My hypothesis is that this is a “realist”/”idealist” divide. Or, to put it another way, one camp is more concerned with being right and the other is more concerned with doing the right thing. (“Right” means two totally different things, here.)
Quality of my post aside (and it really wasn’t very good), I think that’s where the dividing line has been in the comments.
Similarly, I think most people who value PUA here value it because it works, and most people who oppose it do so on ethical or idealistic grounds. Ditto discussions of status.
The reason the arguments between these camps are so unfruitful, then, is that we’re sorting of arguing past each other. We’re using different heuristics to evaluate desirability, and then we’re surprised when we get different results; I’m as guilty of this as anyone.
Here is another example of the way that pragmatism and idealism interact for me, from the world of pickup:
I was brought up with up with the value of gender equality, and with a proscription against dominating women or being a “jerk.”
When I got into pickup and seduction, I encountered the theory that certain masculine behaviors, including social dominance, are a factor in female attraction to men. This theory matched my observation of many women’s behavior.
While I was uncomfortable with the notion of displaying stereotypically masculine behavior (e.g. “hegemonic masculinity” from feminist theory) and acting in a dominant manner towards women, I decided to give it a try. I found that it worked. Yet I still didn’t like certain types of masculine and dominance displays, and the type of interactions they created with women (even while “working” in terms of attraction and not being obviously unethical), so I started experimenting and practicing styles less reliant on dominance.
I found that there were ways of attracting women that worked quite well, and didn’t depend on dominance and a narrow version of masculinity. It just took a bit of practice and creativity, and I needed my other pickup tools to be able to pull it off. Practicing a traditional form of masculinity got me the social experience necessary to figure out ways to drop that sort of masculinity.
In conclusion, I eventually affirmed my value of having equal interactions with women and avoiding dominating them. And I discovered “field tested” ways to attain success with women while adhering to that value, so I confirmed that it wasn’t a silly, pie-in-the-sky ideal.
I call this an empirical approach to selecting and accomplishing a value.
I strongly agree with this. Count me in the camp of believing true things in literally all situations, as I think that the human brain is too biased for any other approach to result, in expectation, in doing the right thing, but also as in the camp of not necessarily sharing truths that might be expected to be harmful.
My hypothesis is that this is a “realist”/”idealist” divide.
I was thinking the same thing, when I insinuated that you were being idealistic ;) Whether this dichotomy makes sense is another question.
Similarly, I think most people who value PUA here value it because it works, and most people who oppose it do so on ethical or idealistic grounds. Ditto discussions of status.
I think this an excellent example of what the disagreements look like superficially. I think what is actually going on is more complex, such as differences of perception of empirical matters (underlying “what works”), and different moral philosophies.
For example, if you have a deontological prescription against acting “inauthentic,” then certain strategies for learning social skills will appear unethical to you. If you are a virtue ethicist, then holding certain sorts of intentions may appear unethical, whereas a consequentialist would look more at the effects of the behavior.
Although I would get pegged on the “realist” side of the divide, I am actually very idealistic. I just (a) revise my values as my empirical understanding of the world changes, and (b) believe that empirical investigation and certain morally controversial behaviors are useful to execute on my values in the real world.
For example, even though intentionally studying status is controversial, I find that social status skills are often useful for creating equality with people. I study power to gain equality. So am I a realist, or an idealist on that subject?
Another aspect of the difference we are seeing may be in this article’s description of “shallowness.”
(Prompted by but completely irrelevant to the recent bump.)
My hypothesis is that this is a “realist”/”idealist” divide.
Come now. This is lesswrong. It is an “idealist”/”idealist” divide with slightly different ideals. :P
One side’s ideal just happens to be “verbal symbols should be used to further epistemic accuracy”. It is very much an ‘ethical or idealistic’ position with all the potential for narrow mindedness that entails.
The evidence that PUA works is largely anecdotal. A lot of people claim that one shouldn’t believe in acupuncture based on anecdotal evidence.
PUA however is a theory that plays well with other reductionist beliefs while acupuncture doesn’t.
I think the following two are open questions:
Given the same amount of approaches, does a guy who has read PUA theories have higher success of getting laid?
If the man has a goal to have a fulfilling long term relationship with an attractive woman, is it benefitial for him to go down the PUA road?
The evidence for the status hypothesis is also relatively weak.
Being reductionist does have nothing to do with being realist. Being reductionist brings you problem when you are faced with a system that’s more complex than your model.
In biology students get taught these days that even when you know all parts of a system you don’t necessarily know what the system does. That reductionism is wrong and that you actually need real evidence for theories such as the status hypothesis.
I think the following two are open questions: Given the same amount of approaches, does a guy who has read PUA theories have higher success of getting laid?
Isn’t one of the benefits of PUA is that your number of actual approaches increases (while single, at least)?
Isn’t one of the benefits of homeopathy that you get to talk to a person who promises you that you will feel better?
If the control for homeopathy is doing nothing that you find that homeopathy works. If you however do a double blind trial you will probably find that homeopathy doesn’t work.
If you truly belief in rationalism and don’t engage in it to signal status, I see no reason to use another standard for judging whether homeopathy is true than for judging whether PUA works.
If you truly belief in rationalism and don’t engage in it to signal status, I see no reason to use another standard for judging whether homeopathy is true than for judging whether PUA works.
Aww, I respect you as a person too! (What were you trying to accomplish with this comment?)
As you point out, which control you pick is significant, but my point is that what test you pick is significant too. Let’s talk about basketball: you can try and determine how good players are by their free throw percentage, or you can try and determine how good players are by their average points scored per game. You’re suggesting the analog of the first, which seems ludicrous because it ignores many critical skills. If someone is interested primarily in getting laid, it seems that the number they care about is mean time between lays, not percentage success on approaches.
I won’t comment much about your homeopathy example, except to say that even if one considers it relevant it undermines your position. Homeopathy is better than both nothing and harmful treatments (my impression is most people come to PUA from not trying at all or trying ineffectively). Generally, for any homeopathic treatment you could take there is a superior mainstream treatment, but for some no treatment is more effective than placebo (and so you’re just making the decision of whether or not to pay for the benefits of placebo). Likewise, even if the only benefit of PUA is increased confidence, you have to trick yourself into that confidence somehow- and so if PUA boosts confidence PUA increases your chances, even though it did it indirectly.
Edit: Actually, yes, I do agree with Vaniver’s point as explained below: at the time of its invention, homeopathy (i.e., water) frequently gave better results than the actively harmful things many doctors were doing to their patients. That said, I’m not sure the analogy with PUAs is usably solid even in those terms … need to come up with one that might be.
Precision in language: my statement concerning homeopathy is correct, but has debatable relevance. At present, homeopathy underperforms mainstream medicine for nearly everything (like I explicitly mentioned). But I strongly suspect the only reason we’re talking about an alternative medicine that originated 200 years ago is because it predated the germ theory of disease by 70 years.
So, it had at least 70 years of growth as an often superior alternative to mainstream medicine, which was murdering its patients through ignorance.* As well, Avogadro’s number was measured about the same time as the germ theory was put forward by Pasteur, and so for that time homeopathy had as solid a theoretical background as mainstream medicine.
My feeling is that insomuch as PUA should be compared to homeopathy, it should be compared to homeopathy in 1840- the proponents may be totally wrong about why it works and quality data either way is likely scarce, but the paucity of strong alternatives means it’s a good choice.** Heck, it might even be the analog of germ theory instead of the analog of homeopathy.
**Is there anyone else trying a “scientific” approach to relationships? I know there are a number of sexologists, but they seem more descriptive and less practical than PUA. Not to mention they seem more interested in the physical aspects than the tactical/strategic ones.
A reductionist approach to acupuncture—it claims that all the ideas about mystical energy are mistranslations, and explains acupuncture in terms of current biology.
The evidence that PUA works is largely anecdotal. A lot of people claim that one shouldn’t believe in acupuncture based on anecdotal evidence.
There is an implied argument in here that is triggering my bullshit senses. The worst part is that it uses what is a valid consideration (the lamentable lack of research into effective attraction strategies) and uses it as a facade over an untenable analogy and complete neglect of the strength of anecdotal evidence.
The evidence for the status hypothesis is also relatively weak.
Relative to what, exactly? The ‘gravity’ hypothesis? The evidence is overwhelming.
How do you determine the strength of anecdotal evidence to decide that PUA works and acupuncture doesn’t?
I know quite a few people both online and offline who claim that acupuncture has helped them with various issues.
I know people online who claimed that PUA helped them. I know people online who say that they concluded after spending over a year in the PUA community that the field is a scam.
I also know people online who have radically changed their social life without going the PUA road.
The worst part is that it uses what is a valid consideration (the lamentable lack of research into effective attraction strategies)
Whether there should be more research into a theory is a different issue than whether there’s enough evidence to support a theory.
If you don’t take separate them mentally you run into the problem of being overconfident when information is scarce and underconfident when there’s plenty of information.
As a good skeptic it important to know that you simply don’t have enough information to decide certain questions.
Relative to what, exactly? The ‘gravity’ hypothesis? The evidence is overwhelming.
Of course there are some effects when you get approval from other people. I however don’t think that there is peer reviewed research that suggests that the effect is as strong as it gets seen in this community.
As a good skeptic it important to know that you simply don’t have enough information to decide certain questions.
And as an effective homo-hypocritus it is important to recognize when the ‘good skeptic’ role will be a beneficial one to adopt, completely independent on the evidence.
In biology students get taught these days that even when you know all parts of a system you don’t necessarily know what the system does.
This is only true if you have insufficient math/computing ability to simulate the interactions of the system’s parts. For it to be otherwise, either your information would have to actually be incomplete, or magic would have to happen.
Thanks to Heisenberg your information is also always incomplete.
In real life you do have insufficient math/computing ability to simulate the interactions of many systems.
Whether weak reductionism is true doesn’t matter much for this debate.
People who believe in strong reductionism find appeal in Pua theory.
They believe that they have sufficient mental resources and information to calculate complex social interactions in a way that allows them to optimize those interactions.
Because of the belief in strong reductionism they believe in Pua based on anecdotal evidence and don’t believe in acupuncture based on anecdotal evidence.
My hypothesis is that this is a “realist”/”idealist” divide. Or, to put it another way, one camp is more concerned with being right and the other is more concerned with doing the right thing. (“Right” means two totally different things, here.)
Quality of my post aside (and it really wasn’t very good), I think that’s where the dividing line has been in the comments.
Similarly, I think most people who value PUA here value it because it works, and most people who oppose it do so on ethical or idealistic grounds. Ditto discussions of status.
The reason the arguments between these camps are so unfruitful, then, is that we’re sorting of arguing past each other. We’re using different heuristics to evaluate desirability, and then we’re surprised when we get different results; I’m as guilty of this as anyone.
Here is another example of the way that pragmatism and idealism interact for me, from the world of pickup:
I was brought up with up with the value of gender equality, and with a proscription against dominating women or being a “jerk.”
When I got into pickup and seduction, I encountered the theory that certain masculine behaviors, including social dominance, are a factor in female attraction to men. This theory matched my observation of many women’s behavior.
While I was uncomfortable with the notion of displaying stereotypically masculine behavior (e.g. “hegemonic masculinity” from feminist theory) and acting in a dominant manner towards women, I decided to give it a try. I found that it worked. Yet I still didn’t like certain types of masculine and dominance displays, and the type of interactions they created with women (even while “working” in terms of attraction and not being obviously unethical), so I started experimenting and practicing styles less reliant on dominance.
I found that there were ways of attracting women that worked quite well, and didn’t depend on dominance and a narrow version of masculinity. It just took a bit of practice and creativity, and I needed my other pickup tools to be able to pull it off. Practicing a traditional form of masculinity got me the social experience necessary to figure out ways to drop that sort of masculinity.
In conclusion, I eventually affirmed my value of having equal interactions with women and avoiding dominating them. And I discovered “field tested” ways to attain success with women while adhering to that value, so I confirmed that it wasn’t a silly, pie-in-the-sky ideal.
I call this an empirical approach to selecting and accomplishing a value.
I strongly agree with this. Count me in the camp of believing true things in literally all situations, as I think that the human brain is too biased for any other approach to result, in expectation, in doing the right thing, but also as in the camp of not necessarily sharing truths that might be expected to be harmful.
I was thinking the same thing, when I insinuated that you were being idealistic ;) Whether this dichotomy makes sense is another question.
I think this an excellent example of what the disagreements look like superficially. I think what is actually going on is more complex, such as differences of perception of empirical matters (underlying “what works”), and different moral philosophies.
For example, if you have a deontological prescription against acting “inauthentic,” then certain strategies for learning social skills will appear unethical to you. If you are a virtue ethicist, then holding certain sorts of intentions may appear unethical, whereas a consequentialist would look more at the effects of the behavior.
Although I would get pegged on the “realist” side of the divide, I am actually very idealistic. I just (a) revise my values as my empirical understanding of the world changes, and (b) believe that empirical investigation and certain morally controversial behaviors are useful to execute on my values in the real world.
For example, even though intentionally studying status is controversial, I find that social status skills are often useful for creating equality with people. I study power to gain equality. So am I a realist, or an idealist on that subject?
Another aspect of the difference we are seeing may be in this article’s description of “shallowness.”
(Prompted by but completely irrelevant to the recent bump.)
Come now. This is lesswrong. It is an “idealist”/”idealist” divide with slightly different ideals. :P
One side’s ideal just happens to be “verbal symbols should be used to further epistemic accuracy”. It is very much an ‘ethical or idealistic’ position with all the potential for narrow mindedness that entails.
The evidence that PUA works is largely anecdotal. A lot of people claim that one shouldn’t believe in acupuncture based on anecdotal evidence.
PUA however is a theory that plays well with other reductionist beliefs while acupuncture doesn’t.
I think the following two are open questions: Given the same amount of approaches, does a guy who has read PUA theories have higher success of getting laid?
If the man has a goal to have a fulfilling long term relationship with an attractive woman, is it benefitial for him to go down the PUA road?
The evidence for the status hypothesis is also relatively weak.
Being reductionist does have nothing to do with being realist. Being reductionist brings you problem when you are faced with a system that’s more complex than your model. In biology students get taught these days that even when you know all parts of a system you don’t necessarily know what the system does. That reductionism is wrong and that you actually need real evidence for theories such as the status hypothesis.
Isn’t one of the benefits of PUA is that your number of actual approaches increases (while single, at least)?
Isn’t one of the benefits of homeopathy that you get to talk to a person who promises you that you will feel better? If the control for homeopathy is doing nothing that you find that homeopathy works. If you however do a double blind trial you will probably find that homeopathy doesn’t work.
If you truly belief in rationalism and don’t engage in it to signal status, I see no reason to use another standard for judging whether homeopathy is true than for judging whether PUA works.
Aww, I respect you as a person too! (What were you trying to accomplish with this comment?)
As you point out, which control you pick is significant, but my point is that what test you pick is significant too. Let’s talk about basketball: you can try and determine how good players are by their free throw percentage, or you can try and determine how good players are by their average points scored per game. You’re suggesting the analog of the first, which seems ludicrous because it ignores many critical skills. If someone is interested primarily in getting laid, it seems that the number they care about is mean time between lays, not percentage success on approaches.
I won’t comment much about your homeopathy example, except to say that even if one considers it relevant it undermines your position. Homeopathy is better than both nothing and harmful treatments (my impression is most people come to PUA from not trying at all or trying ineffectively). Generally, for any homeopathic treatment you could take there is a superior mainstream treatment, but for some no treatment is more effective than placebo (and so you’re just making the decision of whether or not to pay for the benefits of placebo). Likewise, even if the only benefit of PUA is increased confidence, you have to trick yourself into that confidence somehow- and so if PUA boosts confidence PUA increases your chances, even though it did it indirectly.
Your statement concerning homeopathy turns out not to be correct. In practice, homeopathy is harmful because it replaces effective treatments in the patients’ minds and It soaks up medical funding.
Edit: Actually, yes, I do agree with Vaniver’s point as explained below: at the time of its invention, homeopathy (i.e., water) frequently gave better results than the actively harmful things many doctors were doing to their patients. That said, I’m not sure the analogy with PUAs is usably solid even in those terms … need to come up with one that might be.
Precision in language: my statement concerning homeopathy is correct, but has debatable relevance. At present, homeopathy underperforms mainstream medicine for nearly everything (like I explicitly mentioned). But I strongly suspect the only reason we’re talking about an alternative medicine that originated 200 years ago is because it predated the germ theory of disease by 70 years.
So, it had at least 70 years of growth as an often superior alternative to mainstream medicine, which was murdering its patients through ignorance.* As well, Avogadro’s number was measured about the same time as the germ theory was put forward by Pasteur, and so for that time homeopathy had as solid a theoretical background as mainstream medicine.
My feeling is that insomuch as PUA should be compared to homeopathy, it should be compared to homeopathy in 1840- the proponents may be totally wrong about why it works and quality data either way is likely scarce, but the paucity of strong alternatives means it’s a good choice.** Heck, it might even be the analog of germ theory instead of the analog of homeopathy.
*The story of Ignaz Semmelweis ought not be forgot.
**Is there anyone else trying a “scientific” approach to relationships? I know there are a number of sexologists, but they seem more descriptive and less practical than PUA. Not to mention they seem more interested in the physical aspects than the tactical/strategic ones.
A reductionist approach to acupuncture—it claims that all the ideas about mystical energy are mistranslations, and explains acupuncture in terms of current biology.
There is an implied argument in here that is triggering my bullshit senses. The worst part is that it uses what is a valid consideration (the lamentable lack of research into effective attraction strategies) and uses it as a facade over an untenable analogy and complete neglect of the strength of anecdotal evidence.
Relative to what, exactly? The ‘gravity’ hypothesis? The evidence is overwhelming.
How do you determine the strength of anecdotal evidence to decide that PUA works and acupuncture doesn’t? I know quite a few people both online and offline who claim that acupuncture has helped them with various issues.
I know people online who claimed that PUA helped them. I know people online who say that they concluded after spending over a year in the PUA community that the field is a scam. I also know people online who have radically changed their social life without going the PUA road.
As a good skeptic it important to know that you simply don’t have enough information to decide certain questions.
And as an effective homo-hypocritus it is important to recognize when the ‘good skeptic’ role will be a beneficial one to adopt, completely independent on the evidence.
This is only true if you have insufficient math/computing ability to simulate the interactions of the system’s parts. For it to be otherwise, either your information would have to actually be incomplete, or magic would have to happen.
Thanks to Heisenberg your information is also always incomplete. In real life you do have insufficient math/computing ability to simulate the interactions of many systems.
Whether weak reductionism is true doesn’t matter much for this debate. People who believe in strong reductionism find appeal in Pua theory.
They believe that they have sufficient mental resources and information to calculate complex social interactions in a way that allows them to optimize those interactions.
Because of the belief in strong reductionism they believe in Pua based on anecdotal evidence and don’t believe in acupuncture based on anecdotal evidence.