I don’t get all the criticism of PUAs, submitter B mentions them but doesn’t provide any elaborate arguments and I don’t think it’s fair to compare them to gay converters(gay converters want to change other people PUAs don’t, on the contrary they accept woman exactly how they are). In effect PU is understanding how women work and adjusting your behavior to become attractive to them. Could you be more specific in what exactly is wrong with them?
If the sole determining factor of whether an interaction with a women is desirable is whether they end up attracted to you then, yes, even the most extreme sort of pick up artistry would be unproblematic.
However, if you think that there are other factors that determine whether such an interaction is desirable (such as whether the woman is treated with respect, is not made to feel unpleasant etc) then certain sorts of pick up artistry are extremely distasteful.
For example, let’s hypothetically imagine that women are more attracted to people who make them feel insecure (I take no position on the accuracy of this claim). Sure, it would just be “understanding how women work and adjusting your behaviour to be more attractive to them” if you deliberately made them feel insecure. And sure, this would be no problem if being attractive was the sole determining factor of whether the interaction was desirable. However, if you think women deserve to be treated with respect and not made to feel horrible (presuming not because they are women but just because all humans deserve this) then this interaction is extremely undesirable.
Some discussions of pick up artistry don’t just blur this line but fail to even realise there is a line. To those who think women should be treated with respect, this is extremely concerning.
In general a PUA should always make a woman feel good, otherwise why should she choose to stay with him? Probably women suffer much more through awkward interactions, stalkers, etc...
For example, let’s hypothetically imagine that women are more attracted to people who make them feel insecure
Making a woman feel insecure might work, so does a movie that makes people feel scared(ever enjoyed a good horror movie?). Should we blame a PUA if that works for him?
Beautiful women will have an edge when negotiating with a man, should we blame her for using this as a tactic?
I’ve decided to write my own post on the subject, feel free to take a look:
In general a PUA should always make a woman feel good, otherwise why should she choose to stay with him?
Human mating interests are not aligned perfectly with the happiness goals of the gene carriers in question. (It so happens that creating mostly positive affect in interactions is usually optimal, but this isn’t entirely consistent and certainly isn’t an inevitable first principle.)
Thanks for a reply. I did take a look at your post but I don’t think it really engages with the points that I make (it engages with arguments that are perhaps superficially similar but importantly distinct)
In general a PUA should always make a woman feel good, otherwise why should she choose to stay with him? Probably women suffer much more through awkward interactions, stalkers, etc...
I have no problems with certain things that one might describe as pick up artistry. My comments are reserved for the things that don’t involve respect for a woman’s welfare (demeaning her, for example). And yes, I’m sure people suffer more through stalkers but that doesn’t set the bar very high.
Making a woman feel insecure might work, so does a movie that makes people feel scared(ever enjoyed a good horror movie?). Should we blame a PUA if that works for him?
If you think that people should care about the welfare of others then yes. I think here we have identified the ultimate source of our disagreement. The fact that you think this is even a question worth asking shows that we have substantially different background assumptions (and this perhaps explains why you find attacks on PU confusing).
ETA: I realise now that it was unclear whether you were asking whether we should blame a PUA for the movie thing or for deliberately making a woman feel insecure. If the first, no (except perhaps in unusual circumstances) as going to a movie doesn’t go against the woman’s welfare presuming she, like many people, finds the fear of a horror movie desirable or finds it to be made up for by other aspects of the movie. If the second, then as per above: yes, I think a person should care about the welfare of the person that they’re picking up.
If the sole determining factor of whether an interaction with a women is desirable is whether they end up attracted to you then, yes, even the most extreme sort of pick up artistry would be unproblematic.
However, if you think that there are other factors that determine whether such an interaction is desirable (such as whether the woman is treated with respect, is not made to feel unpleasant etc) then certain sorts of pick up artistry are extremely distasteful.
That’s the issue. Some people have an ideology that some women’s tastes are distasteful.
That’s the issue. Some people have an ideology that some women’s tastes are distasteful.
It’s a clever line but doesn’t really interact with what I said (which may perhaps have been because I was unclear: I don’t intend to suggest this fact is your fault).
We can think of it another way: what do we think constitutes the welfare of a woman? Presumably we don’t think that it is just that she is attracted to the person she is currently conversing with.
However, if this is the case and if we care about how our interaction with people effect their welfare then the fact that a person’s interaction with a woman makes the woman attracted to them doesn’t entail that the interaction was desirable (because we care about their welfare which is more than just their extent of current attraction).
Note that this need not be a condescending attempt to institute an objective conception of welfare on an unwilling recipient. For example, we might think that a person’s welfare is determined by their own subjective, personally decided upon preferences. Now perhaps a woman has preferences to be attracted to the person they’re talking to (or perhaps not) but presumably they also have preferences to feel good about themselves and a number of other things. Again, then, even taking their self-identified welfare, we can’t presume that an interaction is benefiting a woman’s welfare just because they are attracted to their current conversation partner.
To put it another other way: just because a woman finds herself attracted to a person following an interaction, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t wish that the interaction had been different. So the conversation may fulfill the man’s interests in being attractive but it doesn’t follow from the fact that the woman is attracted to him that it fulfulls the woman’s interests.
Of course, if you think a woman’s welfare is her own problem and an interested man’s only responsibility is to be attractive to the woman then you won’t find this compelling but that attitude is precisely what the problem is (many people think that one should be concerned about the effects of one’s interactions on others’ welfare).
ETA: So to clarify: the claim was not that some women’s tastes are distasteful but rather that a woman’s tastes don’t entirely determine her welfare so we can’t move from a claim that something is in accordance with her tastes to a claim that something is in accordance with her welfare (or, for that matter, her desires, because her tastes in men don’t fully define her desires either)
If you are a car salesman and have a button you can legally press which makes your customer buy a car, you’d press it. Instrumental rationality, no?
If you are a researcher who has a button he can legally press to make that reviewer look upon his submission more favorably, you’d probably press it.
If you are a guy and have a button you can legally press that makes the woman you’re trying to woo fall in love with you, pressing that button would be … bad?
I find it extremely condescending to say you’re responsible with how a woman you just met feels, it’s treating them like a child, not like an adult who can darn well be expected to make her own choices, and turn away from you if she so desires. This of course only applies with the male staying in the legal framework and not exhibiting e.g. stalking behavior (i.e. accept when the woman is turning away).
Of course women have a right to demand respect and to be treated in whatever manner they as individuals desire, just as males have a right to provide that sort of interaction or not to provide that sort of interaction. Externally imposing unwritten rules (other than a legal framework) is infantizing adult agents.
If you are a guy and have a button you can legally press that makes the woman you’re trying to woo fall in love with you, pressing that button would be … bad?
The “good—bad” scale is not the same as “legal—illegal” scale, although in nice societies they correlate positively.
Pressing people’s buttons to make them act against their long-term interests is bad and legal.
(Where “bad” means approximately: “I wouldn’t trust given person to cooperate with me in Prisonners’ Dilemma, so I would consider it rational to defect”.)
(Where “bad” means approximately: “I wouldn’t trust given person to cooperate with me in Prisonners’ Dilemma, so I would consider it rational to defect”.)
Steering a conversation such that the result is in your best interest—but not in the best interest of your conversation partner—is bad, even when both are consenting adults?
If you are a car salesman and have a button you can legally press which makes your costumer buy a car, you’d press it. Instrumental rationality, no?
Instrumental rationality doesn’t get you this far. It gets you this far only if you assume that you care only about selling cars and legality. If you also care about the welfare of others then instrumental rationality will not necessarily tell you to push the button (instrumental rationality isn’t the same thing as not caring about others).
Of course, I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t care about the welfare of others to find any of what I’m saying here compelling. A certain level of common ground is required to have a useful discussion. However, I think most people do care about the welfare of others.
I find it extremely condescending to say you’re responsible with how a woman you just met feels, it’s treating them like a child, not like an adult who can darn well be expected to make her own choices, and turn away from you if she so desires.
There is, of course, a line between compassion and condescension and I agree that it is bad to cross that line. However, I think it’s unreasonable to think that showing the level of concern that I’m talking about here for someone’s welfare is crossing this line. To choose a silly example, it would be undesirable for me to shoot someone for no reason but a selfish desire (I, of course, do not actually have this desire). However, if I didn’t shoot someone for some reason, this would be taking some responsibility for the welfare of others. However, this hardly amounts to treating them like a child. Similarly, not deliberately making a woman feel bad about herself is simply showing compassion and being respectful toward others. There’s no reason to think this amounts to treating someone like a child.
Externally imposing unwritten rules (other than a legal framework) is infantizing adult agents.
I’m not “imposing” rules, unwritten or otherwise. What I am doing is suggesting that insofar as you care about the welfare of others, it is undesirable that you deliberately make people feel bad about themselves. Having a concern for the welfare of others is hardly infantising adults (consider the gun example again: it is not treating someone as an infant to decide not to kill them on the grounds of their welfare).
I find your comment to be quixotic. I live in a sheltered bubble, but apparently not yet so far up the ivory tower.
Whenever you walk into any department store, get a loan to buy a car, a new stereo, or whatever, noone there who’s trying to sell to you is going to care whether that purchase is in your self-interest, or whether you can afford it (other than your ability to pay), other than to make you happy so that you become a repeat customer, which also isn’t a function of the customer’s self interest, just think about tobacco companies.
Whether it’s the educational sector signing you up for non-dischargeable student loans, car loans, new credit cards offered in the mail, or just buying a PC game, noone will inquire as to your actual self-interest. They’ll assume you’re an adult and can do what you darn well please—and your self-interest is your business, not theirs. They can pitch you, and if you listen, it’s your decision and responsibility.
Would you say that the overwhelming majority of modern day society does then not care at all about the welfare of others, just because they allow others to make their own choices, and let them be autonomous regarding their own self-interest?
The infantizing part is saying “I don’t think women are capable of disengaging from a negative conversation, therefore they ought to be protected since their own agency doesn’t suffice. There must be rules protecting them since they apparently cannot be trusted to make their own correct choices.”
I don’t think further conversation on this topic is going to be useful for either of us. I presume we both accept that we have some responsibilities for the welfare of others and that sometimes we can consider the welfare of others without being infantilising (for example, I presume we both presume that shooting someone for fun would be in violation of these responsibilities).
Clearly, you draw the line at a very different place to me but beyond that I’m not sure there’s much productive to be said.
I will note, however, that my claim is not about doubting the capability of women nor about “protecting” women in some special sense that goes beyond general compassion. It’s about respect for the welfare of other people.
Other than that, I think this conversation has reached the end of its useful life so will leave things at that.
PUAs don’t, on the contrary they accept woman exactly how they are
The problem here is likely that the PUA presumptions concerning what women are like are offensive to some.
PUA stance—“I accept women how they are! Women are attracted to confident, dominant males. You’ve got to show that you are assertive- even if it means being an asshole and playing on people’s insecurities sometimes.”...etc
Analogy to racism—“I accept blacks how they are! I don’t demand them to do intellectual tasks. I keep plenty of watermelon and fried chicken lying around the house, I do everything I can to make them feel welcome” … etc
You see the issue here? The thing that offends here is not the fact that PUA’s want to adjust behavior to attract women. The thing that offends is that the PUA’s conception of what women are like is perceived by some as demeaning. Imagine how you would feel if someone made inaccurate assumptions about you via generalizations from some group you belong to?
I also want to say that even if PUA techniques are instrumentally successful at attracting women (I don’t know if this is the case), it isn’t necessarily because that the PUA worldview is epistemically correct. I’m sure anyone who sets out with the explicit goal of attracting women will be more successful at the task than they were prior to setting up that goal.
If you feel like the PUA conception of women is accurate, that’s a different discussion...and perhaps one that we should have given the concerns about misogyny on LW. I think PUA memes are especially dangerous because they are half-truths, which makes them compelling and “sticky”—but that is an opinion, and I admit only passing familiarity with PUA memes which I’ve picked up from visiting their forums
If anyone does feel that PUA memes about women are more or less accurate, don’t be afraid to speak up. I encourage people to make this a safe environment where people can air those thoughts without being ridiculed. We can hash the thoughts out, and maybe some of us will update. We can make a different thread for that purpose, if necessary.
Of course, it’s also a possibility that not all PUA memes are offensive...but I’ve dropped by those forums, and I know some of them are. It might be helpful if someone made a list of common terms and pointed out the problems...although I really wouldn’t want to start an inter-forum conflict over something silly like this. Though they do come under a lot of criticism, so they probably wouldn’t notice.
In effect PU is understanding how women work and adjusting your behavior to become attractive to them.
The above aside...I dunno. This statement feels like manipulation via false signalling, and I find that distasteful. I think that’s mostly in the phrasing though, since there is nothing intrinsically wrong in wanting to be attractive.
I also want to say that even if PUA techniques are instrumentally successful at attracting women (I don’t know if this is the case), it isn’t necessarily because that the PUA worldview is epistemically correct. I’m sure anyone who sets out with the explicit goal of attracting women will be more successful at the task than they were prior to setting up that goal.
I once attended a PUA seminar, motivated by pure curiosity and interest in psychology, and there was a lot of emphasis on reading women. The basic approach could be summed up as:
Make yourself feel confident
Approach a woman, using assorted techniques
Determine whether she’s interested
If she isn’t, leave her alone (there was a lot of emphasis on this point) and move on to someone else as quickly as possible
Repeat until one bites
The techniques don’t need to work on the average woman to be successful. The gauge her interest and move on quickly parts filter for those who respond well to them (I would guess also for undesirable personality traits).
PUA stance—“Women are attracted to confident, dominant males.
If you feel like the PUA conception of women is accurate, that’s a different discussion...and perhaps one that we should have given the concerns about misogyny on LW.
The first stance is basically accurate for the majority of hetero women.
For what percentage of hetero women do you think that’s false?
Both genders like confidence equally. Both genders like some amount of social dominance, although both genders seem to value it more in men. I don’t know how much of that is just culture. If we’re talking sexual dominance/submissiveness, I’d estimate 20% of women prefer submissive men, 50% prefer dominant, and 30% don’t care - I’m sure we could get that data if we wanted.
That’s not the part which is the problem. It’s the entailing conclusions about behavior...
even if it means being an asshole and playing on people’s insecurities sometimes.
which I don’t like. Also, attempts at artificially puffing up ones social dominance are almost never good.
attempts at artificially puffing up ones social dominance are almost never good.
Of course everyone (like you) want to put down people who claim higher status than you think they really have. What makes one’s social dominance “artificial” or genuine? Merely the success of convincing others that you are in fact dominant. So your argument (that artificially high dominance is bad) implies that you only dislike unsuccessful PUAs, the ones who fail to raise their status in your eyes.
...what I meant by that, is the methods that people usually employ when attempting to puff up social dominance (displays of power and authority, disregard for others, etc) are distasteful.
you only dislike unsuccessful PUAs, the ones who fail to raise their status in your eyes.
That’s sort of true, but the order of events is reversed, and we need to unpack “status”.
If I identify someone using unethical behavior, I dislike them, thereby lowering their social status.
To become a “successful” PUA (one that raised his/her status in my eyes) one would need to refrain from behavior I perceive as distasteful. Obviously, this includes refraining from all behaviors that I define as immoral.
Unpacking status: Perceptions of “dominance” and perceptions of “liking” are separate. Dominance is decided by power hierarchy within a group—for example, I’ll almost always perceive my boss as “dominant”, but if she exerts authority unfairly I will see her as dominant and unlikeable, whereas if she is charismatic and helps me achieve my goals I will see her as dominant and likeable.
Both genders like confidence equally. Both genders like some amount of social dominance,
Don’t think so. Men are much more tolerant of limited confidence. Many women will argue that men aren’t even attracted to confident women. Similarly, I don’t see men interested in women who dominate others. Higher status is good, but dominating others—no.
I’m not going to blame men who cater to the preferences of women. Pointless exercise. They should slit their own throats so that women can dump them for men who behave they way they respond to? If you don’t approve of what women prefer, take it up with them.
No...women do not like people who are assholes and play on people’s insecurities. No healthy person likes that.
Social “dominance” is about being charismatic and influential within a group.
It’s not about over-riding people’s preferences. It’s not about playing on insecurities. Rather, it’s about making people comfortable and helping them to achieve their ends.
Women like what they like, and I’m not going to blame men who cater to those likes. If you don’t approve of what women like, take it up with them.
In the least convenient universe where women did like that, are you really willing to endorse unethical actions in pursuit of mating?
No...women do not like people who are assholes and play on people’s insecurities. No healthy person likes that.
I think that many branches of PUA contain some fairly toxic memes, but I think this claim is only true under a rather narrow and exclusionary definition of “healthy.”
I’ve certainly known women who were attracted to men who were assholes and played on others’ insecurities. I never became bitter about it, because they weren’t women I would have wanted to be attracted to me instead, but I don’t think that means it’s fair to label them as psychologically unhealthy. Plenty of women also play on others’ insecurities to attain social dominance (ex. queen bees.) Whether this helps make them attractive to men, I couldn’t say, but it certainly doesn’t seem to prohibit their receiving attraction.
Fair point. I was conceptualizing psychological health as a dichotomous spectrum. It’s not about falling over or under the line of psychologically unhealthy—one set of behaviors is simply more healthy than another.
Most people have at least a few “unhealthy” behaviors. I know I have one or two.
I was talking about dominating others, women wanting men who do that, and men not being so interested in women who do that.
You seem to be using “social dominance” as a synonym for social status. Yes, everyone likes social status. Men get it by dominating others. Women don’t.
are you really willing to endorse unethical actions in pursuit of mating?
I don’t see winning as unethical. I don’t see giving women what they respond to as unethical. Some people like S&M. Is a little pain “unethical”, if that’s what someone responds to?
Social dominance is helping people acheive their ends?
I think (by the quotes) you mean “What some call social dominance in regards to womens attraction is actually making them comfortable and helping them achieve their goals.”
Which is less Orwellian, in terms of the not using the word dominance to mean its opposite, but… still isn’t necessarily true.
Men who succeed in convincing others to serve the goals those men choose are what we call social dominance, and that this is actually attractive to women is equally reasonable a priori.
Men who succeed in convincing others to serve the goals those men choose are what we call social dominance, and that this is actually attractive to women is equally reasonable a priori.
Yeah, that’s actually a much better way to put it., except that’s not just for men.
And you can use unethical methods (coercion, violence) to achieve that...but that’s not the only way it can be achieved.
I guess by appending the word “social” to the word dominance, I took it to mean specifically the “charismatic” sort of dominance, when you get people to follow your interests because they like you or think that you can help them succeed (rather than out of fear of violence or social consequences)
The thing that offends is that the PUA’s conception of what women are like is perceived by some as demeaning. Imagine how you would feel if someone made inaccurate assumptions about you via generalizations from some group you belong to?
Do you consider accuracy relevant here?
Obviously the offense makes sense if the generalization is inaccurate both in general and in specific. What about when it is accurate in general, but wrong in the specific case? Or when it is accurate both in general and in specific? (For some definition of “accurate in general” approximately equal to “accurate for a majority of individual cases”, or perhaps a plurality if not a yes/no question.)
To the fact that people are offended? No. They would be offended simply because the words are negative, regardless of accuracy.
As for myself, I’m not personally offended … I think it’s a half truth. Yes, dominance might be attractive in some contexts, no, that doesn’t mean that being a jerk is generally an effective mating strategy.
The racism example is a half-truth too. Blacks do perform worse on cognitive tasks...but there is no evidence that this difference is genetic, and quite a bit of evidence that it’s due to socioeconomic and health related factors. If I didn’t tell you the second half of it, you might have just implicitly assumed the differences were genetic.
Having spent a reasonable amount of time looking into the matter in the past, I do feel fairly comfortable in making that claim, unless something new has come out in the past ~4 years.
PUAs don’t, on the contrary they accept woman exactly how they are
Many anti-gay conservative Christians say the exact same thing. They have an entire rhetorical memeplex devoted to expressing how much God already loves each and every homosexual just as he created them.
What exactly are “gay converters” ? The image that instantly comes to mind is some sort of an engine that converts gays to electrical energy, but I know that can’t be right...
What Roland may have in mind is people who try to get gay people to become heterosexual. There’s frequently a religious component (“pray the gay away”) and strong promises that it will work if enough effort is put in.
I don’t get all the criticism of PUAs, submitter B mentions them but doesn’t provide any elaborate arguments and I don’t think it’s fair to compare them to gay converters(gay converters want to change other people PUAs don’t, on the contrary they accept woman exactly how they are). In effect PU is understanding how women work and adjusting your behavior to become attractive to them. Could you be more specific in what exactly is wrong with them?
If the sole determining factor of whether an interaction with a women is desirable is whether they end up attracted to you then, yes, even the most extreme sort of pick up artistry would be unproblematic.
However, if you think that there are other factors that determine whether such an interaction is desirable (such as whether the woman is treated with respect, is not made to feel unpleasant etc) then certain sorts of pick up artistry are extremely distasteful.
For example, let’s hypothetically imagine that women are more attracted to people who make them feel insecure (I take no position on the accuracy of this claim). Sure, it would just be “understanding how women work and adjusting your behaviour to be more attractive to them” if you deliberately made them feel insecure. And sure, this would be no problem if being attractive was the sole determining factor of whether the interaction was desirable. However, if you think women deserve to be treated with respect and not made to feel horrible (presuming not because they are women but just because all humans deserve this) then this interaction is extremely undesirable.
Some discussions of pick up artistry don’t just blur this line but fail to even realise there is a line. To those who think women should be treated with respect, this is extremely concerning.
In general a PUA should always make a woman feel good, otherwise why should she choose to stay with him? Probably women suffer much more through awkward interactions, stalkers, etc...
Making a woman feel insecure might work, so does a movie that makes people feel scared(ever enjoyed a good horror movie?). Should we blame a PUA if that works for him?
Beautiful women will have an edge when negotiating with a man, should we blame her for using this as a tactic?
I’ve decided to write my own post on the subject, feel free to take a look:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/h6l/pick_up_artistspuas_my_view/
Human mating interests are not aligned perfectly with the happiness goals of the gene carriers in question. (It so happens that creating mostly positive affect in interactions is usually optimal, but this isn’t entirely consistent and certainly isn’t an inevitable first principle.)
Thanks for a reply. I did take a look at your post but I don’t think it really engages with the points that I make (it engages with arguments that are perhaps superficially similar but importantly distinct)
I have no problems with certain things that one might describe as pick up artistry. My comments are reserved for the things that don’t involve respect for a woman’s welfare (demeaning her, for example). And yes, I’m sure people suffer more through stalkers but that doesn’t set the bar very high.
If you think that people should care about the welfare of others then yes. I think here we have identified the ultimate source of our disagreement. The fact that you think this is even a question worth asking shows that we have substantially different background assumptions (and this perhaps explains why you find attacks on PU confusing).
ETA: I realise now that it was unclear whether you were asking whether we should blame a PUA for the movie thing or for deliberately making a woman feel insecure. If the first, no (except perhaps in unusual circumstances) as going to a movie doesn’t go against the woman’s welfare presuming she, like many people, finds the fear of a horror movie desirable or finds it to be made up for by other aspects of the movie. If the second, then as per above: yes, I think a person should care about the welfare of the person that they’re picking up.
That’s the issue. Some people have an ideology that some women’s tastes are distasteful.
It’s a clever line but doesn’t really interact with what I said (which may perhaps have been because I was unclear: I don’t intend to suggest this fact is your fault).
We can think of it another way: what do we think constitutes the welfare of a woman? Presumably we don’t think that it is just that she is attracted to the person she is currently conversing with.
However, if this is the case and if we care about how our interaction with people effect their welfare then the fact that a person’s interaction with a woman makes the woman attracted to them doesn’t entail that the interaction was desirable (because we care about their welfare which is more than just their extent of current attraction).
Note that this need not be a condescending attempt to institute an objective conception of welfare on an unwilling recipient. For example, we might think that a person’s welfare is determined by their own subjective, personally decided upon preferences. Now perhaps a woman has preferences to be attracted to the person they’re talking to (or perhaps not) but presumably they also have preferences to feel good about themselves and a number of other things. Again, then, even taking their self-identified welfare, we can’t presume that an interaction is benefiting a woman’s welfare just because they are attracted to their current conversation partner.
To put it another other way: just because a woman finds herself attracted to a person following an interaction, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t wish that the interaction had been different. So the conversation may fulfill the man’s interests in being attractive but it doesn’t follow from the fact that the woman is attracted to him that it fulfulls the woman’s interests.
Of course, if you think a woman’s welfare is her own problem and an interested man’s only responsibility is to be attractive to the woman then you won’t find this compelling but that attitude is precisely what the problem is (many people think that one should be concerned about the effects of one’s interactions on others’ welfare).
ETA: So to clarify: the claim was not that some women’s tastes are distasteful but rather that a woman’s tastes don’t entirely determine her welfare so we can’t move from a claim that something is in accordance with her tastes to a claim that something is in accordance with her welfare (or, for that matter, her desires, because her tastes in men don’t fully define her desires either)
If you are a car salesman and have a button you can legally press which makes your customer buy a car, you’d press it. Instrumental rationality, no?
If you are a researcher who has a button he can legally press to make that reviewer look upon his submission more favorably, you’d probably press it.
If you are a guy and have a button you can legally press that makes the woman you’re trying to woo fall in love with you, pressing that button would be … bad?
I find it extremely condescending to say you’re responsible with how a woman you just met feels, it’s treating them like a child, not like an adult who can darn well be expected to make her own choices, and turn away from you if she so desires. This of course only applies with the male staying in the legal framework and not exhibiting e.g. stalking behavior (i.e. accept when the woman is turning away).
Of course women have a right to demand respect and to be treated in whatever manner they as individuals desire, just as males have a right to provide that sort of interaction or not to provide that sort of interaction. Externally imposing unwritten rules (other than a legal framework) is infantizing adult agents.
The “good—bad” scale is not the same as “legal—illegal” scale, although in nice societies they correlate positively.
Pressing people’s buttons to make them act against their long-term interests is bad and legal.
(Where “bad” means approximately: “I wouldn’t trust given person to cooperate with me in Prisonners’ Dilemma, so I would consider it rational to defect”.)
Upvoted for this alone.
Steering a conversation such that the result is in your best interest—but not in the best interest of your conversation partner—is bad, even when both are consenting adults?
If you care about both parties being consenting adults, you’ll dislike it if one party tries to undermine the clarity of the other person’s consent.
No and no. And I think less of those who answer in the affirmative.
It depends on why the customer wouldn’t buy the car unless I pressed the button.
Instrumental rationality doesn’t get you this far. It gets you this far only if you assume that you care only about selling cars and legality. If you also care about the welfare of others then instrumental rationality will not necessarily tell you to push the button (instrumental rationality isn’t the same thing as not caring about others).
Of course, I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t care about the welfare of others to find any of what I’m saying here compelling. A certain level of common ground is required to have a useful discussion. However, I think most people do care about the welfare of others.
There is, of course, a line between compassion and condescension and I agree that it is bad to cross that line. However, I think it’s unreasonable to think that showing the level of concern that I’m talking about here for someone’s welfare is crossing this line. To choose a silly example, it would be undesirable for me to shoot someone for no reason but a selfish desire (I, of course, do not actually have this desire). However, if I didn’t shoot someone for some reason, this would be taking some responsibility for the welfare of others. However, this hardly amounts to treating them like a child. Similarly, not deliberately making a woman feel bad about herself is simply showing compassion and being respectful toward others. There’s no reason to think this amounts to treating someone like a child.
I’m not “imposing” rules, unwritten or otherwise. What I am doing is suggesting that insofar as you care about the welfare of others, it is undesirable that you deliberately make people feel bad about themselves. Having a concern for the welfare of others is hardly infantising adults (consider the gun example again: it is not treating someone as an infant to decide not to kill them on the grounds of their welfare).
I find your comment to be quixotic. I live in a sheltered bubble, but apparently not yet so far up the ivory tower.
Whenever you walk into any department store, get a loan to buy a car, a new stereo, or whatever, noone there who’s trying to sell to you is going to care whether that purchase is in your self-interest, or whether you can afford it (other than your ability to pay), other than to make you happy so that you become a repeat customer, which also isn’t a function of the customer’s self interest, just think about tobacco companies.
Whether it’s the educational sector signing you up for non-dischargeable student loans, car loans, new credit cards offered in the mail, or just buying a PC game, noone will inquire as to your actual self-interest. They’ll assume you’re an adult and can do what you darn well please—and your self-interest is your business, not theirs. They can pitch you, and if you listen, it’s your decision and responsibility.
Would you say that the overwhelming majority of modern day society does then not care at all about the welfare of others, just because they allow others to make their own choices, and let them be autonomous regarding their own self-interest?
The infantizing part is saying “I don’t think women are capable of disengaging from a negative conversation, therefore they ought to be protected since their own agency doesn’t suffice. There must be rules protecting them since they apparently cannot be trusted to make their own correct choices.”
I don’t think further conversation on this topic is going to be useful for either of us. I presume we both accept that we have some responsibilities for the welfare of others and that sometimes we can consider the welfare of others without being infantilising (for example, I presume we both presume that shooting someone for fun would be in violation of these responsibilities).
Clearly, you draw the line at a very different place to me but beyond that I’m not sure there’s much productive to be said.
I will note, however, that my claim is not about doubting the capability of women nor about “protecting” women in some special sense that goes beyond general compassion. It’s about respect for the welfare of other people.
Other than that, I think this conversation has reached the end of its useful life so will leave things at that.
The problem here is likely that the PUA presumptions concerning what women are like are offensive to some.
PUA stance—“I accept women how they are! Women are attracted to confident, dominant males. You’ve got to show that you are assertive- even if it means being an asshole and playing on people’s insecurities sometimes.”...etc
Analogy to racism—“I accept blacks how they are! I don’t demand them to do intellectual tasks. I keep plenty of watermelon and fried chicken lying around the house, I do everything I can to make them feel welcome” … etc
You see the issue here? The thing that offends here is not the fact that PUA’s want to adjust behavior to attract women. The thing that offends is that the PUA’s conception of what women are like is perceived by some as demeaning. Imagine how you would feel if someone made inaccurate assumptions about you via generalizations from some group you belong to?
I also want to say that even if PUA techniques are instrumentally successful at attracting women (I don’t know if this is the case), it isn’t necessarily because that the PUA worldview is epistemically correct. I’m sure anyone who sets out with the explicit goal of attracting women will be more successful at the task than they were prior to setting up that goal.
If you feel like the PUA conception of women is accurate, that’s a different discussion...and perhaps one that we should have given the concerns about misogyny on LW. I think PUA memes are especially dangerous because they are half-truths, which makes them compelling and “sticky”—but that is an opinion, and I admit only passing familiarity with PUA memes which I’ve picked up from visiting their forums
If anyone does feel that PUA memes about women are more or less accurate, don’t be afraid to speak up. I encourage people to make this a safe environment where people can air those thoughts without being ridiculed. We can hash the thoughts out, and maybe some of us will update. We can make a different thread for that purpose, if necessary.
Of course, it’s also a possibility that not all PUA memes are offensive...but I’ve dropped by those forums, and I know some of them are. It might be helpful if someone made a list of common terms and pointed out the problems...although I really wouldn’t want to start an inter-forum conflict over something silly like this. Though they do come under a lot of criticism, so they probably wouldn’t notice.
The above aside...I dunno. This statement feels like manipulation via false signalling, and I find that distasteful. I think that’s mostly in the phrasing though, since there is nothing intrinsically wrong in wanting to be attractive.
I once attended a PUA seminar, motivated by pure curiosity and interest in psychology, and there was a lot of emphasis on reading women. The basic approach could be summed up as:
Make yourself feel confident
Approach a woman, using assorted techniques
Determine whether she’s interested
If she isn’t, leave her alone (there was a lot of emphasis on this point) and move on to someone else as quickly as possible
Repeat until one bites
The techniques don’t need to work on the average woman to be successful. The gauge her interest and move on quickly parts filter for those who respond well to them (I would guess also for undesirable personality traits).
As an aside, this is really illustrative of the extent to which deciding to purposefully do something helps you accomplish goals.
And assuming that those “assorted techniques” don’t contain anything terrible (many of them do, unfortunately), this all seems fine to me.
The first stance is basically accurate for the majority of hetero women.
For what percentage of hetero women do you think that’s false?
Both genders like confidence equally. Both genders like some amount of social dominance, although both genders seem to value it more in men. I don’t know how much of that is just culture. If we’re talking sexual dominance/submissiveness, I’d estimate 20% of women prefer submissive men, 50% prefer dominant, and 30% don’t care - I’m sure we could get that data if we wanted.
That’s not the part which is the problem. It’s the entailing conclusions about behavior...
which I don’t like. Also, attempts at artificially puffing up ones social dominance are almost never good.
Of course everyone (like you) want to put down people who claim higher status than you think they really have. What makes one’s social dominance “artificial” or genuine? Merely the success of convincing others that you are in fact dominant. So your argument (that artificially high dominance is bad) implies that you only dislike unsuccessful PUAs, the ones who fail to raise their status in your eyes.
...what I meant by that, is the methods that people usually employ when attempting to puff up social dominance (displays of power and authority, disregard for others, etc) are distasteful.
That’s sort of true, but the order of events is reversed, and we need to unpack “status”.
If I identify someone using unethical behavior, I dislike them, thereby lowering their social status.
To become a “successful” PUA (one that raised his/her status in my eyes) one would need to refrain from behavior I perceive as distasteful. Obviously, this includes refraining from all behaviors that I define as immoral.
Unpacking status: Perceptions of “dominance” and perceptions of “liking” are separate. Dominance is decided by power hierarchy within a group—for example, I’ll almost always perceive my boss as “dominant”, but if she exerts authority unfairly I will see her as dominant and unlikeable, whereas if she is charismatic and helps me achieve my goals I will see her as dominant and likeable.
Don’t think so. Men are much more tolerant of limited confidence. Many women will argue that men aren’t even attracted to confident women. Similarly, I don’t see men interested in women who dominate others. Higher status is good, but dominating others—no.
I’m not going to blame men who cater to the preferences of women. Pointless exercise. They should slit their own throats so that women can dump them for men who behave they way they respond to? If you don’t approve of what women prefer, take it up with them.
No...women do not like people who are assholes and play on people’s insecurities. No healthy person likes that.
Social “dominance” is about being charismatic and influential within a group.
It’s not about over-riding people’s preferences. It’s not about playing on insecurities. Rather, it’s about making people comfortable and helping them to achieve their ends.
In the least convenient universe where women did like that, are you really willing to endorse unethical actions in pursuit of mating?
I think that many branches of PUA contain some fairly toxic memes, but I think this claim is only true under a rather narrow and exclusionary definition of “healthy.”
I’ve certainly known women who were attracted to men who were assholes and played on others’ insecurities. I never became bitter about it, because they weren’t women I would have wanted to be attracted to me instead, but I don’t think that means it’s fair to label them as psychologically unhealthy. Plenty of women also play on others’ insecurities to attain social dominance (ex. queen bees.) Whether this helps make them attractive to men, I couldn’t say, but it certainly doesn’t seem to prohibit their receiving attraction.
Fair point. I was conceptualizing psychological health as a dichotomous spectrum. It’s not about falling over or under the line of psychologically unhealthy—one set of behaviors is simply more healthy than another.
Most people have at least a few “unhealthy” behaviors. I know I have one or two.
I was talking about dominating others, women wanting men who do that, and men not being so interested in women who do that.
You seem to be using “social dominance” as a synonym for social status. Yes, everyone likes social status. Men get it by dominating others. Women don’t.
I don’t see winning as unethical. I don’t see giving women what they respond to as unethical. Some people like S&M. Is a little pain “unethical”, if that’s what someone responds to?
Roland made a new thread, so as not to derail this one with the PUA stuff.
See my comment there, where I make my position on when “dominant” becomes “asshole” more clear, and let me know if you still disagree.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/h6l/pick_up_artistspuas_my_view/
Social dominance is helping people acheive their ends? I think (by the quotes) you mean “What some call social dominance in regards to womens attraction is actually making them comfortable and helping them achieve their goals.” Which is less Orwellian, in terms of the not using the word dominance to mean its opposite, but… still isn’t necessarily true. Men who succeed in convincing others to serve the goals those men choose are what we call social dominance, and that this is actually attractive to women is equally reasonable a priori.
Yeah, that’s actually a much better way to put it., except that’s not just for men.
And you can use unethical methods (coercion, violence) to achieve that...but that’s not the only way it can be achieved.
I guess by appending the word “social” to the word dominance, I took it to mean specifically the “charismatic” sort of dominance, when you get people to follow your interests because they like you or think that you can help them succeed (rather than out of fear of violence or social consequences)
The second part is not a statement about women.
Do you consider accuracy relevant here?
Obviously the offense makes sense if the generalization is inaccurate both in general and in specific. What about when it is accurate in general, but wrong in the specific case? Or when it is accurate both in general and in specific? (For some definition of “accurate in general” approximately equal to “accurate for a majority of individual cases”, or perhaps a plurality if not a yes/no question.)
To the fact that people are offended? No. They would be offended simply because the words are negative, regardless of accuracy.
As for myself, I’m not personally offended … I think it’s a half truth. Yes, dominance might be attractive in some contexts, no, that doesn’t mean that being a jerk is generally an effective mating strategy.
The racism example is a half-truth too. Blacks do perform worse on cognitive tasks...but there is no evidence that this difference is genetic, and quite a bit of evidence that it’s due to socioeconomic and health related factors. If I didn’t tell you the second half of it, you might have just implicitly assumed the differences were genetic.
No evidence that it is genetic, whatsoever? Any of it? That’s a bold claim. It’s certainly great if that’s the case!
Having spent a reasonable amount of time looking into the matter in the past, I do feel fairly comfortable in making that claim, unless something new has come out in the past ~4 years.
Given that IQ is over 50% heritable and IQ heritability increases with age, my prior would be that it’s largely genetic.
I’ve decided to write my own post and I address several parts of your comment in it:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/h6l/pick_up_artistspuas_my_view/
Many anti-gay conservative Christians say the exact same thing. They have an entire rhetorical memeplex devoted to expressing how much God already loves each and every homosexual just as he created them.
The catchphrase is, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Quoting myself:
Yeah, I got that part. I’m not convinced.
What’s wrong with wanting to change other people? Heck, this site’s stated goal of “raising the sanity waterline” is going to involve changing people.
What exactly are “gay converters” ? The image that instantly comes to mind is some sort of an engine that converts gays to electrical energy, but I know that can’t be right...
What Roland may have in mind is people who try to get gay people to become heterosexual. There’s frequently a religious component (“pray the gay away”) and strong promises that it will work if enough effort is put in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
Ok, I get it, somehow I’ve never heard this particular term before, but I am aware of the M.O.