say his blog is by far the best place for all but the most technical discussions of all aspects of male-female interactions. This doesn’t mean I endorse all he has to say, of course, but the level of insight far surpasses the other game/PUA sites I’ve seen. (I don’t think it’s for nothing that Robin Hanson links to him.)
In particular, I’m struck by the quality of many commenters I’ve seen there through the years, though in this regard, the blog is past its prime (and even back in the past, you had to sift through the detritus of unmoderated comments to find the gems). What many people might find strange is that lots of the regulars there are women, some of them extremely smart and cultured, though it’s actually not surprising when you consider that it’s an environment where the usual rules-hypocrisy is thrown out the window.
All in all, there is certainly much there to be offended by, and in fact, for lots of that stuff, one is required to be offended by it according to the official respectable standards of our culture. Yet anyone striving to eliminate biases about these topics should find much of the insight offered there worthwhile.
Then it would probably depend on how much I wanted to talk to you in the first place (where this includes, factored in, how charming the happy smile is). If not much, I’d probably shrug and go back whence I came. If more than not much, I might say “Aw, why not?”—not to try particularly to extract a drink after all, but out of curiosity and to have something to have a conversation about.
I’ll be optimistic and assume the latter option happens! I’ve heard this reply several times, here’s what happens next:
Alicorn: Hey, wanna buy me a drink?
cousin_it: (smiles happily and shakes head)
Alicorn: Aw, why not?
cousin_it: (keeps smiling, almost laughing, eyes half closed, reaches with arm to catch her waist)
In fairness, you can’t give an informed reply to that because you can’t assess my physical attractiveness over the Internet, but I can just tell you the decision tree from this point. The girl either plays along or evades. If she plays along, I keep doing what makes sense. If she evades, I turn away to the bar without lingering even a second. You’d be surprised how many girls thus NEXT’ed later come back :-) Of course I don’t mean to imply anything about your behavior!
Yeah, going for the waist at that point would get a shriek even if you managed not to tickle me, and not in a good way. I don’t care if you look like Sean Maher. I’d escape (and it would feel like escaping, not like something more neutral like “disengaging” or whatever), and if I was with any female friends I’d warn them you were grabby. I might do an evaluation of how the bouncer would react if informed, but I have low priors on getting help for “socially acceptable” invasions of space.
Yeah, going for the waist at that point would get a shriek even if you managed not to tickle me, and not in a good way. I don’t care if you look like Sean Maher.
I think you misunderstand cousin_it’s reference to “physical attractiveness”. He’s filtering not for whether you think he’s good-looking, he’s filtering by whether you are physically attracted to him at that moment in time, and open to the possibility of doing something about it, preferably as soon as possible. (This doesn’t necessarily mean sex, btw, just being physically companionable and open to exploring the chemistry further.)
Anyway, if you’re someone who’s aversive to being touched by strangers, this will obviously filter you out.
I’ll be honest here—girls kino-ing me (i.e. touching to show interest in this way) used to freak me the fuck out. I wouldn’t shriek, but I would definitely respond in a negative, abused-cat kind of way.
And I used to rationalize this response as being not just different but better and more right(eous) somehow than the dog way of doing things.
Nowadays, though, I realize that it’s irrational to pretend I’m going to change everybody into cats or even that it’s necessarily a good idea! (If everyone’s a cat, who’s going to do the stroking?)
So, while a stranger rubbing me the wrong way might make my hair stand on end, I have learned not to hiss, scratch, or run when I’m pawed by a dog person of whichever sex. Tolerating the discomfort or politely disengaging or explaining my issues with touch produces a better long-term result than just freaking out.
I’ve endured a fair number of lectures from my parents about how it’s rude to freak out when strangers touch me. Here is why I go on doing it anyway:
It is always startling. I do not expect strangers to touch me, and I can’t read them well enough to come to expect it when it’s going to happen. This gives me little opportunity to prepare a response.
It often sets off sensory issues. I can tolerate accidental, very brief incursions into these issues by people who know about them and will stop instantly if they hear the relevant word, but anything prolonged may well have me curl up in a ball and scream. And it turns out that people are confused, or worse, think it’s funny, when I try to explain these issues. If they are confused enough, or think it’s funny enough, to go on touching me in a non-approved way while I try to explain in an increasingly hysterical fashion, I will wind up doing something far less socially acceptable than just freaking out and escaping.
I don’t think that every random person is a rapist, but I think some of them are, and if I’m later in a position of having to go to the cops, I want every witness who saw me with the accused to have noticed that I established a precedent from the start of not wanting to be touched, because sexual assault investigations are nightmarish enough as-is without the kinds of whispers a history of “kino” would create.
There are certain kinds of touch that are quite safe. I will shake hands. I love hugs. Backrubs are awesome. I often ask to pet people’s hair and am perfectly happy to permit the reverse. But the only context where I would be okay with someone grabbing me around the waist would be if I were in an ongoing relationship with them and they knew to stop on a dime if I utter the words “that tickles”.
I’ve endured a fair number of lectures from my parents about how it’s rude to freak out when strangers touch me.
To be clear, I am not saying that it’s “rude”… I’m just pointing out that in my case, it has been more useful to adapt. This should not be construed as an implication that you can or should do so.
Oh no, I look nothing like that. I look like a dork, not a movie star :-)
I feel bad that this behavior would scare you. Honestly I don’t know that I ever scared a single person in my life, man or woman. I mean, you could probably beat me up if you wanted to :-) Humorous shrieks are a common girl response; scared shrieks, no. But… okay. I’m playing a numbers game anyway, some form of evasion is the expected response.
I think nerdy women are pretty numerous, far too numerous to be diagnosable autistics, and do just fine on the dating market. And I suspect the typical straight male LW reader wouldn’t mind dating one.
There are many arguments that come to mind here, but above all: having to cut down your dating pool drastically because you can’t handle typical social behavior is not winning.
All other things equal, it is better to have more choice, and all other things are not equal: “nerdy” occupations and communities are not gender balanced.
I don’t see any necessary contradiction between Roko and SarahC’s perspectives in determining an optimal dating strategy for men with LW-reader phenotypes that doesn’t rely on luck.
Are there nontrivial subsets of women who would make good matches for male LW-readers, with psychology not correctly described by the standard PUA model? Yes. Should these guys go outside that model to understand these women? Yes.
Are there nontrivial subsets of women who would make good matches for male LW-readers, with psychology that is correctly described by the standard PUA model, in part or in whole? Yes. Would these guys benefit from attaining knowledge of neurotypical social behaviors (from PUAs or elsewhere) to be able to date these women, instead of arbitrarily cutting them out of their dating pool? Yes.
I take an empirical approach to romantic success. Being able to date many kinds of people gives you a lot of options. Sometimes, you can’t know whether you would be compatible with a certain type of person until you try dating someone like that. Saying “but I don’t want anyone like that anyway” about people out of one’s reach because of a lack of common social skills is a failure mode. Yet if you attain the skills to date someone like that, and you find it doesn’t work, then you know that you are not merely the fox calling the grapes sour in Aesop’s fable.
Yeah, that’s the thing. I’m all for learning helpful skills. Bar game might be a helpful skill; I’ve seen enough positive testimonials to make me believe it. And certainly it’s a failure mode to do the sour grapes thing. (I’ve tried dating outside my comfort zone; it’s quite possible.)
PUA is a model, though, and people who like it sometimes overstate its applicability. The other thing to keep in mind is that there’s a tension between learning new skills and playing to your strengths. Sometimes it’s in your best interest to do the latter.
Umm. The purpose of dating is to find someone you’re compatible with. “Expanding your dating pool” to include personality types you don’t like defeats the whole point.
Unless your current idea of what personality types you’re compatible with is too limited, or your judgment of other personality types that makes you not like them is prejudiced. The purpose of dating is also to find out what types of people you are compatible with empirically. See also my response to SarahC.
“Doesn’t play culturally-common status games socially-inexperienced people don’t know how to handle” is not a reasonable way for nerdy people to determine compatibility with potential mates (or friends). The filter is too broad, and it will exclude people they might actually be compatible with if they understood status games better and how to handle them.
A big part of the reason that nerdy people don’t like status games is because they don’t understand the psychology behind them, and consequently give the other person an unfairly negative assessment. Since they aren’t accustomed to status games, their hackles may go up, particularly if the status ploy triggers issues for them, like memories of past bullying by higher status people. Yet once one attains some understanding of status games and skill at playing them, then the hackles no longer go up, and there is no reason to ascribe such a negative judgment to the other person and exclude them as a potential mate or friend.
Of course, there are valid reasons for nerdy people to find certain types of status games annoying and undesirable, even after understanding them. Yet the best way to get a sense of what kinds of status games are fun, what kind are OK with you, and what kind are intolerable, and what kinds of people play these kinds of games, is to have experience playing them with people.
Except that you may find that you’re compatible with someone that you never expected would be compatible with you. Especially when you’re talking about stereotypes like “people who go to bars” or “nerdy women” or “people who engage in shit-testing,” which are broad enough to include many different types of people
Not to mention that there are many purposes of dating: not all relationships are about long-term compatibility.
Many kinds of educated guesses about compatibility increase the probablity of finding the right person or the right relationship, because time is finite, and time spent dating a born-again Christian fundamentalist is time not spent dating an atheist librarian (or not studying Pearl or Jaynes ;-) ).
I’ve never dated a religious fundamentalist; I almost certainly never will. And I think that is the rational choice, even though it seems “limiting” in a sense. In reality, though, I don’t think it is limiting at all, because time is not infinite, and dating opportunities are not fungible with respect to time. It’s only limiting if you ignore the probability of successful outcomes based on what you know of yourself and other people, but what is a decision theory worth that ignores the probabilities altogether (and differing payoffs too)?
Edit: what holds regarding religious fundamentalists also holds to a lesser degree regarding various subsets of the average, neurotypical women that are the subject of this thread.
On the other hand, cargo-cult free-thinking can be, at least for me, far more obnoxious than just plain religious close-mindedness. And in that regard, an atheist librarian may well be much worse than a regular churchy girl (or guy).
I agree with your underlying point, but you brutally twisted my message in order to make your point.
I said “religious fundamentalist”, not “close minded” or “regular churchy girl (or guy)”, so you’re talking about something other than what I was talking about. There is a world of difference between a fundamentalist who thinks (for example) that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the bible is the literal word of God, and the average church-going person.
time spent dating a born-again Christian fundamentalist is time not spent dating an atheist librarian (or not studying Pearl or Jaynes ;-) ).
There’s more to life than intellectual activity and rationality. What about occasionally enjoying light-hearted conversation or sex with a born-again fundamentalist, just as a form of recreation? I understand your point about not wanting a serious relationship with someone with very different values, but not everything has to be about a serious relationship.
Edit: what holds regarding religious fundamentalists also holds to a lesser degree regarding various subsets of the average, neurotypical women that are the subject of this thread.
A much lesser degree, especially for intelligent extraverted women who might enjoy socializing for fun sometimes in bars, as well as more abstract pleasures.
I agree with the point about everything not having to be about a serious relationship, but the reality is that many of us are looking for a serious relationship, and we need the other person to be somebody that we can have interesting conversations with and whom we can respect and be challenged by intellectually.
I also agree on the much lesser degree point, but I do think that somebody who is extremely introverted and intellectual is not necessarily making a big mistake by limiting their romantic pursuits to people who aren’t extreme extroverts, for example, or limiting themselves to people with the intellectual equivalent of a college education and an ongoing passion for learning.
. What about occasionally enjoying light-hearted conversation or sex with a born-again fundamentalist, just as a form of recreation?
Born-again fundamentalist light-hearted sex? That does not compute....
For me, the reason I don’t do casual relationships is because my personality type does not do casual very well. Either I’m really into someone or I don’t really care.
Born-again fundamentalist light-hearted sex? That does not compute....
Heh, I thought someone might ask about that. Believe it or not, there are fundamentalists out there who take the attitude that since they know they’re already saved, they can do whatever they want.
...because you can’t handle typical social behavior
I think a lot of what I’m disagreeing with you and blueberry about is this assumption that meat-market type bars and clubs, and the PUA style tactics that may work well in those environments, are a representative sample of “typical social behavior”
PUA style tactics are predominantly a reverse-engineering of naturalistic behaviors. PUAs didn’t invent status games, they just try to copy them.
On what population do you base your view of “typical social behavior”? I do think that bars and clubs are pretty representative of the behavior of extraverts of average IQ. This is just what extraverted 100 IQ homo sapiens do when you put them in a room with a little ethanol. Such behavior may not be representative of the average introvert who is lower in sensation-seeking, but average IQ extraverts are a pretty big slice of humanity.
Bars and clubs may contain a disproportionate amount of status behavior, but this is just on the higher end of the continuum of status behavior among typical homo sapiens.
People in relationships push each other all the time to see how the other person will react. Even friends not of each other’s preferred gender do this. You may be taking the “buy me a drink” example too literally.
I don’t think people have been talking about “PUA style tactics,” as much as about normal social relationships and interactions. You’re right that they may be more exaggerated at a bar scene.
People in relationships push each other all the time to see how the other person will react. Even friends not of each other’s preferred gender do this. You may be taking the “buy me a drink” example too literally.
Maybe it’s happening so subtly that I can’t see it, but I don’t think everyone is pushing that much all the time.
I think you’re defining yourself as normal, and rather subtly making a status claim that anyone who doesn’t fit in well with you is deficient.
You may be taking the “buy me a drink” example too literally.
But that example was the only thing I was ever disagreeing with. I honestly don’t even remember what this article was originally about any more, I just remember reading the “buy me a drink” example, and thinking “whaaaaaa?”. It just weirded me out that something was being cited as an example of a broader phenomenon, as if it was this universally known, obvious thing, when in reality I think it’s something that only people involved in the PUA “community” actually believe—which makes it, whether right or wrong, not a very good example.
It’s not universally known, but it it more widely known than the PUA circle.
It seems to be understood among the set of guys that have experience successfully attracting girls.
My friends that meet this criteria take it as an obvious rule with a few exceptions, and they didn’t learn it from anything “PUA” related- just from experience and observation
I’m still not convinced that a typical straight male LW reader won’t find, in his dating pool, quite a few women who don’t behave like the prototypical chick in a PUA parable.
Well, the “buying a drink” story is an extreme example that’s been canonized to make a point. But I’m convinced that in general, human beings are always unconsciously “testing” each other, and that this applies to everyone, male or female, autistic or NT. It’s just part of how humans talk and joke around and communicate. For instance, saying hi to someone and smiling is “testing”: you’re seeing what kind of mood someone is in. Making a joke, or laughing at a joke, is “testing”: you’re seeing how other people react.
I don’t see the “PUA” stuff as about sex or dating or men and women. It’s about human social interaction in general.
I suggest there’s a difference between “testing” and “checking”. In a test, you’re trying to find out whether the other person will fail or (in the case of bullies) hoping they will, while in a check, you’ll hoping they’ll succeed. I gather there are some people who are pretty evenly balanced on the chack/test scale—if the other person passes, fine, it’s a potential friendship, and if the other person fails, the harassment commences.
I think that a lot of small talk is what I call “pinging”—“Hello, I’m here and friendly”.
Using your test/check distinction, I think in most cases, including the “buy me a drink” scenario, what’s going on is a check. After all, the attractive girl is in a bar talking to the guy; she’d prefer the guy be attractive to her, not a pushover.
Yes, status-testing is a general component of typical human interaction. I think this is the point that Roko was trying to make, even though his particular example was rather gendered. If you want to see status testing in a non-male-female context, watch the behavior of frat boys, for example.
The point is that for those unfamiliar with this behavior, they need to be able to identify it when it happens, to not take it personally or as a sign of hostility, and know how to respond. Roko’s advocation of “caching responses” is very helpful, until one gets a gut feeling and can be guided towards a satisfactory response merely by emotions.
If you want to see status testing in a non-male-female context, watch the behavior of frat boys, for example.
I understand your point: that is an extremely visible and easy to see example of a dominance hierarchy.
But I’m more thinking about testing in general, not necessarily status testing. I interpret most testing as learning about the other person’s responses, not necessarily testing their status. I don’t even know if I would interpret the “buying a drink” story as about status: it’s more about humor and confidence.
The frat boy example has extremely negative connotations, and I wouldn’t call it “typical human interaction”. How about “watch two people having a pleasant and friendly conversation, laughing together, and enjoying each other’s company”? That’s a more pleasant example of unconscious testing, in the sense of unconsciously doing things to see people’s reactions and learning about the other person.
I suppose that’s true.
My confusion with this whole business is quantitative. The assumption in Roko’s drink-buying model is that this is the right way to interact to attract the kind of women his audience would be interested in. That’s a statement of probability. It’s likely that you’ll be going to bars to meet women, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in engage in shit-testing, it’s likely that any women you’re interested in respond the way the girls in the Feynman story do. I’m really not sure about that.
There are, as I mentioned, very, very few autistic women. So Roko and Nancy lump in the less attractive women. Fine, in principle. I’m still not convinced that a typical straight male LW reader won’t find, in his dating pool, quite a few women who don’t behave like the prototypical chick in a PUA parable. I only have anecdotes, of course, but I and most of my female friends and family members don’t behave like that. We hit a lot of HughRistic’s bullet points. And we’ve stumbled into our fair share of good relationships.
In other words: I think nerdy women are pretty numerous, far too numerous to be diagnosable autistics, and do just fine on the dating market. And I suspect the typical straight male LW reader wouldn’t mind dating one.
Actually, it’s a statement of conditional probability, conditioned on a woman asking a man for a drink in such a setting, often as a prelude to having any conversation at all.
(It’s not, however, a great example of a cacheable response. Really, the whole point of it as a status/social skill test is that it is hard to fake!)
Anyway, here’s the reasoning: if a man is asked for a drink, it may or may not be a test, conscious or unconscious. However, in all possible cases, the man is highly likely to improve the situation by skillfully declining or negotiating a quid pro quo, because the situation is still a signaling opportunity, even if the woman’s attraction wouldn’t have decreased upon acquiescence. (In other words, you either win, or don’t lose—a positive expected outcome over multiple trials.)
For example, let’s say it’s one of those “nerdy women”—she is not fishing for a drink, not consciously testing, and (probably) not unconsciously testing, but maybe has been taught that this is how you signal openness to being courted, or just doesn’t think about it at all.
Well, in that particular case, it’s an opportunity for a signal like, “Not a feminist, huh?”—probably leading to a thought-provoking conversation about feminism, chivalry, and the impact of social trends on dating behaviors...
A conversation that wouldn’t have happened if the response was a bland, “okay”. If he’d simply agreed without further comment, maybe he wouldn’t have lost any points, but he certainly wouldn’t have gained any either—he has simply failed to distinguish himself from any other man who lacks the social skill to finesse the situation. He is out a drink, and gets nothing except (maybe) the continuation of the conversation… assuming that her attraction doesn’t mysteriously evaporate shortly thereafter, due to her unconscious lowering of his status.
But the (extreme) case of a nerdy woman who’s both sincerely asking for a drink and won’t subconsciously decrease attraction upon compliance, is actually the worst case scenario for measuring the advantage of the “never buy a drink without quid pro quo” heuristic… and yet it still comes out well ahead of compliance in the best case, and only slightly better in worst-case!
And in all other scenarios, such as a woman using this to get rid of the guy or to get drinks, using it as a filter for non-interesting guys, or even a woman who thinks it’s normal but unconsciously feels less attracted to men who comply… the heuristic produces much better results on average than buying the drink does. (Assuming, again, the guy has developed the social skills to pull it off.)
Among other things, it’s also a counter-filter, since the woman who truly has no interest in the guy outside his ability to procure alcohol will immediately depart in search of another sucker, no matter how skillfully it’s done. For the rest, you still either win, or else you don’t lose.
Of course, this is all conditional on the man’s skill in making use of all the available information in the situation… for one thing, he’s got to be socially calibrated enough to be able to tell the difference between the woman who’ll respond to “Sure, bend over, you spoiled brat” vs. the one who’ll respond to “Not a feminist, eh?”… and preferably be able to tell that before even starting the conversation. (Oh, and let’s not forget that those two can be the same woman, in different moods!)
But that’s the “software” way of doing it… the “coprocessor” way is that the guy ideally just believes that it’d be silly to buy a woman a drink without a quid pro quo (like Feynman’s advisor) and lets their social hardware handle the details of responding.
Attempting to cache a specific behavioral response in “software” isn’t going to cut it, though; the PUA methods that revolve around “canned” material are necessarily probabilistic and essentially manipulative. So, if there’s a flaw in Roko’s example, that would be it: caching a specific response pretty much guarantees it’s not going to be done with a truly beneficial level of skill.
And yet, even in that case, it’s still probably positive-sum advice, as long as the man continues learning and improving over the long haul.
Well, if “behave like that” is asking guys for drinks, then there’s no conflict with what Roko said, since the situation will never come up.
However, if “behave like that” is responding with increased attraction to a display of confidence, tact, humor, and/or other social skills, I’d be surprised. (It’s just that what you would personally consider to be such a display is going to depend on a lot of situational factors that a single canned response can’t possibly take into account.)
I think this needs to be emphasised a lot. Also the differences between types of women. While a nerdy girl may not ask for a drink, they may ask for help with a heavy box. Now from the canned advice given this can be seen as a shit test, will the guy demean himself by lugging a heavy box to try and get with someone of my level. If so they don’t want to be with a loser who lifts his own boxes. So a response like “Do I look like a shelf stacker?” said in a suitably amused tone, would be appropriate.
However the nerdy girl might just want the box moved and be interested in people who can just get stuff done with a minimal amount of prodding. The appropriate response in this case is to help. Grumbling (with a grin) while doing so, or making a light comment about being owed one might show you aren’t a complete push over and won’t put up with too much of that sort of thing without something in return, would be appropriate I think.
I’d have a lot less problem if advice were couched in term of normal human interaction rather than just trying to get into an extrovert girls pants.
Hauling a heavy box is not at all analogous to the drink example. When a woman asks a man for help with heavy physical work, this puts him in a much better initial position status-wise. She is the weaker party, asking for necessary assistance from his greater physical strength. Helping a weaker party from a position of greater power is a first-rank status-winning move. Therefore, it’s best for him to do it cheerfully with a “that’s nothing for a man like me” attitude; grumbling and saying “you owe me” is a bad idea since it suggests that he actually finds it hard, rather than an act of negligible difficulty from his superior position.
Of course, if a woman regularly exploits a man for such favors or makes him spend unreasonable time and effort helping her, that’s another story altogether. However, a random request for some small help with a hard physical task nearly always conforms to this pattern of status dynamics.
In contrast, when a woman asks a man to buy her a drink, she is asking him to satisfy a random and capricious whim, not help her as a weaker party from a superior position. Therefore, acceptance carries no positive status signals at all, but instead signals that he is willing to obey her whims for the mere privilege of her company. Compared to the box example, it’s like accepting to pay extortion money versus giving to charity. The former is an expression of weakness and submission, the latter a dispensation of benevolence.
My point was more that the situations could be confused by people with broken social coprocessors and inappropriate behaviour translated across from one domain to another. Without a lot of explanation of the appropriateness.
Buying drinks can also be seen as someone weaker (financially) asking someone stronger. Considering that men earn more on average than women, and if you are picking up college girls and have a real job that is likely to be even more the case. So I don’t see the way that these situations can be easily distinguished that way by someone without much social experience.
I agree about the grumbling, don’t grumble about the weight, grumble about the time taken.
I have a few meta-rules of thumb in such matters:
Anything can mean anything.
Corollary: Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by intelligence.
The rules are never what anyone says they are.
The rules may not even be what anyone thinks they are.
Nevertheless, there are rules.
It is your job to learn them, and nobody’s job to teach them to you.
All advice, however universally it may be expressed, is correct only in some specific context.
Application of the last to the whole is left as an exercise. :-)
This whole list is brilliant. Particularly,
This makes “Never explain … stupidity” a special case of this rule!
whpearson:
Well, yes, but that’s what explanations are for. Once you grasp the underlying principles, it’s not that complicated—and more importantly, you gradually start to make correct judgments instinctively.
No, if you understand the status dynamic fully, you’ll realize that you shouldn’t grumble at all. Grumbling, of whatever sort, indicates that you assign a significant cost to the act, and in order to come off as high-status, you must make it look like it’s a negligible expense of effort from your lofty high-status position, a casual dispensation of benevolent grace. As soon as you make it seem like you perceive the act as costly in any way, it looks like you’re making the effort to fulfill her wishes, clearly displaying inferior status to hers.
Remember we are talking about nerdy girls, that is not the norm that the PUA deals with. I remember a recent post by someone saying that nerdy girls prefer men who dominate everything but them. I can’t remember who posted it, at the moment.
Getting back to an earlier discussion of whether more women are wanted at LW..… anyone who’s likely to show up here is nerdy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember, and keep remembering, and make it clear in your writing, that “women” are not a monolithic block and don’t all want the same thing.
NancyLebovitz:
Assuming that there are non-Anglospheric folks here, this is probably an unjustified generalization due to a cultural bias. The idea that smart people interested in the sorts of things discussed here have to conform to the stereotype of “nerdiness” is a historically recent North American cultural phenomenon, which doesn’t necessarily hold in other places. It’s actually a rather curious state of affairs by overall historical standards.
Your observation is probably accurate statistically, though.
That’s interesting. Any theories about what’s going on?
People who appear socially low-status can end up in economically high-status knowledge-based professions in an industrial society, which upsets people’s intuitions of how the social hierarchy should work. Put-downs have evolved for making things look right again.
Could be.
I still find American anti-intellectualism kind of shocking. Do you know if there are other cultures where children reliably punish each other for getting good grades?
I don’t really know how it’s distributed. There seems to be a generally stronger streak of anti-intellectualism in America than in Europe, and kids probably pick that up. A poor primary education system may make the problems worse by making education gaps wider and by leaving children with a poor grasp on how the wider society functions.
I’ve the impressions that things are somewhat more US-like in Britain and that studying science is more appreciated in the former Soviet bloc, but I don’t know how accurate these are. Education seems to be very highly valued in China and India. I’ve no idea about the rest of the world.
Yes, Britain has a similar culture to the US in terms of children punishing those who get good grades. My personal experience was that getting good grades was not in itself a major problem as long as you didn’t appear to be trying too hard or to care about the outcome.
A woman who doesn’t want a generalization applied to them? :)
But that is an extremely normal human interaction.
You haven’t clarified the all-important context. Is this a friend? Stranger? Do they need boxes moved often? What are your goals? Friendship? Company? Just getting a good feeling from helping people out?
Certainly, the default response, assuming a member in good standing of your extended tribe, is to help. This doesn’t make it the “appropriate” response for all goals and contexts, however.
Agreed. Don’t see anyone talking about “just trying to get into an extrovert girls pants,” though. The rough consensus I’m seeing lately from proponents of learning normal social interaction is that it is useful for improving interaction with people in general.
Aaaaaaaugh.
As someone who is fairly good at predicting my own behavior in various counterfactual situations, I’d like to hereby offer to tell people how I’d react to lines about which they are curious. I don’t know to what extent I’m in the reference class anyone’s aiming for, but if the information would be useful, there it is.
Alicorn: Hey, wanna buy me a drink?
pjeby: Not a feminist, huh?
Alicorn: Aaaaaaaugh.
Am I parsing you correctly?
I know it’s an act of terrorism for me talk about Alicorn, especially given this topic, but …
She’s really not someone whose reactions are characteristic of the NT, average intelligence women that men would approach in bars, so knowing what she would do is probably not going to be helpful.
Strongly agreed. Alicorn is not the kind of girl one has in mind when one thinks about shit testing behavior—finding alicorn shit testing a guy would be like finding Ghandi at a KKK rally.
Wait, you realize that Ghandi was a gigantic racist, who hated black people (as well as the minority groups in his own country), right?
LOL good catch. Still, the KKK advocates violence and hides their identity in protests, so they’re not quite kindred spirits.
I would not actually say “Aaaaaaaugh.” in that situation. I’d probably say “Excuse me?” and then there would need to be a rather excellent recovery or I’d stop interacting with the person. (I’m granting for the sake of the exercise that I’d ask for a drink in the first place, even though in real life I don’t consume alcohol.)
Which is precisely why the offered hypothetical is worse than useless in this case.
Bear in mind that in the circumstance being discussed, asking for a drink is like asking someone to hand you $5 -- for no reason at all other than than that you asked, and the fact that they are a male.
To presume that you would react in a certain way, conditional upon first having done something so utterly foreign to you in the first place, is like saying what you’d do if the moon were made of green cheese, only ISTM you’d have a better chance of being right in that case. ;-)
Well, pretend the bar serves something I’d drink. Say I’d get a virgin pina colada. I could imagine asking for one of those.
I might also ask girls, if the environment gave me high enough priors on them being bi/gay.
So, your moral compass allows you to use other people’s sexual preferences as a money pump?
(And no, that’s not a line, although now that I’ve said it, I suppose it could be reworked into a LW-friendly response to a drink request. Needs more humor, less judgment, though! Hm, maybe “Are you trying to exploit my hardware preferences as a money pump?” A little too double-entrendreish, though. These things are really situational, and not at all suited to cached responses.)
I can’t actually think of any situation where asking a question seems to me to be immoral. It can’t be a denotative falsehood, so it’s clear on the “lying” front; there’s nothing else obvious it could be that would be wrong. I suppose it could be mean, or impolite, but this doesn’t even appear to be that to me. I wouldn’t badger anybody about buying me the beverage, which would be mean.
This is a request which is slightly different from a question. Some requests are considered immoral when there is a power or status differential. University lecturers and students provide an example where some requests are widely considered immoral.
Point. Questions/requests that predictably create a sense of obligation in the hearer to do something they ought not feel obligated to perform may be wrong. I don’t think I can, let alone do, project enough power in a casual setting to make anyone feel obliged to buy me the liquid of my choice, although I suppose it’s possible I’m mistaken.
There is also an implied contract with most requests. Many people if asked to buy a stranger a drink will assume that agreeing to the request will result in an opportunity for conversation at least. If someone makes the request with an understanding of the implied trade and no intention of fulfilling their half of the bargain then that seems at least dishonest if not actually immoral.
I wouldn’t request a favor like this from someone I didn’t plan to have at least a short conversation with. (I would ask smaller favors, like that they tell me the time, or more urgent favors, like that they loan me their cell phone so I can call my ride, but a drink is neither negligible nor particularly important.)
Maybe you wouldn’t. I’m just giving an example of another way that a question/request could be seen to be immoral.
Refusing makes the guy look bad, unless he has a particularly adept response. The request becomes “buy me a drink, or go through status shenanigans to not look bad.” That’s not exactly obligation, but it is a form of social pressure.
Asking for $5 (well, probably $7-8 if it’s not a beer) isn’t exactly obligation, either. Is that a request you would make of both men and women? If not, why not? And how it is different to a request from a drink, other than the latter being wrapped up in more social frills (and combined with more social pressure)?
If anyone is saying “excuse me?” shouldn’t it be the person being asked for the drink (aka $7)? The only problem is that if men make this response, they look bad, due to the context-specific social power differential.
Yes, I said so elsewhere.
Right, my question here was whether you would ask both men and women for $7 on its own. I should have made that clearer.
And if not, how it asking for a $7 drink different?
I would not ask a stranger for money unless I had an urgent, immediate need for it and no other way to get it. Asking for a drink seems different in much the same way that asking my friends for books instead of money on my birthday seems different. The drink provides a context for some sort of interaction; the money doesn’t.
Which is precisely why it’s a status move: you are placing an implicit pricetag on your continued interaction, and therefore implicitly asserting that your status/value is such that you can demand a payment of tribute for nothing more than the chance of remaining in your good graces.
Whether this were your intention or not, it’s the situation the man is placed in, unless he has the cojones (and possibly training) to be able to refuse with impunity.
Or they are just showing a sign of desiring social interaction and they have culturally ingrained that the way to do so is to ask for a drink (disclaimer: I’ve never actually seen this occur). One may be assuming a lot more about unconscious status inquiring that is more in the category of just silly cultural norms.
As I said in an earlier comment, there is almost no benefit to treating this possibility as a special case, especially since it is so cheap for her to claim that this is what she’s doing, even when it’s not.
Many women who are actually status-testing no doubt sincerely believe in their conscious model of their actions, and you cannot inexpensively separate them from the ones who are also correct!
One reason, by the way, why this situation is so useful for women as a test of a man’s social skills, is that it requires considerable social calibration to pull off a declination or negotiation that also acknowledges and continues the “game” in progress, rather than simply refusing to play.
I think that the women who’ve been involved in this thread have actually been modeling Roko’s original statement as though it’s a refusal to interact, when in fact to be functional it has to actually take the interaction up a notch, by giving a nod to something you’ve noticed about her, or something she said, etc. (IOW, men who think women want them to be mind-readers are only partly correct; they just want to know you’ve been paying attention)
But if this is what they are doing then the ideal response may be to actually buy a drink since at least in pop culture depictions of this sort of scenario (at least in movies I’ve seen) seems to be that the male is actually supposed to do that. Failure to do so might be interpreted as a lack of interest.
Not compared to refusing in a way that shows you’re paying attention. A drink without attention isn’t nearly as flattering as the attention without the drink. And giving too much of either or both is counterproductive at Byrnema’s hypothetical level 2.
Sure, it may merely be unconscious entitlement, rather than a conscious status move.
I’m a little mystified by your analogy, and what you are intending to show with it. Being treated like the birthday girl (or boy) is a form of special treatment that happens once a year. It’s not your birthday every time you go out, right? Giving birthday presents between friends is generally mutual, yet you’ve made no mention of the drink buying being mutual. Furthermore, giving birthday presents happens when people know each other and already have an interaction, rather than being a precondition for an interaction occurring.
Since getting presents on one’s birthday is a form of special treatment, doesn’t your analogy suggest that expecting/requesting drinks to be bought for oneself is an expectation/request for year-round special treatment? And doesn’t asking for drinks look even worse when we remember that buying birthday presents among friends in mutual, while women asking for drinks aren’t expecting to reciprocate and buy the guy a drink the next night?
I actually receive a fair number of gifts on non-special occasions too, but I suppose that’s neither here nor there.
I haven’t mentioned buying a reciprocal drink, but this is largely because I have idiosyncratic neuroses about money, not because it wouldn’t occur to me as something appropriate to do.
I’ve noticed something interesting about your “social processing” in these posts—your reasoning does not appear to include anything about what other people think or feel; in fact, it barely seems to include them at all! (For example, how would anyone you ask know whether you intend to reciprocate, or not?)
And I would guess that this apparent lack of consequential modeling of others’ visceral experience of you, would lead to other sorts of situations in which your NT friends/co-workers find you “weird”.
NTs pay lip service to deontological rules, but are mostly consequentialists with respect to their social behavior. As others here have pointed out, one of the key rules of NT social interaction is that everyone must show loyalty to the rules, while not being so clueless as to actually follow them or expect others to do so, when the real rules are about status and its consequences.
IOW, it’s insanely irrational to treat NT social interactions as being truly rule-driven. (By which I mean it’s irrational to think you will accomplish anything besides driving the NT’s insane!)
Unfortunately, it’s also similarly irrational/insane to try to convince non-NTs of this, unless they have some relevant personal experience. Me, I learned a little from a mentor in the business world who taught me how to see the power and affiliation subtexts of business interactions, but I’ve consistently erred on the side of assuming that those situations were special cases, and that I didn’t need to think like that with some group of trusted allies.
And in pretty much every case, I’ve found it to be a tragic error to assume that people are NOT playing games, no matter how sincerely they themselves believe they “really aren’t”. (When that’s really just the game of “not playing games”. Ever wonder why everybody claims to hate office politics, and yet it still exists?)
Geeks, of course, just use a different rulebook for their game, where (among other things) we get status for valuing “what you know” and “what’s right” over “who you know” and “what’s cool/popular/socially calibrated”. (However, this doesn’t change the game itself, just what the points get awarded for.)
Have you ever thought about why this is? The social dynamics of gift giving is a pretty interesting topic in itself.
I don’t know why in general. In my case, I hate surprises, and am pretty good at getting my friends to indulge this hate by not getting me things that I haven’t pre-approved. Since I’m neurotic about money and tend to not spend it unless it’s really, really important, this means that the average gift I get from a friend is more useful to me than the equivalent amount of money (which I’d basically never spend), especially since when I use the gift I think of the friend and get some utility from that.
That’s quite princessy behavior—worthy of a cute 10/cheerleader type! Go Alicorn!
Okay, this has me curious—is there actually a subset of pickup that is designed to tell me what to do, instead of telling people what to do to me? That would be news to me.
What, you mean girl game? Yeah, sure. It’s just not as big as guy game. ASF has a board for girls only.
*pokes around*
Meh. This reminds me of advice columns, only with worse punctuation.
And apparently a “Playette FAQ” as well. (It makes heavy use of PUA terminology like “one-itis” and “IOI”, though.)
I haven’t really read ASFin almost 20 years, so I didn’t know about the Playette stuff. Funny story, though: I can attest to the value of the “whiff” technique in the Playette FAQ, because my wife used it in our first email and phone conversations, back in 1992… and well, um, it worked out pretty well for both of us. ;-)
That depends on what exactly your goal is. Typical men can boost their sexual attractiveness to women by changing their behavior far more than vice versa, so it’s unsurprising that there is a much greater body of expertise aimed at men in this regard. Also, getting sex is pretty much trivial for women and requires no particular skill. However, commitment and long-term relationship strategies are important and nontrivial for women too, and on better game-oriented blogs, I’ve often seen good discussions about the mistakes women make in this regard. Trouble is, realistic treatments of this issue tend to bring up even more ugly truths and end up sounding even less PC than the ordinary PUA stuff.
Can you give a couple examples?
Alicorn:
Like in everything else, humans make bad decisions due to biases in matters of mating and pairing too. However, these particular biases are male- and female-specific, and pointing out the latter is easily perceived by women as an affront to their sex, which makes realistic discussion very hard.
But since you’re asking, here are some instances of such biases. None of them are universal, but each is held strongly by non-negligible numbers of women and leads them to decisions they later regret. One example is when women overestimate the attractiveness of men they can realistically hope to attract for serious permanent commitment, given the higher attractiveness of men they can attract for temporary relationships and short-term flings without any real commitment on the man’s part. Another is when women underestimate the speed with which their looks and reproductive abilities deteriorate with age. Yet another is the refusal to acknowledge that women can be greatly attracted to some very nasty personality types of men, not despite them but because of them (google “dark triad”), which leads some women to entering disastrous relationships with such men. Then there are also many wrong beliefs about what personality characteristics of women are truly attractive and pleasant to men and apt to attract their loyalty and commitment in the long run.
There are other examples too, many of which would probably sound more controversial. Even these I listed can provoke much worse reactions when put in less abstract and detached terms, which is typically necessary when forming concrete advice.
You’re bi, right? You could probably make use of much of the advice for straight men if you wanted.
I find it nasty to read. It’s not intended for me, even if I’d be interested in some of the people it’s about interacting with.
This is a general comment about the PUA material I’ve read.
It comes off as lonely. There’s no hint of enjoying someone’s company, or hope that a someone could enjoy the writer’s company if not manipulated into it.
Yes. Sometimes I get a sense of simmering resentment underneath it all, especially on the subject of “nice guys” vs. “jackasses”.
What the PUA people call “day game” (approaching women in everyday life, instead of bars and clubs) can verge on the concept of enjoyable company, but from my limited reading on the subject they don’t seem to cover day game nearly as much. They say it’s more difficult than “night game”.
It’s a little like something in a famous essay by Eric Raymond on “good porn” vs. “bad porn”. (Just google on those phrases to find a copy—I don’t care to do that search from a machine at work.) Following a personally conducted scientific examination of porn pictures on the web, he concluded that men looking for porn are not looking for depictions of attractive young women posed as if about to have enjoyable sex with the viewer. The porn industry knows what sells, and pictures of that sort, that Raymond called “good porn”, formed only a small minority. They are looking for what he classified as “bad porn”: pictures of an absolutely joyless activity, all hard faces, cold stares, and fetishistic trappings.
ETA: Eric Raymond’s essay is on his own blog here, and he’s updated some of the links that were broken when I first read it, so you can see some of his experimental samples.
Yes: It’s so bitter and so full of blame for the vast sea of women who didn’t respond as desired to “niceness”.
I find the resentment off-putting too, and as in any other area of human concern, there is indeed a lot of unjustified feeling of entitlement. However, it should be noted that the main reason for the resentment is the rules-hypocrisy. Many men are indeed too clueless to figure out the disconnect between the official attitudes and values that are professed piously in our culture and the actual rules of the status game that it’s taboo to discuss openly (so that such discussions are corralled off to disreputable venues like the PUA culture). Can you really blame them for being frustrated when they naively play by the official rules and end up scorned as low-status losers, or for acting out a bit when they finally realize what’s been going on?
This isn’t about blame, it’s about revulsion, and possibly about anger and fear.
You’re sympathizing with the men, which is natural—without speculating about details, your experience is more like theirs. Try imagining dating one of them, or being in a relationship with them—if that’s too much of a strain, try imagining reading a forum of women who are that hurt and angry about men.
Fair enough. However, I would say that women tend to display at least two major biases when they encounter this sort of stuff. (I don’t think these biases completely account for the fear and revulsion you mention, but they do mean that it often goes too far.)
First, women often don’t take into account that they’re observing men’s in-clique behavior, which they rarely, if ever, see in real life. Many young men whom they’d perceive as decent, polite, overall good guys (and who indeed are that by any reasonable standards) sometimes spew out stuff that’s just as extreme when they loosen up over beers among their male buddies, complete with foul language, frustrated trashing of women who have hurt them, etc. It’s just that polite men instinctively watch their mouths when women or authority figures are within hearing distance, so when they’re caught off guard rambling, or when they’re writing anonymously on the internet, they tend to come off much worse than they really are.
Second, I understand that women might fear getting involved with a man whose attractive surface hides an angry, frustrated, manipulative PUA underneath, whose nasty nature will only later come to prominence. However, this fear is entirely out of proportion when you consider a similar, but much more prevalent and dangerous natural phenomenon. Namely, there are significant numbers of men around whose personalities are naturally fundamentally nasty but nevertheless wildly attractive to women—many of whom ruin their lives big time by pursuing relationships with such men. See, for example, the Dark Triad paper by Jonason et al. for a discussion along these lines, which is nowhere near a complete account of this entire phenomenon. This is realistically a far greater danger than encountering a PUA, who is anyway more likely to be just a regular guy who undertook some self-improvement than a monster lurking below a smooth surface.
From the PUAs I’ve known, they are unlikely to be wolves in sheep’s clothing… they are more likely to be sheep in wolves’ clothing. There are a few guys who are badly adjusted and have weird antisocial ideas in the local PUA group, and other guys make fun of them behind their backs.
Do you have that sort of distance when women vent about men?
As for the Dark Triad guys, I agree that they should be a matter of more concern—the only specific advice I’ve seen about avoiding them is to not get involved with a man who’s rude to waitresses.
NancyLebovitz:
I would say yes. I have a hobby of sorts that consists of exploring obscure corners of the web where various sorts of fringe people with unconventional (and often disreputable) ideas gather, and attempting to understand their perspectives in a detached manner, as free of bias as possible. As an example relevant for your question, I have read radical feminist websites where the level of anger against men far surpasses any venting against women you’ll see on even the worst PUA forums.
Now, my conclusion is that out of all these fringe groups, most of them just form their own echo chambers where they vent and reinforce their peculiar biases, but a small minority actually manage to come up with non-trivial accurate insight that is nowhere to be found in more reputable and mainstream sources. The PUA community just happens to be one such example. In contrast, I have never come across any analogous women’s community, where lots of valid and interesting insight would be offered alongside anti-male anger and venting, but if I hypothetically did, I have no doubt I would enjoy reading it. (There are also communities full of angry venting men where, in contrast to PUAs, I’ve never seen any particularly interesting ideas.)
Trouble is, some very strong biases are present here, because the ugly and hard to admit truth is that some personalty types of this sort are attractive as such to many women—not all women, of course, and I won’t speculate on the percentage, but it’s certainly non-negligible. Note that I don’t mean the situations where such dark characteristics are hidden under a nice surface only to emerge later, but when they are truly attractive by themselves, causing irresistible urges in women to engage in dangerous, self-immolating adventures with such men. You can view it as a specifically female form of extreme akrasia, I guess. The prevailing bias, however, is to interpret all such situations as women having been manipulated by a wolf in sheep’s clothing, even when the wolf was howling and brandishing his fangs from day one, only to get an enthusiastic response.
I would love to read material from a female analogue to PUA. Looking back on past relationships I can see some patterns for behavior that ‘hooked’ me, but I’m sure I’m missing a lot of potentially valuable insights.
People often meet a person they like but can’t commit to romantically because of small ‘defects’ in the person’s behavior as it relates to the relationship. Personally, I’d be all in favor of my significant other using PUA equivalent methods on me, provided I was aware it and had studied the material myself (in the same way that I’m in favor of my significant other wearing certain clothing, etc).
So, two main upshots of wide dissemination of PUA style material: better understanding of myself, and heightened attraction to my partner.
I replied to a similar question in this subthread.
You’re response in the subthread was more a list of biases exhibited by females (an interesting list though). What I’m looking for is a set of actionable techniques a woman can use in the context of a relationship to keep a man more interested.
The Rules is probably the best known example. I haven’t read it and don’t know whether there is any validity to the claims. I suspect there’s some truth in there but that it is not terribly rigorous or accurate.
I haven’t read this book either, but a significant piece of evidence against it is that one of the authors divorced her husband only a few years after it was published. Otherwise, I’ve seen it get mixed to negative comments on game websites, the principal complaint being that a man who lets himself be played by those rules may easily ipso facto signal low status to the point where he’ll destroy her respect for (and thus attraction to) him. Some of the tactics allegedly advocated by the book indeed sound that way, but I won’t pass any definite judgments since I haven’t read it.
Manslations is pretty good.
Certainly such products exist (e.g. catchhimandkeephim.com, husbandscantresist.com) but I’m not familiar with any free online resources comparable to the vast assortment available for men. Catchhimandkeephim.com has some articles, but skimming through I found it difficult to judge how useful a woman would find this advice, as it sounded all very obvious and straightforward to me… but then, I’m a man, and the articles are about how men react and think. It’s possible that the information would be a revelation for someone who wasn’t a man. ;-)
There are many books giving that sort of advice, but I haven’t read any, so I can’t recommend them. Just from the titles and blurbs I’ve seen, it can be reliably concluded that many are very bad.
Anecdotally, I can say that in the best discussions of women’s relationship strategies and techniques I’ve ever read on game-related sites, I’ve never seen anyone point out a book or any other source of systematic advice whose message closely matches the best evidence-supported conclusions of these discussions. I see this as a strong piece of evidence against the whole existing literature. This is not that surprising considering that the best evidence-supported conclusions sound, to a large degree, highly un-PC and shattering lots of pleasant-sounding illusions.
Another piece is that, to the extent that the challenge for women is getting commitment, it’s simply harder to do experiments.
Yes, it’s harder to do experiments on parts of the interaction that occur later down the line. I think that’s a lot of the reason that PUAs talk so much more about pickup than relationships (though PUA forums typically have active relationships boards): the conversion funnel of approaches to dating to relationships gets narrower and narrower. PUAs spend most of their time stuck at particular interaction points prior to relationships, such as getting numbers and women not calling them back, going on dates with women and not being able to kiss them, or only successfully attracting women who don’t quite meet their relationship criteria. I’ve noticed that once PUAs get all that stuff handled, they start talking about relationships more than the mechanics of pickup, and actually get really picky.
You might find The Fantasy of Being Thin interesting.
What insights have you found in odd corners of the web?
As for the Dark Triad, I don’t know what’s going on there. I tentatively assume that some people like danger, and what attracts some to motorcycles and mountain-climbing can also attract people to mates who have TROUBLE written all over them.
Alternatively, some women choose men like their fathers—they’re imprinted on a bad idea of what a man is.
Also, I hope it’s less common in the culture, but some women believe that they can turn a bad guy into a good one by being a sufficiently good wife. I’m not going to say it never happens, but making the attempt can be a powerful emotional hook.
It’s clear that how reliable people’s survival instincts are (and about what parts of their lives) vary tremendously, and I’ve never seen a substantial discussion of how the “this is good for me, that is bad for me” sense works.
Yes, I am familiar with this particular community. They do discuss some common biases in an interesting way, but ultimately, my conclusion is that they generate their own more severe ones, without adding much clarity to anything overall.
Well, that could be a topic for a whole book, not a mere blog comment. I’d rather not just drop concrete names and places I’ve found interesting, since without lots of painstaking explanations and disclaimers, it would send off a thunderous signal of affiliation with all kinds of disreputable people.
This would be extremely surprising to me if true. This sounds like something that was true in the 1950s, but does this really match your experience today? In my experience, at least among people under 30 or so, there is no difference between how guys and girls act in social situations when there are, or are not, members of the opposite sex around. (Business or formal situations are different.)
Well, I have no evidence except anecdotal to present, but yes, this does match my experience. It surely doesn’t apply to all individuals, social groups, and occasions, but I observe it regularly, and I have to personally plead guilty to a certain degree of such inconsistency. Especially when, for example, a guy gets dumped or rejected and wants to vent a bit by rambling about the evilness of the girl in question, or women in general, it definitely seems likely to me that much cruder rants can be produced in an exclusive company of close, trusted male friends than otherwise.
In any case, even if this is true only for a minority of men, my main point still holds, i.e. there are non-negligible numbers of men around who, despite being perfectly respectable by all other criteria, engage in crude language about women and male-female relations on some occasions when no women are around to hear it. For this reason, women are often biased in that they tend to interpret such language, when observed, as unrealistically strong evidence of serious character flaws in the man in question.
I have often been bitterly amused at how the “Yes, but...” speeches on the misogyny often perpetrated by Western socially/sexually deprived men, on the one hand, and the crime often perpetrated by lower-class Afro-Americans, on the other hand, often end up disquietingly similar.
And with good reason; in both cases, we have angry, alienated young men who are least able to cope with the systemic oppression of their social group, least willing to play by the rules that treat them unfairly, spiral into hatred and evil, bringing even more scorn upon their group and the peaceful advocates in it, and inadverently creating good conditions for the “natural-born” antisocial/immoral assholes who wear their colors.
-Martin Luther King
Sadly, for now the MRAs/gender egalitarians seem to be doing far worse than even American blacks—see the bitter split with feminism, and the inability of similarly-minded feminists and MRAs to leave behind the sectarianism. (This collective blog that HughRistik writes for is the kind of collaboration that I’d like to see way more of on the gender front.)
I think you have had your opinion coloured by encountering people in the anger phase of the denial, anger, acceptance progression of changing beliefs in the light of new evidence.
Depends where you look. Some of that stuff is indeed written in such tone, and it’s true that some of it advises sly and dishonest tactics. On the other hand, here’s the story of a man who saved his marriage by applying insights he gained on game websites (the blog might be NSFW for foul language, though it’s on the blogroll of Overcoming Bias):
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
For me, that story seems awfully depressing. Nothing in the story suggested to me that the man loved his wife or that his wife loved him. Game may have permitted them to have a more harmonious marriage, and evidently better sex, but not a relationship that seemed based on mutual love and respect.
It may be that the marriage was just too flawed to begin with; it’s also possible, given that the writer was writing for Roissy’s blog, that he consciously left details and color about love out of his narrative. But from what he has actually written, he’s not describing the sort of marriage that I would want to be a part of.
Agreed. I also noticed that there was basically nothing about the wife’s individual personality. She could have been anybody, as long as she was gameable.
And the couple of tidbits that don’t sound dreadful and nasty to me, do sound like they are okay by accident—the theory sounds like bullshit, it’s just a stopped clock right twice a day. Example:
Panicking when one’s faithfulness is questioned is bad, but not because it’s “beta” and signifies fear of the wife or something—but because if the question causes panic, that might be because there’s cheating going on and he fears being caught. The post recommends teasing. That is better than panic (ymmv), but my guess would be that even better would be a perfectly calm and deadpanned: “No.” Or a longer sentence, but just as declarative: “I am not cheating on you.” No details or explanations or protestations. Presenting concrete evidence (unless asked for it!) might or might not hurt, but it probably won’t help, especially if you can come up with it too quickly—readily thought-of evidence could be planted, or might signify that you’ve already considered what to say if asked because there’s some reason to expect her to ask you wanted to be prepared for.
The problem with this approach is that factual statements can be argued with, putting you back into the same place as before—i.e., having an argument where you’re being accused of something. The “agree and amplify” approach has the tactical advantage that it leaves the other person with no place to escalate to, and can be repeated more or less indefinitely.
(Note: I’m not commenting here on the (un)desirability of having an adversarial relationship like that to begin with, just pointing to a tactical advantage of the proposed “agree and amplify” over a flat assertion or denial. Another advantage, btw, is that it can actually make the accuser paradoxically feel listened to/accepted/validated in a way that disagreement does not. My wife has actually successfully used this tactic on me when I’ve been annoyed at some minor thing—the old, “yes, I did do that, and I did it just to annoy you” routine. ;-) )
The incident described in the piece doesn’t involve the possibility of cheating at all.
I was generalizing. The examples of “before” conversations make it sound like he thinks he’s being accused of some sort of infidelity (however minor) and that he’s scared of being so accused.
As I mentioned once before but should mention again since you linked to his blog, Roissy is not representative of PUAs. He is like most of the worst things about PUAs, plus some other flaws of his own, all packed together. He’s attracted a lot of attention outside the seduction community, but virtually nobody inside it knows who he is or cares about him.
I think you’re making the mistake of judging him for his theatrics and shock-value approach. Once you get past the swaggering style, tune in to his sense of humor, and figure out which commenters are worth reading, I’d say his blog is by far the best place for all but the most technical discussions of all aspects of male-female interactions. This doesn’t mean I endorse all he has to say, of course, but the level of insight far surpasses the other game/PUA sites I’ve seen. (I don’t think it’s for nothing that Robin Hanson links to him.)
In particular, I’m struck by the quality of many commenters I’ve seen there through the years, though in this regard, the blog is past its prime (and even back in the past, you had to sift through the detritus of unmoderated comments to find the gems). What many people might find strange is that lots of the regulars there are women, some of them extremely smart and cultured, though it’s actually not surprising when you consider that it’s an environment where the usual rules-hypocrisy is thrown out the window.
All in all, there is certainly much there to be offended by, and in fact, for lots of that stuff, one is required to be offended by it according to the official respectable standards of our culture. Yet anyone striving to eliminate biases about these topics should find much of the insight offered there worthwhile.
What emotion or thought is this onomatopoeia intended to signify?
Frustration.
OK let’s try this. I’ve faced this situation maybe hundreds of times, and am curious as to how you compare to the girls I typically see.
Alicorn: Hey, wanna buy me a drink?
cousin_it: (smiles happily and shakes head)
Your response?
Then it would probably depend on how much I wanted to talk to you in the first place (where this includes, factored in, how charming the happy smile is). If not much, I’d probably shrug and go back whence I came. If more than not much, I might say “Aw, why not?”—not to try particularly to extract a drink after all, but out of curiosity and to have something to have a conversation about.
I’ll be optimistic and assume the latter option happens! I’ve heard this reply several times, here’s what happens next:
Alicorn: Hey, wanna buy me a drink?
cousin_it: (smiles happily and shakes head)
Alicorn: Aw, why not?
cousin_it: (keeps smiling, almost laughing, eyes half closed, reaches with arm to catch her waist)
In fairness, you can’t give an informed reply to that because you can’t assess my physical attractiveness over the Internet, but I can just tell you the decision tree from this point. The girl either plays along or evades. If she plays along, I keep doing what makes sense. If she evades, I turn away to the bar without lingering even a second. You’d be surprised how many girls thus NEXT’ed later come back :-) Of course I don’t mean to imply anything about your behavior!
Yeah, going for the waist at that point would get a shriek even if you managed not to tickle me, and not in a good way. I don’t care if you look like Sean Maher. I’d escape (and it would feel like escaping, not like something more neutral like “disengaging” or whatever), and if I was with any female friends I’d warn them you were grabby. I might do an evaluation of how the bouncer would react if informed, but I have low priors on getting help for “socially acceptable” invasions of space.
I think you misunderstand cousin_it’s reference to “physical attractiveness”. He’s filtering not for whether you think he’s good-looking, he’s filtering by whether you are physically attracted to him at that moment in time, and open to the possibility of doing something about it, preferably as soon as possible. (This doesn’t necessarily mean sex, btw, just being physically companionable and open to exploring the chemistry further.)
Anyway, if you’re someone who’s aversive to being touched by strangers, this will obviously filter you out.
I’ll be honest here—girls kino-ing me (i.e. touching to show interest in this way) used to freak me the fuck out. I wouldn’t shriek, but I would definitely respond in a negative, abused-cat kind of way.
And I used to rationalize this response as being not just different but better and more right(eous) somehow than the dog way of doing things.
Nowadays, though, I realize that it’s irrational to pretend I’m going to change everybody into cats or even that it’s necessarily a good idea! (If everyone’s a cat, who’s going to do the stroking?)
So, while a stranger rubbing me the wrong way might make my hair stand on end, I have learned not to hiss, scratch, or run when I’m pawed by a dog person of whichever sex. Tolerating the discomfort or politely disengaging or explaining my issues with touch produces a better long-term result than just freaking out.
I’ve endured a fair number of lectures from my parents about how it’s rude to freak out when strangers touch me. Here is why I go on doing it anyway:
It is always startling. I do not expect strangers to touch me, and I can’t read them well enough to come to expect it when it’s going to happen. This gives me little opportunity to prepare a response.
It often sets off sensory issues. I can tolerate accidental, very brief incursions into these issues by people who know about them and will stop instantly if they hear the relevant word, but anything prolonged may well have me curl up in a ball and scream. And it turns out that people are confused, or worse, think it’s funny, when I try to explain these issues. If they are confused enough, or think it’s funny enough, to go on touching me in a non-approved way while I try to explain in an increasingly hysterical fashion, I will wind up doing something far less socially acceptable than just freaking out and escaping.
I don’t think that every random person is a rapist, but I think some of them are, and if I’m later in a position of having to go to the cops, I want every witness who saw me with the accused to have noticed that I established a precedent from the start of not wanting to be touched, because sexual assault investigations are nightmarish enough as-is without the kinds of whispers a history of “kino” would create.
There are certain kinds of touch that are quite safe. I will shake hands. I love hugs. Backrubs are awesome. I often ask to pet people’s hair and am perfectly happy to permit the reverse. But the only context where I would be okay with someone grabbing me around the waist would be if I were in an ongoing relationship with them and they knew to stop on a dime if I utter the words “that tickles”.
To be clear, I am not saying that it’s “rude”… I’m just pointing out that in my case, it has been more useful to adapt. This should not be construed as an implication that you can or should do so.
(looks up Sean Maher)
Oh no, I look nothing like that. I look like a dork, not a movie star :-)
I feel bad that this behavior would scare you. Honestly I don’t know that I ever scared a single person in my life, man or woman. I mean, you could probably beat me up if you wanted to :-) Humorous shrieks are a common girl response; scared shrieks, no. But… okay. I’m playing a numbers game anyway, some form of evasion is the expected response.
There are many arguments that come to mind here, but above all: having to cut down your dating pool drastically because you can’t handle typical social behavior is not winning.
All other things equal, it is better to have more choice, and all other things are not equal: “nerdy” occupations and communities are not gender balanced.
I don’t see any necessary contradiction between Roko and SarahC’s perspectives in determining an optimal dating strategy for men with LW-reader phenotypes that doesn’t rely on luck.
Are there nontrivial subsets of women who would make good matches for male LW-readers, with psychology not correctly described by the standard PUA model? Yes. Should these guys go outside that model to understand these women? Yes.
Are there nontrivial subsets of women who would make good matches for male LW-readers, with psychology that is correctly described by the standard PUA model, in part or in whole? Yes. Would these guys benefit from attaining knowledge of neurotypical social behaviors (from PUAs or elsewhere) to be able to date these women, instead of arbitrarily cutting them out of their dating pool? Yes.
I take an empirical approach to romantic success. Being able to date many kinds of people gives you a lot of options. Sometimes, you can’t know whether you would be compatible with a certain type of person until you try dating someone like that. Saying “but I don’t want anyone like that anyway” about people out of one’s reach because of a lack of common social skills is a failure mode. Yet if you attain the skills to date someone like that, and you find it doesn’t work, then you know that you are not merely the fox calling the grapes sour in Aesop’s fable.
Yeah, that’s the thing. I’m all for learning helpful skills. Bar game might be a helpful skill; I’ve seen enough positive testimonials to make me believe it. And certainly it’s a failure mode to do the sour grapes thing. (I’ve tried dating outside my comfort zone; it’s quite possible.)
PUA is a model, though, and people who like it sometimes overstate its applicability. The other thing to keep in mind is that there’s a tension between learning new skills and playing to your strengths. Sometimes it’s in your best interest to do the latter.
Umm. The purpose of dating is to find someone you’re compatible with. “Expanding your dating pool” to include personality types you don’t like defeats the whole point.
Unless your current idea of what personality types you’re compatible with is too limited, or your judgment of other personality types that makes you not like them is prejudiced. The purpose of dating is also to find out what types of people you are compatible with empirically. See also my response to SarahC.
“Doesn’t play culturally-common status games socially-inexperienced people don’t know how to handle” is not a reasonable way for nerdy people to determine compatibility with potential mates (or friends). The filter is too broad, and it will exclude people they might actually be compatible with if they understood status games better and how to handle them.
A big part of the reason that nerdy people don’t like status games is because they don’t understand the psychology behind them, and consequently give the other person an unfairly negative assessment. Since they aren’t accustomed to status games, their hackles may go up, particularly if the status ploy triggers issues for them, like memories of past bullying by higher status people. Yet once one attains some understanding of status games and skill at playing them, then the hackles no longer go up, and there is no reason to ascribe such a negative judgment to the other person and exclude them as a potential mate or friend.
Of course, there are valid reasons for nerdy people to find certain types of status games annoying and undesirable, even after understanding them. Yet the best way to get a sense of what kinds of status games are fun, what kind are OK with you, and what kind are intolerable, and what kinds of people play these kinds of games, is to have experience playing them with people.
Except that you may find that you’re compatible with someone that you never expected would be compatible with you. Especially when you’re talking about stereotypes like “people who go to bars” or “nerdy women” or “people who engage in shit-testing,” which are broad enough to include many different types of people
Not to mention that there are many purposes of dating: not all relationships are about long-term compatibility.
Assuming you are incompatible with certain personality types without any experience of dating them seems unnecessarily limiting.
Many kinds of educated guesses about compatibility increase the probablity of finding the right person or the right relationship, because time is finite, and time spent dating a born-again Christian fundamentalist is time not spent dating an atheist librarian (or not studying Pearl or Jaynes ;-) ).
I’ve never dated a religious fundamentalist; I almost certainly never will. And I think that is the rational choice, even though it seems “limiting” in a sense. In reality, though, I don’t think it is limiting at all, because time is not infinite, and dating opportunities are not fungible with respect to time. It’s only limiting if you ignore the probability of successful outcomes based on what you know of yourself and other people, but what is a decision theory worth that ignores the probabilities altogether (and differing payoffs too)?
Edit: what holds regarding religious fundamentalists also holds to a lesser degree regarding various subsets of the average, neurotypical women that are the subject of this thread.
On the other hand, cargo-cult free-thinking can be, at least for me, far more obnoxious than just plain religious close-mindedness. And in that regard, an atheist librarian may well be much worse than a regular churchy girl (or guy).
I agree with your underlying point, but you brutally twisted my message in order to make your point.
I said “religious fundamentalist”, not “close minded” or “regular churchy girl (or guy)”, so you’re talking about something other than what I was talking about. There is a world of difference between a fundamentalist who thinks (for example) that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the bible is the literal word of God, and the average church-going person.
There’s more to life than intellectual activity and rationality. What about occasionally enjoying light-hearted conversation or sex with a born-again fundamentalist, just as a form of recreation? I understand your point about not wanting a serious relationship with someone with very different values, but not everything has to be about a serious relationship.
A much lesser degree, especially for intelligent extraverted women who might enjoy socializing for fun sometimes in bars, as well as more abstract pleasures.
I agree with the point about everything not having to be about a serious relationship, but the reality is that many of us are looking for a serious relationship, and we need the other person to be somebody that we can have interesting conversations with and whom we can respect and be challenged by intellectually.
I also agree on the much lesser degree point, but I do think that somebody who is extremely introverted and intellectual is not necessarily making a big mistake by limiting their romantic pursuits to people who aren’t extreme extroverts, for example, or limiting themselves to people with the intellectual equivalent of a college education and an ongoing passion for learning.
Born-again fundamentalist light-hearted sex? That does not compute....
For me, the reason I don’t do casual relationships is because my personality type does not do casual very well. Either I’m really into someone or I don’t really care.
Heh, I thought someone might ask about that. Believe it or not, there are fundamentalists out there who take the attitude that since they know they’re already saved, they can do whatever they want.
I think a lot of what I’m disagreeing with you and blueberry about is this assumption that meat-market type bars and clubs, and the PUA style tactics that may work well in those environments, are a representative sample of “typical social behavior”
PUA style tactics are predominantly a reverse-engineering of naturalistic behaviors. PUAs didn’t invent status games, they just try to copy them.
On what population do you base your view of “typical social behavior”? I do think that bars and clubs are pretty representative of the behavior of extraverts of average IQ. This is just what extraverted 100 IQ homo sapiens do when you put them in a room with a little ethanol. Such behavior may not be representative of the average introvert who is lower in sensation-seeking, but average IQ extraverts are a pretty big slice of humanity.
Bars and clubs may contain a disproportionate amount of status behavior, but this is just on the higher end of the continuum of status behavior among typical homo sapiens.
People in relationships push each other all the time to see how the other person will react. Even friends not of each other’s preferred gender do this. You may be taking the “buy me a drink” example too literally.
I don’t think people have been talking about “PUA style tactics,” as much as about normal social relationships and interactions. You’re right that they may be more exaggerated at a bar scene.
Maybe it’s happening so subtly that I can’t see it, but I don’t think everyone is pushing that much all the time.
I think you’re defining yourself as normal, and rather subtly making a status claim that anyone who doesn’t fit in well with you is deficient.
But that example was the only thing I was ever disagreeing with. I honestly don’t even remember what this article was originally about any more, I just remember reading the “buy me a drink” example, and thinking “whaaaaaa?”. It just weirded me out that something was being cited as an example of a broader phenomenon, as if it was this universally known, obvious thing, when in reality I think it’s something that only people involved in the PUA “community” actually believe—which makes it, whether right or wrong, not a very good example.
It’s not universally known, but it it more widely known than the PUA circle.
It seems to be understood among the set of guys that have experience successfully attracting girls.
My friends that meet this criteria take it as an obvious rule with a few exceptions, and they didn’t learn it from anything “PUA” related- just from experience and observation
Well, the “buying a drink” story is an extreme example that’s been canonized to make a point. But I’m convinced that in general, human beings are always unconsciously “testing” each other, and that this applies to everyone, male or female, autistic or NT. It’s just part of how humans talk and joke around and communicate. For instance, saying hi to someone and smiling is “testing”: you’re seeing what kind of mood someone is in. Making a joke, or laughing at a joke, is “testing”: you’re seeing how other people react.
I don’t see the “PUA” stuff as about sex or dating or men and women. It’s about human social interaction in general.
I suggest there’s a difference between “testing” and “checking”. In a test, you’re trying to find out whether the other person will fail or (in the case of bullies) hoping they will, while in a check, you’ll hoping they’ll succeed. I gather there are some people who are pretty evenly balanced on the chack/test scale—if the other person passes, fine, it’s a potential friendship, and if the other person fails, the harassment commences.
I think that a lot of small talk is what I call “pinging”—“Hello, I’m here and friendly”.
Good point about the pinging.
Using your test/check distinction, I think in most cases, including the “buy me a drink” scenario, what’s going on is a check. After all, the attractive girl is in a bar talking to the guy; she’d prefer the guy be attractive to her, not a pushover.
Yes, status-testing is a general component of typical human interaction. I think this is the point that Roko was trying to make, even though his particular example was rather gendered. If you want to see status testing in a non-male-female context, watch the behavior of frat boys, for example.
The point is that for those unfamiliar with this behavior, they need to be able to identify it when it happens, to not take it personally or as a sign of hostility, and know how to respond. Roko’s advocation of “caching responses” is very helpful, until one gets a gut feeling and can be guided towards a satisfactory response merely by emotions.
I understand your point: that is an extremely visible and easy to see example of a dominance hierarchy.
But I’m more thinking about testing in general, not necessarily status testing. I interpret most testing as learning about the other person’s responses, not necessarily testing their status. I don’t even know if I would interpret the “buying a drink” story as about status: it’s more about humor and confidence.
The frat boy example has extremely negative connotations, and I wouldn’t call it “typical human interaction”. How about “watch two people having a pleasant and friendly conversation, laughing together, and enjoying each other’s company”? That’s a more pleasant example of unconscious testing, in the sense of unconsciously doing things to see people’s reactions and learning about the other person.
---edit---