The rationalist community has a lot of independent thinkers, and independent thinkers are more likely than the general population to find the game of amassing wealth to be an obstruction to their freedom of thought and an inefficient path to happiness and life satisfaction.
Also many rationalists are quite young, as Vaniver pointed out.
How about getting a balance? Sometimes you could hang around a community where you’re one of the most competent people around, and at other times you could put yourself in a position where you’re a student to most of the other members.
This seems to get the benefit MrMind was describing without the drawback you’ve identified.
Normal people do this all the time. They just don’t verbalize it.
I get the sense that you’re not against the action but the phrasing. You agree that it’s generally a good thing to do what MrMind is suggesting, but that it seems off to… do exactly what MrMind is suggesting. Clearly you’re okay with someone subconsciously choosing to smile at people who pass because it makes them feel good, but you have a problem with someone explicitly describing the process with literal phrasing such as “romantic validation level”.
Why did noticing and removing bias make you aromantic?
In my experience it’s impossible to do this as a young healthy individual. You will simply have too high of a sex drive and too high of a drive for personal connection. It’s physiological; if you’re healthy and in a natural state your brain will assume you’re ready for what you were built for: finding suitable mates and reproducing.
Your body is likely different, but I can tell you how it works for me. I can increase or decrease my necessity for female companionship and sexual contact very easily. When I want my drive to be very high, I eat more or less paleo and I do as much natural movement as I can, eschewing sitting for constant walking and exercise. When I want it to be low, I eat a lot of grains and drink a lot of tea. I also sit a lot, take hot bathes, and do various forms of meditation. I avoid social contact in general, and create a fantasy world in my mind where I believe that the average person cares about my intellectual projects.
It’s doable, and as others have mentioned you may want to look into the Buddhist tradition for ideas. But it’s not natural. Invariably you will end up less physically healthy than you would be otherwise. Is this a trade-off you’re willing to make? You could always alternate between them; that’s my solution.
If you’re a socially adept individual looking to remove distractions and increase your focus on certain projects, then you’ll be okay. If you hurt your health, you’ll notice and you’ll go back to a situation where the artificially-engineered aromanticism evaporates and your sex and companionship drive returns. But if you’re trying to wire aromanticism into yourself to compensate for lack of success in the social realm, then you’re on a dangerous path. Loneliness and sexual frustration are horrific circumstances from an emotional standpoint; many people would choose to destroy their physical health instead.
My suggestion: Prove to yourself that you don’t need to be aromantic to enjoy your life before you begin the process of learning how to engineer it into yourself. Then you’ll be in a position to abort mission if your health suffers.
I assume the “it’s not rape if she liked it” argument refers to circumstances where the woman doesn’t consent to the sexual encounter, but then changes her mind part of the way through. In other words, we’re talking about a shift from “don’t want” (when the sex started) to “want” (before the sex is over), and describing the general result as “she liked it”. It would be more precise, of course, to phrase it as, “She didn’t like it and then she did like it.”
Now, which part of my post were you saying fit that argument?
It’s also that the current cultural landscape removes personal responsibility in many cases. Women will sometimes regret having sex the same way anyone may regret eating a cookie (they felt good then, but feel bad now). While no man would be proud of being the sexual equivalent of junk food during a one-night stand with a woman, I think today’s society is a bit trigger happy in such situations in saying the man took advantage of the woman instead of saying that she indulged in the moment and later thought herself hedonistic.
I assume you meant this part.
With the considerations above in mind, I don’t see how my point fits the “it’s not rape if she liked it” argument. While that argument refers to situations where the woman felt averse to sex but then changed her mind part of the way through (with no specification about how she felt afterwards, the following day, and so on); on the other hand my example refers to situations where the woman wanted the sex both during the initial escalation and throughout the entire act (but then felt regret later on).
Let me know if I misinterpreted you.
rape is a serious accusation and all though some women may feel the way you described/misuse the legal system… I doubt that it’s a common occurrence, most women are ashamed to admit they’ve been raped...don’t think many would put themselves through the stress of it willy nilly.
I’m under the impression that when alcohol is involved the average person is more likely to use the words “taken advantage of” than “raped” unless the woman is passed out.
I wasn’t necessarily referring to misusing the legal system, though that’s probably an issue in certain isolated cases. My concern, instead, is that Western culture at this time in history seems to allow women an escape route from admitting personal responsibility for certain actions.
Women may not be flocking to the justice system, but there’s certainly a trend where female sexual hedonism is blamed on the men who take up the offers.
Haven’t read the article, but even if the idea of legalizing rape on private property is looked at as sincere for even a second… it falls flat on its face. Marital rape is a thing that happens, seems likely this legalization would condone it. And so long as we’re talking about responsibility, it would be the responsibility of the owners of properties legally raping people to put up a sign saying as much..kinda like the beware of angry dog ones...except about rape...which I don’t think would catch on.
It was a satirical article and Roosh has no intention of trying to legalize rape on private property. I don’t necessarily suggest reading the article, as it’s long and liable for misinterpretation from anyone unfamiliar with the PUA community, but if you want to criticize his reasoning in a disciplined and responsible manner then you’re going to have to take the plunge.
If you do decide to read the article, feel free to post in this sub-thread any counterarguments you come up with.
CFAR has all of this material readily available likely in a much more comprehensive and accurate format. CFAR are altruists. Smart altruists. The lack of anything like this canon suggests that they don’t think having this publicly available is a good idea. Not yet anyway. Even the workbook handed out at the workshops isn’t available.
Rather than deferring to the judgment of the Smart Altruists and assuming that within their secret backroom discussions they’ve determined with logic, rigor, and a plethora of academic citations that it’s crucial to the mission of raising the sanity waterline to not release a comprehensive exposition of their body of rationality techniques, perhaps we need only consider your second point except in less reverential light:
I highly value CFAR as an organisation. I want them to be highly funded and want as many people to attend their workshops as possible. It would upset me to learn that someone had read my compilation and not attended a workshop thinking they had gotten most of the value they could.
So much for the Internet-era model of “free information to be disseminated to all”.
Without a deferential attitude toward the Great Rationalists of CFAR, Occam’s Razor suggests that perhaps they’re simply trying to keep the money flowing. Would it upset you if thousands of people without the resources or time to make it to a CFAR workshop had access to a self-study version of the CFAR curriculum?
Terms like k-close and f-close serve to disassociate emotions. Just because a word like sex is charged with emotions doesn’t mean that it should be avoided. If man feel uneasy about speaking those words they should explore their relationship with those words instead of replacing it with more constructed language.
I agree that many men in the PUA community use jargon such as “k-close” and “f-close” as a technique for disassociating emotions. Where we differ is that you’re condemning this method whereas I believe it’s a crucial tool to have available.
First of all, let’s consider where the emotions come from.
If a man is choosing between saying “I had sex with a beautiful woman I met last weekend” and “I f-closed a solid 8 last weekend”, he’s choosing between different linguistic constructions. The thought remains the same. In both cases, he imagines the woman, the situation, and the interaction. The difference, rather, is in the realm of cached thoughts and emotions. When he says the former, his mind transitions to associations relating to mainstream thought. When he says the latter, his cognition completes the pattern straight into the received wisdom and social influences of the PUA community.
Note that you are operating firmly within the current of mainstream thought on this topic. This isn’t to say that you’re wrong. You may very well be on the right track in your criticisms of PUA. But nevertheless your thoughts on this subject demonstrate absolutely no break from the mainstream of polite society. This is the only information we need to understand why you prefer to use terms like “sex” rather than “f-close”.
For better or for worse, the PUA community contains a lot of information which is very much contrary to mainstream thinking and tends to draw very strong, negative emotions from the average person. Imagine a socially active and happy person using mainstream language yet trying to retain PUA-type beliefs. The amount of stoicism required to avoid cracking under social pressure would be immense.
The ultimate conclusion is this. You value the mainstream on this subject, so it’s concerning to you that PUA writers run away from terms like “sex” because they don’t want the associations which come along for the ride. But I’m in a different position: I think the mainstream is on the wrong track on questions relating to gender politics, thus I myself consider it very important to erect a firewall against what I see as mind control.
You phrased your objection as a separate point, but at the most fundamental level your problem with the language is a repetition of your problem with the community’s beliefs.
That’s a bad belief to have. It prevents guys from having deep conversations with women about their desires.
Note that the PUA community is very unusual in that it’s a bunch of guys who tend to be somewhat nerdy, intellectual, or analytical, chasing after girls who tend to fall into the category of “girls who are fun and social”. It’s not that women don’t know what they want; it’s that the girls PUA practitioners tend to pursue do not speak the same language. If a large number of PUA writers switched their focus to sex with nerdy girls, I’m certain they would quickly “discover” that literal communication about desires is important.
The idea that you shouldn’t take a woman’s word at face value is a very prevalent meme in PUA, and it’s certainly adaptive in its context. But that doesn’t mean it applies to you. Whenever you run into a piece of advice which seems totally wrong, you must take into account that the person’s life experiences and desires may be very different from yours. What works in one context doesn’t necessarily seem sane in another.
I’ll continue onto your other points after we sort out this part.
I appreciate the level-headed emotional de-escalation.
And with that, onto the content:
Yes and yes.
Understood. The next thing I’m wondering, then, is whether you’ve read this article. The reason I’m asking is because that’s the full and original explanation of the non-central fallacy, the fallacy that Jiro was claiming was exemplified by saying that Roosh “wants rape to be legal”.
Whatever your answer to that question, I would like to make a request. Can you re-state Jiro’s original argument in your own words? I don’t mean simply repeating the propositional logic inherent in the single statement that you’re objecting to; I mean explaining in full detail what Jiro meant to convey.
Actually, you can. Jiro made a propositional statement and it can be evaluated independently without rehashing the entire thread history.
Oh wait, I guess you may think that my request is irrelevant.
I believe we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of language and epistemology, and I’m not optimistic that we will be able to resolve this dispute within this subthread. I will, however, put your username in my notes and contact you if I put together a sequence on logic which bears on this discussion.
But I might as well give it a brief attempt.
Few things are more common in Less Wrong culture than taking things far too literally. Most people on this website come from a background of social oddity and nerd interests. The source of the average Rationalist’s superpowers is also the source of his weakness: undue attention to the finely delimited moving parts of single isolated statements. Such an orientation of mind allows deep analysis, innovative thinking, and so forth. But the danger is that natural language is too primitive of a tool to expect to be able to scrutinize single statements; arguments must be evaluated as a whole unless we’re in the realm of mathematical logic.
Perhaps it would be easier to explain if I merely claim that your original post was irrelevant and off topic. Whatever the case with the single statement that you’re analyzing, neither I nor Jiro make any claim which rests upon that foundation. Sure, you can find that statement in Jiro’s post. You can discover that sequence of Latin characters lying within the square. But did Jiro think to himself or herself that there exists an equivalence between those two concepts? Absolutely not.
I’m a little bit lost about how to elucidate this clearly. How about you take up this challenge, which I mentioned earlier in this comment: Explain in your own words what Jiro meant, complete with demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the non-central fallacy. You’re going to have to take my word for it, but I believe that completing this exercise will reveal to you why I believe it’s so important that you take the context into account rather than simply pinpointing that one statement and laying out your disagreement.
I would absolutely be very interested. I think Vipassana meditation can be used as a very powerful rationality technique, and I’m always interested to read rationalists explain their experiences with it.
I think everyone would appreciate if you put more effort into your posts.
Let me summarize in my own words some of the points in your post:
Many members of the PUA community:
take it too far and believe that newbies should immediately dive head-first into doing uncomfortable and anxiety-producing approaches in often-hostile environments. (Which causes these newbies to wall off their real selves and hide behind manufactured personalities.)
are paranoid about girls cheating on them and think a single slip into beta-provider mode may seal a crushing and depressing fate. (Which prevents them from opening up and showing vulnerability, which is required for escalating into a love relationship.)
believe that showing weakness in a relationship is always and everywhere a poor tactic. (Which causes the same problem as the last bullet.)
are depressed even if they have had a lot of success attracting women, as evidenced by two of the key individuals, Tyler and Mystery, encountering this issue. (Which shows that PUA working for seduction doesn’t necessary mean it works for a good life.)
lose a sufficient amount of skill after a short enough time out of the game to suggest that they failed to create deeply-rooted changes in themselves. (Which stands as more evidence that PUA teaches people how to put on an act rather than how to truly improve themselves.)
Am I on the right track?
Although I agree with you on all of these claims, I don’t agree with you on what I perceive to be the overall argument you’re constructing, which is that reading a large selection of material from the PUA community is unlikely to be a good way for a man to better himself in the realm of achieving genuine connections with women he desires either sexually or romantically.
Before I continue: Have you read HughRistik’s writing here on Less Wrong?
As I have already stated, I am objecting to exactly one statement
This is your problem right here. You can’t simply single out a specific statement and attempt to grapple with its internal logic. Again, Jiro’s response is highly contextual and only makes sense when you consider the big picture. Have you read the subthread carefully, going all the way back to Clarity’s question? Have you read Roosh’s article? If you haven’t done these things, then you’re being irresponsible in your attempt to interpret Jiro.
Let’s look again at the statement you’re objecting to:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also want rape to be legal
Oh wait, you misquoted Jiro. Let’s take a look at what Jiro actually said:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
See the quotation marks?
Jiro’s whole response was an attempt to explain that we shouldn’t use the phrase “want rape to be legal” to describe either Roosh’s position (that rape should be legal on private property) or the analogy (that rape convictions based on evidence obtained by torture should be thrown out) because it makes it sound like Roosh or the hypothetical person in the analogy endorses rape.
If I sound condescending, it’s because it’s tiresome to argue with someone who is taking a single point as literally as possible while neglecting to look into the context of the discussion.
Taking a step back:
Jiro expressed uneasiness about submitting his or her post, probably because he or she knows how likely explicit discussions on these topics are to provoke angry or offended replies. While you didn’t seem offended, you nevertheless began your reply with an emotionally charged claim that Jiro seemed “confused”. I’m sure you’re aware that such phrasing provokes the same kind of emotions that you’re experiencing with my patronizing responses.
I believe that it’s very important for people to speak openly on these kinds of subjects, so when Jiro made what I interpreted as a solid point and then showed uneasiness about being part of the conversation, I found this somewhat alarming. I wrote a reply, and then soon afterwards I discovered your response, which began in a condescending way and then continued into what I considered (and still consider) a misinterpretation which demonstrates lack of care and thoroughness and stands as a frivolous disincentive for Jiro to jump into similar discussions in the future.
I admit that I felt a bit of annoyance right from the beginning. The emotional charge you can feel channeled through my words is a product of status-posturing emotions related to defending Jiro.
That’s what I was getting at, though I didn’t mention the mechanism. People who are not philosophically inclined will tend to learn the basics of PUA, get a bit of success going, and then go back to their life. Those who are, well, there’s a natural evolution which leads into politics related to growing older, losing interest in closing with many women per year, and so forth.
I suppose mentioning the “perpetual failures” in the same sentence and also using the negative-connotation word “agenda” may have made it seem like I was criticizing PUA practitioners who develop an interest in the political side of PUA theory. But I meant nothing of the sort. I myself have a strong philosophical demeanor and a deep interest in understanding the current tides of human organization and the pathologies underlying the modern-day erosion of proper societal coordination.
But there are many people who stay because they’re seeking to be PUA wingmen/coaches (either amateur or paid-for), or simply to improve their outcomes and their understanding of seduction- and social dynamics.
Good point.
The flip side of it though is that if the ‘heavyweight’ political folks are right about what they infer from PUA micro dynamics (I’m far from convinced about this, but we can assume it for the sake of this argument) there might not even be much need for further work on the micro side.
I don’t see the connection. Even if the coordination system of society is falling apart, that doesn’t mean that men can’t enjoy the fruits of PUA ability in the short term. Why would Roissy Macro being correct not leave room for further refinement in the practical art of seduction?
Allow me to paraphrase the essentials of the conversation in my own words:
Roosh: “We should legalize rape on private property.”
Clarity: “A lot of people are accusing Roosh of wanting to legalize rape. This is libel.”
gjm: “Um, how is it libel to accuse Roosh of wanting to legalize rape when he says that we should legalize rape on private property? Most rapes likely happen on private property, which means he wants to legalize most instances of rape. For example, if I say I want insider trading to be legal but only if you wear a suit while you do it, I want insider trading to be legal.”
Jiro: “But what if you don’t like insider trading, yet you believe that there are so many innocent individuals accidentally convicted that it would be a net benefit to simply legalize it? If you describe that view as ‘you want insider trading to be legal’, we can see how English grammar and dictionary definitions would permit that, but it would be grossly misleading. When we say we ‘want X’, we normally mean that we like and endorse X. This isn’t the case here. Even if we want it to be legalized, we don’t want it.”
To be concise, Roosh said that we should “legalize rape on private property”, various people described that viewpoint as Roosh “wanting to legalize rape”, and Jiro is claiming that such a phrasing is misleading. When we use the phrase “want X”, we usually mean that we like X. But Roosh isn’t saying that he likes rape.
From your original reply:
They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
Jiro drew an analogy to Roosh’s argument, and then advised against describing the content of that analogy with the words “want rape to be legal”, because it makes it sound like the arguer endorses rape. And then your rebuttal included clarifying that putting into effect the law explained in the analogy would not, in fact, be an endorsement of rape.
Put as simply as possible, Jiro used an analogy to suggest against describing Roosh’s argument as X because it causes people to react like Y (which would constitute a misinterpretation), and then in response you wrote a post which was purely a matter of reacting like Y.
Let this be a lesson for how easily words lead to systematic miscommunication.
In what way does the PUA paradigm prevent people from opening up and being vulnerable?
You may have the causality backwards. PUA is a tool for creating short-term sexual attraction, and the men most invested in improving this tool will be men geared more toward short-term relationships than the average person. Rather than PUA causing men to lose out on the joy of long-term relationships, it may simply be that the community is disproportionately populated by men who’s thinking was already firmly oriented toward short-term flings.
You’re taking it too literally. See here for a better explanation of what Roosh means.
They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
Let’s consider two of the lines from Jiro’s post:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
Normally saying that someone wants X carries the connotation that they like X and don’t believe X causes harm, which isn’t true in this case.
Put together, it seems obvious that Jiro is pointing out a verbal technicality and you’re interpreting him as if he means what he’s explicitly saying he doesn’t mean.
Jiro’s post is highly contextual and makes sense only by taking into account what he’s responding to. You may want to re-read the subthread.
What irrational, politically extremist positions have you recently seen a lot of on LW?