The ‘nonsense’ part of your claim is false. The ‘PUA’ title is (alas) not something I have earned (opportunity costs) but I do expect this is something that a PUA may also say if the subject came up.
By way of contrast I consider this to be naive moralizing mixed with bullshit. Explanation:
There is a claim about what hesperidia ‘should’ do. That means one of:
Hesperidia’s actions are not optimal for achieving his goals. You are presenting a different strategy which would achieve those goals better and he would be well served to adopt them.
Hesperidia’s actions are not optimal for achieving your goals. You would prefer it if he stopped optimising for his preferences and instead did what you prefer.
As above but with one or more of the various extra layers of indirection around ‘good for the tribe’, ‘in accordance with norms that exist’ and ‘the listener’s preferences are also served by my should, they can consider me an ally’.
It happens that the first meaning would be a false. When it comes to the latter meanings the question is not ‘Is this claim about strategy true?’ but instead ‘Does knb have the right to exert dominance and control over hesperidia on this particularly issue with these terms?‘. My answer to that is ‘No’.
I prefer it when social advice of this kind is better optimised for the recipient, not the convenience of the advice giver. When the ‘should’ is not about advice at all but instead setting and enforcing norms then I insist that the injunction should, in fact, benefit the tribe. In this case the tribe isn’t the beneficiary. We would be better off if the nonsense the professor was citing could be laughed at rather than treated with deference. The tribe isn’t the beneficiary, the existing power structure is. I oppose your intervention.
(Nothing personal, I am replying mostly because I am curious about the theory, not because I think the issue is dramatically important.)
The ‘nonsense’ part of your claim is false. The ‘PUA’ title is (alas) not something I have earned (opportunity costs) but I do expect this is something that a PUA may also say if the subject came up.
By way of contrast I consider this to be naive moralizing mixed with bullshit. Explanation:
There is a claim about what hesperidia ‘should’ do. That means one of:
Hesperidia’s actions are not optimal for achieving his goals. You are presenting a different strategy which would achieve those goals better and he would be well served to adopt them.
Hesperidia’s actions are not optimal for achieving your goals. You would prefer it if he stopped optimising for his preferences and instead did what you prefer.
As above but with one or more of the various extra layers of indirection around ‘good for the tribe’, ‘in accordance with norms that exist’ and ‘the listener’s preferences are also served by my should, they can consider me an ally’.
It happens that the first meaning would be a false. When it comes to the latter meanings the question is not ‘Is this claim about strategy true?’ but instead ‘Does knb have the right to exert dominance and control over hesperidia on this particularly issue with these terms?‘. My answer to that is ‘No’.
I prefer it when social advice of this kind is better optimised for the recipient, not the convenience of the advice giver. When the ‘should’ is not about advice at all but instead setting and enforcing norms then I insist that the injunction should, in fact, benefit the tribe. In this case the tribe isn’t the beneficiary. We would be better off if the nonsense the professor was citing could be laughed at rather than treated with deference. The tribe isn’t the beneficiary, the existing power structure is. I oppose your intervention.
(Nothing personal, I am replying mostly because I am curious about the theory, not because I think the issue is dramatically important.)