lmnop

• lmnopSep 12, 2010, 7:27 PM

  −9 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: More art, less stink: Tak­ing the PU out of PUA

  The part in bold could not be further from the truth. A not insignificant number of men here are terrified of contributing on this subject, due to their previous discussions. It reached the stage where people making a point that touched on human mating patterns apologised, asked for permission and generally supplicated and grovelled in an attempt to avoid reprisal.

  A few men here fear being criticized. Some women here fear perpetuating ideas that increase the social acceptability and incidence of rape and other actions which ignore female agenthood. Regardless of how “reasonable” you consider each fear, they are not of equal magnitude. And then consider that the women here are women who have already been self selected for interest in rationality, and then further selected for ability to deal with potentially threatening comments regarding sex relations in the past. Something is wrong when they feel threatened by a subset of the talk here—and it isn’t “they’re just too PC.”

  I don’t make utilitarian calculations of any kind and while I do make consequentialist calculations they are significantly tempered by ethical injunctions when considering topics such as this. I note that Alicorn takes this a step further—she explicitly professes subscription to deontological ethics.

  Take out the word “utilitarian” if you wish. It’s the “ignoring of women’s interests” that I find disturbing. See this comment and this comment for a better expression of my concerns.

• lmnopSep 12, 2010, 6:22 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: More art, less stink: Tak­ing the PU out of PUA

  “Sex doesn’t seem to be the distinguishing factor on whether a given participant is able to usefully engage on the subject, especially once the selection effect of ‘people who like lesswrong type discussions’ is applied. It is a political vs epistemic divide, not a male vs female one.”

  And yet the current norms of discussion are ones that leave a large proportion of the women here fighting through some measure of fear and discomfort to post—but not the men. This saps cognitive energy and limits how much they can contribute. You may want to consider why this is, and whether there are any minimal changes you would consider making in order to make both genders feel safe enough to post freely.

  “Strive to only make utilitarian calculations that take into account both men’s and women’s best interests” is a good place to start.

  This discussion has also given me a lot of insight into why the proportion of women on this site is so atypically small even for computer programming crowds. Some that like lesswrong-type discussions may find dealing with the PUA-related talk here too mentally and emotionally draining for the site to be a net positive in experience. I’ve changed my mind and now also support moving all PUA-related discussions to another site, if for different reasons than yours.

• lmnopSep 12, 2010, 8:58 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: More art, less stink: Tak­ing the PU out of PUA

  I don’t know if it’s possible to discuss anything in a purely objective manner, sex especially, since it’s a topic into which most people bring a lot of biases regardless of how objective and rational they’re trying to be. If such a topic is discussed by a group of people who are likely to have the same set of biases towards the subject, then that can create a blind spot. And sex in particular requires deep understanding of both men’s and women’s psychology and socialization to make headway on, so there may be a limit to how much a discussion involving only one sex could accomplish. I wouldn’t want to lose insightful perspectives like Alicorn’s “gifts vs commodities” comment that otherwise might not come up. I’d be willing to sift through the strong emotions (that mostly fit the facts) the topic may inspire in order to maximize my exposure to such insights.

• lmnopSep 11, 2010, 8:22 PM

  6 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: More art, less stink: Tak­ing the PU out of PUA

  I think a big component of sex dynamics is, as you said, physical strength. Since women are physically weaker than men, they can’t rely on that to protect them from overly aggressive or hostile potential partners. The only thing keeping those overly aggressive or hostile potential partners in line are social norms against rape and abuse, which are already weak enough that, for example, rape apologism for famous athletes and victim blaming are common. Any talk that can potentially weaken those social norms then becomes a legitimate threat… unless the talk includes ways of subverting other social norms that balance its effect. For example, I think we could solve some problems by giving men “niceness training” instead of women.

• lmnopSep 6, 2010, 7:26 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 3

  That makes sense!

• lmnopSep 6, 2010, 5:48 PM

  7 points

  in reply to: KevinC’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 3

  I never really understood the claim that there’s no defense against Avada Kedavra. Sure, there’s no direct countercurse, but you can dodge it or levitate an object between yourself and the curse (Dumbledore levitated a statue in front of Harry to protect him from the curse in Book 5). Both of these responses can be trained to the point of instinct, and voila, you have a defense.

  Wait, the fact that the second strategy works is inconsistent. If the Killing Curse can be blocked by inanimate objects, why is it that clothing doesn’t block it?

• lmnopSep 6, 2010, 5:31 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: Psy-Kosh’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 3

  Bertha Jorkins. After she found out that the Crouch family was keeping Barty Crouch Jr. imprisoned in their house, Crouch Sr. put a Memory Charm on her strong enough to cause her permanent brain damage and forgetfulness. But Voldemort was able to break through it with torture.

• lmnopAug 31, 2010, 3:56 AM

  6 points

  on: Dreams of AIXI

  The changes in font are distracting.

• lmnopAug 29, 2010, 10:10 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  Interesting. I’m not sure if the correct dichotomy is status vs looks either. It could very well be money vs looks with both as indicators of status, since a woman’s status (and ability to confer status on a man with her attention) is often determined by her looks. Have their been studies comparing attraction to, for example, very beautiful female sex workers vs less beautiful cheerleaders? Disclaimer: I’m wildly speculating here…

• lmnopAug 29, 2010, 9:42 AM

  8 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  While it’s true that the average man is more attracted to looks than to status, and the average woman is more attracted to status than to looks, be careful not to over-generalize these preferences. Harry doesn’t seem to mind, for instance, that Hermione is plain looking, and admires her intelligence, while the average man prefers beautiful women noticeably less intelligent than he is. Hermione isn’t particularly attracted to high status men in canon (she picked Ron over Viktor Krum, for chrissakes), and there’s no indication that she’s different in MoR. Neither of them fit the personality profiles that the PUA community has studied most heavily, which I’ve heard described as “extroverted young women of average intelligence” and… well, I haven’t been informed about the type of men specifically, but I’ll hazard a guess that they’re not like MoR Harry. So PUA models of interaction between the sexes wouldn’t give you very reliable intuitions about how Hermione and Harry should act towards one another. Never mind that they’re prepubescent and applying any adult models of interaction that were developed with sexual relations in mind to them seems kind of creepy in the first place. “Relationship” aside, they’re mostly friends at this point.

  I mean, I agree with you that Harry’s apology was rather embarrassing, but that was because it wasn’t warranted by the circumstances. If he’d actually done something worthy of an abject apology to Hermione, then he should be giving one, not restraining himself in order to protect his dominance over her.

• lmnopAug 28, 2010, 9:50 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  Hermione and Harry are acting a bit out of character in these last few chapters. Canon Hermione is straightforward, sometimes even abrasive, and extremely concerned with fairness. That is why she started S.P.E.W., after all. I can understand making her more social and diplomatic in order to strengthen her above canon, but the preoccupation with fairness and justice is pretty central to her personality. Is she toying with Harry (which isn’t like her), or are they both blind to how silly he’s being?

  This apology business doesn’t strike me as cute, like Ch. 36 was. It’s just strange.

• lmnopAug 28, 2010, 9:40 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: LucasSloan’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  Or they could’ve just created self cleaning houses, so no one is forced to do work.

• lmnopAug 26, 2010, 10:16 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  Eh, even if Quirrel points were the problem, Harry’s apology is still unnecessarily grovelly.

• lmnopAug 26, 2010, 9:57 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  “I bet he hasn’t had the Anglo/​muggle training about not hurting girls”

  I agree. The “don’t hurt females” meme and the idea of chivalry arise from the fact that men are physically stronger than women. But in the magical world, physical strength hardly matters in comparison to magical ability, which seems to be evenly distributed between the sexes. A witch would feel angry, or perhaps just confused, at being treated like porcelain. Granted, Hermione and Harry come from the muggle world, but Draco doesn’t, and he shouldn’t behave like he does.

• lmnopAug 23, 2010, 6:10 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  ...now I’m curious.

• lmnopAug 7, 2010, 7:17 PM

  11 points

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 2

  Wands cost 7 Galleons. People throw around comparable sums all the time in canon. Percy Weasley bets 10 Galleons on a Quidditch game, heck, Harry buys three sets of Omnioculars (wizarding binoculars) at 10 Galleons apiece to watch the Quidditch World Cup. Many wizarding supplies less useful than a wand cost considerably more. There really is no good reason for witches and wizards not to carry multiple wands except for tradition. Even the Weasleys could afford multiple wands if they made it a priority.

• lmnopJul 25, 2010, 11:12 PM

  9 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread

  I’m guessing that Blaise will shoot himself in the name of Sunshine, tying all the scores. That seems like the kind of thing Dumbledore would plot. It makes the most sense from Eliezer’s point of view too, in terms of leading the story in a more interesting direction.

• lmnopJul 20, 2010, 2:36 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: HughRistik’s comment on: Let them eat cake: In­ter­per­sonal Prob­lems vs Tasks

  Certainly it would be nice if there were less delusion-fuel, as you call it, floating around. But I’m guessing that most men who make a habit of ignoring women’s preferences won’t actually change their behavior if the minority of women who lie becomes a smaller minority. They will just find another rationalization.

  If we really want to reduce stalking, assault and other such behaviors by men, then I don’t think targetting women and demanding that they be more honest will be a very efficient use of our time. Abusive men are far more likely to be dissuaded by scorn and social ostracization directed at them by other men, and that’s something concerned men can implement directly.

• lmnopJul 20, 2010, 2:07 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Let them eat cake: In­ter­per­sonal Prob­lems vs Tasks

  But if you, personally, are less respectful of women’s requests, this won’t make men who are less respectful than you any more inclined to be respectful. It may lead them to be even less respectful (ie engaging in coercion or assault) because they’re now under more competition. Besides, by continuing to be respectful of women’s requests, you wouldn’t be “ceding the dating world,” you’d only be ceding the portion of the dating world that’s comprised of women who consistently give false rejections, which in my experience is a clear minority. Whereas by adopting a policy of ignoring women’s rejections, you’re likely to hurt the majority, who rejected you honestly. This seems unethical.

  Regarding your claim that stalking, sexual assault and other “ills” would decrease if women were only more honest—serial rapists are great at deluding themselves into thinking the women they raped “wanted it.” Even if more women were completely honest in their rejections, how do you know that some men wouldn’t simply delude themselves into thinking otherwise, thus internally justifying their behavior?

  Thank you for clarifying that paragraph. I wasn’t sure whether you were indicating whether the women or the stalker men didn’t receive punishment. It seems that you mean the men. You would be correct. Perhaps good men should band together to punish the men who behave threateningly to women, for instance by socially ostracizing those men and making it clear that such behavior is low status?

• lmnopJul 20, 2010, 12:06 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Let them eat cake: In­ter­per­sonal Prob­lems vs Tasks

  Please do cite more. Understand that your claims are difficult for me to just accept, because in my experience when women offer men a flat refusal, in the vast majority of cases they mean no. Yes, there are exceptions to this rule, but you seem to be implying that when women offer a flat refusal, there’s a significant, even close to 50% chance that they actually mean yes. You need more evidence than the word of a PUA or an anecdote about a woman you know to support that claim for people who haven’t had the same experiences as you.