It is an after the fact reconctruction, as I mentioned. There is no “what went through my mind”, there is only us, making sense of ourselves. http://konyv.uw.hu/dennett-the-intentional-stance.htm
I didn’t provide sources for specific things because these are not easily accessible in my mind, I’m not a computer, with folders separating everything and eidetic memory. They are the product of a mix of information from those papers, books, etc… that later on I cited, with a lot of experience talking about sex with people.
And please don’t ignore the most important reason:
Step two is thinking very few people will actually read linked material, so I must link only the current books on mating intelligence, something with high status within Leswrong (Eliezer’s separation of Cognitive/Evolutionary ) and something really accessible, Buss’s video.
If people are overwhelmed by an ocean of information they’ll just either remain having their true rejection, or else they’ll just believe what I say based on number of sources. Both are undesirable.
Suppose you want to give advice to a friend who just say a woman and felt interested at a bar. You say: “Go to her, try to talk to her, see if you really like her, and at some point try to kiss her”
This is very, very simple advice. You would not be able to pull off citations for it, even though it is obviously true that 1) Approaching 2)Talking 3)Seeing if you like her and 4) At some point trying to kiss her… will help your friend.
Advice and citations don’t go together as neatly as would be desirable. Suggestions, even when based on rocket science, include some element (value? desire? intention?) that doesn’t fit the dry writing style of academic papers. Some like to call this the fact/value differentiation, debate etc…
Which is why the PUA community has more knowledge about human courtship than most ethologists (even according to the ethologists), they test things differently, with some intention, by trying specific things, not just trying to take a picture of reality and reverse-engineering the minds of all who belong in the picture with Omega level intelligence and Oracle AI level of knowledge.
Suppose you want to give advice to a friend who just say a woman and felt interested at a bar. You say: “Go to her, try to talk to her, see if you really like her, and at some point try to kiss her”
Nobody blames you for giving such advice. There nothing wrong with giving advice based on your own empirical experience. It’s however a problem if you try to paint advice that you are giving based on your own experiences as the scientific knowledge of evolutionary psychologists.
If you claim that your claim is backed up by science then you should reference the science in a way that allows the readers to check whether you are representing it fairly. Especially on evolutionary psychology there are many people who try to convince others that their personal beliefs are backed up by science when that isn’t the case.
If you are declaring the authority to speak in the name of science than you are subject to certain responsibilites that you aren’t subject to when you are giving advice without speaking in that name.
It is an after the fact reconctruction, as I mentioned. There is no “what went through my mind”, there is only us, making sense of ourselves. http://konyv.uw.hu/dennett-the-intentional-stance.htm I didn’t provide sources for specific things because these are not easily accessible in my mind, I’m not a computer, with folders separating everything and eidetic memory. They are the product of a mix of information from those papers, books, etc… that later on I cited, with a lot of experience talking about sex with people.
And please don’t ignore the most important reason:
Suppose you want to give advice to a friend who just say a woman and felt interested at a bar. You say: “Go to her, try to talk to her, see if you really like her, and at some point try to kiss her”
This is very, very simple advice. You would not be able to pull off citations for it, even though it is obviously true that 1) Approaching 2)Talking 3)Seeing if you like her and 4) At some point trying to kiss her… will help your friend.
Advice and citations don’t go together as neatly as would be desirable. Suggestions, even when based on rocket science, include some element (value? desire? intention?) that doesn’t fit the dry writing style of academic papers. Some like to call this the fact/value differentiation, debate etc… Which is why the PUA community has more knowledge about human courtship than most ethologists (even according to the ethologists), they test things differently, with some intention, by trying specific things, not just trying to take a picture of reality and reverse-engineering the minds of all who belong in the picture with Omega level intelligence and Oracle AI level of knowledge.
Nobody blames you for giving such advice. There nothing wrong with giving advice based on your own empirical experience. It’s however a problem if you try to paint advice that you are giving based on your own experiences as the scientific knowledge of evolutionary psychologists.
If you claim that your claim is backed up by science then you should reference the science in a way that allows the readers to check whether you are representing it fairly. Especially on evolutionary psychology there are many people who try to convince others that their personal beliefs are backed up by science when that isn’t the case.
If you are declaring the authority to speak in the name of science than you are subject to certain responsibilites that you aren’t subject to when you are giving advice without speaking in that name.