If you believe that there is a point that actually is pragmatically better than another by a real margin, please state it, and defend your proposition.
I’m highly unusual, but seeing as I’ve optimized my choice of friends pretty well, for me personally there’s a pretty clear point of divergence, and that’s the point of divergence that causes some commenters on Less Wrong to get all worked up about PUA. Seeing as it gets those commenters all worked up it presumably would get some non-negligible fraction of less reflective smart people all worked up as well, so perhaps it extends beyond just Less Wrong. In the majority of cases I’ve heard discussed, if something isn’t explicitly-learned-and-consciously-acquired attracting-women-in-optimized-ways then it’s probably influence, if it is then it’s obviously manipulation. Yawn-inducing but practically useful in a way that a thorough understanding of the social psychology of manipulation wouldn’t be. (“Manipulation” just never seems to come up. Is this not true for most folk here?)
(In case it’s not blatantly obvious, yes I agree the existence of this Schelling point is unfortunate, no I am not going to waste time complaining about it or dreaming about marginally better ones.)
In the majority of cases I’ve heard discussed, if something isn’t explicitly-learned-and-consciously-acquired attracting-women-in-optimized-ways then it’s probably influence, if it is then it’s obviously manipulation.
The problem with using that as a Schelling point, is that it means that influence can become manipulation simple by virtue of the influencer becoming becoming more self-reflective and thinking about what he’s doing and why it works.
I think that’s basically too far outside of the model of the sort of people who use that Schelling point for for the consideration to occur to them, so they don’t realize it’s a problem.
The model they are using is of probably-morally-contemptible PUA folk. Morally contemptible people are morally contemptible. Good people don’t become morally contemptible. If someone becomes a PUA-esque person after engaging in reflection then that just means they were morally contemptible beforehand as well. And morally contemptible people don’t engage in self-reflection anyway so they’d they’d never end up as a PUA-esque person. People who engage in self-reflection properly will look like fuzzily imagined knights in shining armor, because they are not morally contemptible, obviously.
This only applies to vaguely imagined PUA folk. If a PUA-esque person actually shows up and starts talking to a person with this kind of model then of course it no longer applies.
The above is my general impression of the more saddening parts of what I perceive to be the kind of implicit social reasoning involved. Others will have better general impressions.
So don’t learn about social functioning from those who have expertise. If you do learn from personal experience don’t theorise it or systematise it, if you have done that don’t talk about it?
Sounds about right for the playing of social games generally, doesn’t it? How depressing. Lionhearted’s new post seems relevant, particularly pjeby’s discussion
If you do learn from personal experience don’t theorise it or systematise it, if you have done that don’t talk about it?
No, that doesn’t matter either, I think. Individuals who publicly identify as being influenced by PUA thinking can be seen as virtuous given some moderate level of social savvy. It’s only the vague class of imaginably contemptible PUA folk that is manipulative.
That depends a lot on the specifics of the connotations of “signalling” I think. The people who engage in such signalling always have the best of intentions and obviously are only trying to positively influence others, never manipulate them. (Am I insulting them by insinuating that they are unreflective, or being charitable by saying they’re not consciously manipulative? Or am I being sarcastic? Does it matter either way? You decide!)
I’m highly unusual, but seeing as I’ve optimized my choice of friends pretty well, for me personally there’s a pretty clear point of divergence, and that’s the point of divergence that causes some commenters on Less Wrong to get all worked up about PUA. Seeing as it gets those commenters all worked up it presumably would get some non-negligible fraction of less reflective smart people all worked up as well, so perhaps it extends beyond just Less Wrong. In the majority of cases I’ve heard discussed, if something isn’t explicitly-learned-and-consciously-acquired attracting-women-in-optimized-ways then it’s probably influence, if it is then it’s obviously manipulation. Yawn-inducing but practically useful in a way that a thorough understanding of the social psychology of manipulation wouldn’t be. (“Manipulation” just never seems to come up. Is this not true for most folk here?)
(In case it’s not blatantly obvious, yes I agree the existence of this Schelling point is unfortunate, no I am not going to waste time complaining about it or dreaming about marginally better ones.)
The problem with using that as a Schelling point, is that it means that influence can become manipulation simple by virtue of the influencer becoming becoming more self-reflective and thinking about what he’s doing and why it works.
I think that’s basically too far outside of the model of the sort of people who use that Schelling point for for the consideration to occur to them, so they don’t realize it’s a problem.
Self-reflection is far outside their model?
The model they are using is of probably-morally-contemptible PUA folk. Morally contemptible people are morally contemptible. Good people don’t become morally contemptible. If someone becomes a PUA-esque person after engaging in reflection then that just means they were morally contemptible beforehand as well. And morally contemptible people don’t engage in self-reflection anyway so they’d they’d never end up as a PUA-esque person. People who engage in self-reflection properly will look like fuzzily imagined knights in shining armor, because they are not morally contemptible, obviously.
This only applies to vaguely imagined PUA folk. If a PUA-esque person actually shows up and starts talking to a person with this kind of model then of course it no longer applies.
The above is my general impression of the more saddening parts of what I perceive to be the kind of implicit social reasoning involved. Others will have better general impressions.
So don’t learn about social functioning from those who have expertise. If you do learn from personal experience don’t theorise it or systematise it, if you have done that don’t talk about it?
Sounds about right for the playing of social games generally, doesn’t it? How depressing. Lionhearted’s new post seems relevant, particularly pjeby’s discussion
No, that doesn’t matter either, I think. Individuals who publicly identify as being influenced by PUA thinking can be seen as virtuous given some moderate level of social savvy. It’s only the vague class of imaginably contemptible PUA folk that is manipulative.
Would it be fair to say the disdain is mostly signalling then? Moderate social savvy is not a high bar.
That depends a lot on the specifics of the connotations of “signalling” I think. The people who engage in such signalling always have the best of intentions and obviously are only trying to positively influence others, never manipulate them. (Am I insulting them by insinuating that they are unreflective, or being charitable by saying they’re not consciously manipulative? Or am I being sarcastic? Does it matter either way? You decide!)