Indeed, and I apologize for not being more diplomatic.
a lot of dating advice given to men doesn’t reflect base reality
I agree.
I think it is appropriate to recommend people do expensive things, even if they are speculative, as many of the people I have in mind are distressed about matters of love and sex and have a lot of disposable income.
Seems fine if your intention was to bring it to the attention of these people, sure. I still feel somewhat wary of pushing people to take steroids out of a desire to be perceived as more masculine: it can go really badly. In general, I am wary of recommending extreme interventions to people without having a lot more context of their situation. It is hard to steer complex systems to outcomes you desire.
Facial attractiveness is very consequential, hedonic returns on cosmetic surgery are generally very high, regret is very low, and it seems to me that basically everyone could benefit by improvements on the margin.
Seems very plausible to me. On the other hand, I believe that the highest ROI interventions for most lonely people do not look like getting cosmetic surgery done to improve their ability to date. Location, social circle, and social skills seem to matter a lot more. Perhaps you take it as a given that these things have been already optimized to the extent possible.
It shouldn’t be an issue that you banish the non-extreme cases from your mind. I’m assuming from the way you’re phrasing the stuff about homeless people that you’re indicating that you do take this attitude but on some level don’t really endorse it?
I was communicating how I deal with certain ugly facets of reality, not necessarily stating how I believe people should deal with these facets of reality. Would I ideally interact with such people from a place of empathy and not-worrying-about-myself? Sure.
Second, I think the facial attractiveness literature makes this tension make more sense. It seems that “feminine” features really are more beautiful—for basically anyone. Hence my recommendation that Asian men need to masculinize their bodies (don’t let yourself have an unathletic skinny-fat build), but feminize their faces (softer face contours really are just more universally appealing that you would think).
Okay, I see what you mean and consider it plausible.
I still feel somewhat wary of pushing people to take steroids out of a desire to be perceived as more masculine: it can go really badly. In general, I am wary of recommending extreme interventions to people without having a lot more context of their situation. It is hard to steer complex systems to outcomes you desire.
Yes this is very good. I think due to doing martial arts I’m more comfortable with steroid usage than I should be. I am also realizing that the two times I heard people around me say they were considering doing steroids for what I thought were insufficiently serious reasons, I told them very strongly not to do that.
I guess my mental model is something like this: some people get negative desirability points for things like their race. Those race demerits still exist legibly even when you do plausible amounts of compensation by ordinary means. So consider exogenous interventions (hence steroids, among other things). But those interventions should be narrowly tailored to compensate for the relevant invariant, and as you’re very correctly pointing out people are going to do that incorrectly by default.
I am wary of recommending extreme interventions to people without having a lot more context of their situation
Fwiw I think your recommendation just puts steroids onto my radar, and I still feel fully responsible for researching the associated risks. I think it’s fine to push risky interventions, even to push them really hard, fram ng them as a way for people to get something they really care about.
I think you can reasonably recommended testosterone and expect somebody to encounter the appropriate warnings on their way to acquire them.
But also to add some color on recommendations here. The two people that I shot down on steroid usage IRL were about to take trenbolone, which is a truly terrible idea. For attractiveness purposes, cycling a medical dosage of anavar (i.e. 2.5 mg daily) is more than sufficient. For context, that’s a dose that is anywhere from a fourth to a fiftieth of what athletes and bodybuilders take. This is not going to destroy your fertility, and is not going to add significant cardiovascular risk as far as I can tell.
I think it is highly irresponsible to recommend potentially damaging interventions to people without even mentioning the risk.
Of course, people should also do their own research, as a second line of defense, but Less Wrong is a place where I come with expectation of the debate being more reasonable than the rest of the internet, so I am more disappointed when someone provides dangerous advice without mentioning the risks.
We already have enough people in the Bay Area who keep advising others to take dangerous drugs, with “trust me bro, I am a rationalist, I did my research online”… but then we have overdoses and suicide and people going crazy. Or a few months ago, we had on Less Wrong an article about how to do massage, written by a self-taught enthusiast who recommended practices that could seriously hurt people (“just push strongly, in any place and direction”, “it is not a problem when it hurts”, “yes even if you massage pregnant women”) and bragged about how many people IRL he already taught his “technique”.
We already have enough people in the Bay Area who keep advising others to take dangerous drugs, with “trust me bro, I am a rationalist, I did my research online”… but then we have overdoses and suicide and people going crazy.
I have plenty of frustration with (mostly psychedelic) drug use in the Bay Area, but I really don’t think this is at all a reasonable summary of a pattern. Did we even ever have any overdoses anywhere?
I also don’t really think approximately any suicides are correlated with drug use. My guess is they are anti-correlated, though mostly for confounder reasons.
I do think some people go crazy because they take psychedelics, but I really don’t think anything would change if people put more disclaimers into their discussions of those drugs. People already put really a lot of disclaimers places.
(I don’t have a take on the massage thread the other day. My prior is that people overall are vastly vastly too hesitant to make recommendations as a result of a liability mindset where you will be held responsible for things going wrong, and not rewarded for things going right, and this is destroying really a huge amount of value in the world, so my guess is I am in favor of the massage guy getting to make his massage recommendations, but I really haven’t done anything but the most cursory skim of that thread)
Indeed, and I apologize for not being more diplomatic.
I agree.
Seems fine if your intention was to bring it to the attention of these people, sure. I still feel somewhat wary of pushing people to take steroids out of a desire to be perceived as more masculine: it can go really badly. In general, I am wary of recommending extreme interventions to people without having a lot more context of their situation. It is hard to steer complex systems to outcomes you desire.
Seems very plausible to me. On the other hand, I believe that the highest ROI interventions for most lonely people do not look like getting cosmetic surgery done to improve their ability to date. Location, social circle, and social skills seem to matter a lot more. Perhaps you take it as a given that these things have been already optimized to the extent possible.
I was communicating how I deal with certain ugly facets of reality, not necessarily stating how I believe people should deal with these facets of reality. Would I ideally interact with such people from a place of empathy and not-worrying-about-myself? Sure.
Okay, I see what you mean and consider it plausible.
Yes this is very good. I think due to doing martial arts I’m more comfortable with steroid usage than I should be. I am also realizing that the two times I heard people around me say they were considering doing steroids for what I thought were insufficiently serious reasons, I told them very strongly not to do that.
I guess my mental model is something like this: some people get negative desirability points for things like their race. Those race demerits still exist legibly even when you do plausible amounts of compensation by ordinary means. So consider exogenous interventions (hence steroids, among other things). But those interventions should be narrowly tailored to compensate for the relevant invariant, and as you’re very correctly pointing out people are going to do that incorrectly by default.
Fwiw I think your recommendation just puts steroids onto my radar, and I still feel fully responsible for researching the associated risks. I think it’s fine to push risky interventions, even to push them really hard, fram ng them as a way for people to get something they really care about.
I think you can reasonably recommended testosterone and expect somebody to encounter the appropriate warnings on their way to acquire them.
Yes I was hoping for this sort of reaction.
But also to add some color on recommendations here. The two people that I shot down on steroid usage IRL were about to take trenbolone, which is a truly terrible idea. For attractiveness purposes, cycling a medical dosage of anavar (i.e. 2.5 mg daily) is more than sufficient. For context, that’s a dose that is anywhere from a fourth to a fiftieth of what athletes and bodybuilders take. This is not going to destroy your fertility, and is not going to add significant cardiovascular risk as far as I can tell.
I think it is highly irresponsible to recommend potentially damaging interventions to people without even mentioning the risk.
Of course, people should also do their own research, as a second line of defense, but Less Wrong is a place where I come with expectation of the debate being more reasonable than the rest of the internet, so I am more disappointed when someone provides dangerous advice without mentioning the risks.
We already have enough people in the Bay Area who keep advising others to take dangerous drugs, with “trust me bro, I am a rationalist, I did my research online”… but then we have overdoses and suicide and people going crazy. Or a few months ago, we had on Less Wrong an article about how to do massage, written by a self-taught enthusiast who recommended practices that could seriously hurt people (“just push strongly, in any place and direction”, “it is not a problem when it hurts”, “yes even if you massage pregnant women”) and bragged about how many people IRL he already taught his “technique”.
I definitely want less of this.
I have plenty of frustration with (mostly psychedelic) drug use in the Bay Area, but I really don’t think this is at all a reasonable summary of a pattern. Did we even ever have any overdoses anywhere?
I also don’t really think approximately any suicides are correlated with drug use. My guess is they are anti-correlated, though mostly for confounder reasons.
I do think some people go crazy because they take psychedelics, but I really don’t think anything would change if people put more disclaimers into their discussions of those drugs. People already put really a lot of disclaimers places.
(I don’t have a take on the massage thread the other day. My prior is that people overall are vastly vastly too hesitant to make recommendations as a result of a liability mindset where you will be held responsible for things going wrong, and not rewarded for things going right, and this is destroying really a huge amount of value in the world, so my guess is I am in favor of the massage guy getting to make his massage recommendations, but I really haven’t done anything but the most cursory skim of that thread)
Thanks for correcting me on the overdoses.
(I will keep my opinion on the massage thread.)