I for one went through the exact opposite trajectory.
A couple is an association of equals whose goal is to satisfy each of the parties’ values through love.
My values say that women are not children to be catered to or made happy by men. They are our equals, and we help and cater to each other, and we both let each other do that.
If, however, what satisfies your values is to be the altruistic party in the relationship, and the girl be the egoistic party, I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong; suit yourself.
In both cases, you’re applying normative standards to what you think the world should be like. I’ve found that relationships got easier, and life got better, when I started to focus on what the world is, instead of what I thought it should be.
When were relationships working? When was I happy? When was my partner happy?
You like the word “equal”, but I don’t see it applying to any discernible metric. Certainly no actual observation. When I started to actually pay attention to what was happening, I noticed that men and women are in general different in their wants, needs, desires, and satisfactions.
I once had much the same attitude that you had. Life got easier when I stopped acting on how life should be, and started acting more on how life is. I still have a ways to go in that regard.
It is amusing to see you call me “the altruistic party”. I’m actually ideologically egoistic, and a fan of Stirner. Selfishness isn’t about not making others happy, it’s about doing what you want. That’s what it is to “suit yourself”.
Well, then we’d be getting into a debate of Fake Altruism And Fake Selfishness And Fake Morality.
Thing is, if women from a specific generation or cultural backgound have been raised in such a way that their values are satisfied by a couple of assymetric power and function, and you think being with girls like that would satisfy your values, go ahead.
I for one find that “happiness” is far less important than “satisfying my values”. Since Celestia isn’t there to do that for me, I’ll need to work harder to at least get an approximation. But, yeah, duty and justice figure higher in my totem pole than joy or happiness or even peace, and it’s not a choice I’ve made.
As for how the world is, I haven’t really figured it out yet; people are mostly an enigma to me (a deliberate one, since most people are far less willing/driven to talk or even think about their goals, motivations, desires, and feelings than I am, which causes me no end of frustration and grief). And studying PUA and other “hard-nosed”, “pragmatic” sources is helping, but not much, and is costing me a lot in idealism, and motivation.
I for one find that “happiness” is far less important than “satisfying my values”.
As for me, satisfying me is more important than satisfying my values. As I said, I’m ideologically egoistic.
But, yeah, duty and justice figure higher in my totem pole than joy or happiness or even peace, and it’s not a choice I’ve made.
Oh yes it is. To the extent that you’re a slave to duty, it’s because you choose to be one.
As for how the world is, I haven’t really figured it out yet; people are mostly an enigma to me
That’s the thing. People are quite predictable. In fact, you probably already know the predictive models, but are choosing instead to use your normative models to predict the world, or just as bad and much the same, modeling other people as if they have the same motivations that you do.
I haven’t delved much into the PUA literature, but my impression is that it focuses more on acquiring and controlling women than enjoying them once you have them. I don’t think that’s pragmatism, I think it’s missing the point.
is costing me a lot in idealism, and motivation.
If it’s costing you some idealism, it’s doing something useful. But if it’s costing you motivation, that’s not so helpful.
Would it really be so horrible if women are not what you think they “should” be? Would they be so horrible? A lot of things are not what you think women should be. Is a chair horrible for not being your ideal woman? A car? A spoon? You find uses for all of them, don’t you?
Look at the unwomen for what they are—are they so horrible? Entirely lacking in charm, beauty, warmth, intelligence? Maybe women don’t exist, and only unwomen do. What then? Time to throw yourself off a bridge?
The world is a wonderful place, and unwomen are among the most wonderful things in it. The world is a wonderful place, once you decide to live in it, instead of bemoaning that it isn’t what you think it should be.
To the extent that you’re a slave to duty, it’s because you choose to be one.
… This sentence confuses me. Does the expression “I don’t know any other way to live” sound familiar to you?
People are quite predictable. In fact, you probably already know the predictive models, but are choosing instead to use your normative models to predict the world, or just as bad and much the same, modeling other people as if they have the same motivations that you do.
I’ve tried that. It just gets me depressed, and doesn’t improve my predictive abilities at all; rather than make wrong predictions, I find myself unable to make any predictions.
I haven’t delved much into the PUA literature, but my impression is that it focuses more on acquiring and controlling women than enjoying them once you have them. I don’t think that’s pragmatism, I think it’s missing the point.
It’s for this kind of insight that I frequent this community. Well-said. I knew something was bugging me. In trope terms, tt’s basically like wanting to take over the world, and not knowing what to do with it once you actually do win.
Would it really be so horrible if women are not what you think they “should” be? Would they be so horrible? A lot of things are not what you think women should be. Is a chair horrible for not being your ideal woman? A car? A spoon? You find uses for all of them, don’t you?
I can’t follow your chain of reasoning… It’s not a matter of them being women, that’s secondary to my needs. I wouldn’t mind a guy if being together with that person helped me fulfil my values (which don’t include “your romantic partner has to be of the opposite sex”).
The world is a wonderful place, and unwomen are among the most wonderful things in it. The world is a wonderful place, once you decide to live in it, instead of bemoaning that it isn’t what you think it should be.
How can the world be wonderful if it isn’t what I think it ought to be? The only way around that is to redefine my understanding of what it ought to be.
Otherwise, thank you for your post, this is being very interesting for me.
Does the expression “I don’t know any other way to live” sound familiar to you?
Should it? If this is an allusion, it’s going right past me.
I can’t follow your chain of reasoning…
I wasn’t trying to get at your sexual orientation with “unwomen”. That was meant to refer to “women who are unlike your ideal of what a woman and partner should be”. I think unwomen can be perfectly wonderful, and in fact, more wonderful than your ideal women. And even if they weren’t, unwomen have the merit of actually existing.
It’s basically like wanting to take over the world, and not knowing what to do with it once you actually do win.
That’s half of it. There was something additional that I was trying to get at. They have a whiff of incompetent egoists about them. They seem to look for powers against and over women, instead of powers for what they want with women. It’s just a game they’re playing against women, and they “win” when they get control. But as you say, they don’t give a lot of thought to what to do with a woman once they have control.
How can the world be wonderful if it isn’t what I think it ought to be?
That one really makes laugh. I mean that in a friendly way. You have an ideal in your mind that doesn’t correspond to the world, so you conclude that the world isn’t wonderful. You’ve set yourself a very tough standard for you being happy with the world. Your oughts don’t seem very conducive to your happiness. Why don’t you set them aside for a second, look at the world, and see what it has going for it in an unought way?
The only way around that is to redefine my understanding of what it ought to be.
There are other ways. For my part, I don’t think that the world has a duty to be anything, and it sure as hell doesn’t have a duty to correspond to my moral preferences.
I mean whether you’re familiar with the feeling, the state-of-mind that would generate such a phrase, not the phrase itself.
I thought you didn’t mean my sexual orientation, I just wished to point out that “being a woman” was far less important than “being a sapient being with whom I can satisfy my values”. I honestly don’t care if it’s a woman, a man, a robot, an alien, or an uplifted banana (well, unless they’re very unpleasant in to the senses).
I also contest the notion that my “ideal” women don’t exist. I happen to know at least three such women, possibly seven (eleven people if I count the males), they just happened to be taken or live very, very far away from me at the moment, or unable or unwilling to be in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex, chaste though it may be.
It’s just a game they’re playing against women, and they “win” when they get control.
That’s the Dark Side of the Arts you’re describing. Non LW could also be under the impression that being a “rationalist” is about winning arguments and uplifting oneself by telling other people how stupid they are. They’d be mistaken. I hope. Doesn’t stop some posters here to act like insufferable smug pricks, including our boss here (the fact that that piece is funny, for a certain value of funny, is beside the point XD).
Why don’t you set them aside for a second, look at the world, and see what it has going for it in an unought way?
Oh, but I do that all the time. I’m not too unhappy with the material world, as such. It’s people that confuse me, including myself. What I approve of, what I want, and what I like, don’t correlate very well, and it creates a lot of conflict and suffering, and I don’t know how to deal with that.
I for one went through the exact opposite trajectory.
A couple is an association of equals whose goal is to satisfy each of the parties’ values through love.
My values say that women are not children to be catered to or made happy by men. They are our equals, and we help and cater to each other, and we both let each other do that.
If, however, what satisfies your values is to be the altruistic party in the relationship, and the girl be the egoistic party, I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong; suit yourself.
In both cases, you’re applying normative standards to what you think the world should be like. I’ve found that relationships got easier, and life got better, when I started to focus on what the world is, instead of what I thought it should be.
When were relationships working? When was I happy? When was my partner happy?
You like the word “equal”, but I don’t see it applying to any discernible metric. Certainly no actual observation. When I started to actually pay attention to what was happening, I noticed that men and women are in general different in their wants, needs, desires, and satisfactions.
I once had much the same attitude that you had. Life got easier when I stopped acting on how life should be, and started acting more on how life is. I still have a ways to go in that regard.
It is amusing to see you call me “the altruistic party”. I’m actually ideologically egoistic, and a fan of Stirner. Selfishness isn’t about not making others happy, it’s about doing what you want. That’s what it is to “suit yourself”.
Well, then we’d be getting into a debate of Fake Altruism And Fake Selfishness And Fake Morality.
Thing is, if women from a specific generation or cultural backgound have been raised in such a way that their values are satisfied by a couple of assymetric power and function, and you think being with girls like that would satisfy your values, go ahead.
I for one find that “happiness” is far less important than “satisfying my values”. Since Celestia isn’t there to do that for me, I’ll need to work harder to at least get an approximation. But, yeah, duty and justice figure higher in my totem pole than joy or happiness or even peace, and it’s not a choice I’ve made.
As for how the world is, I haven’t really figured it out yet; people are mostly an enigma to me (a deliberate one, since most people are far less willing/driven to talk or even think about their goals, motivations, desires, and feelings than I am, which causes me no end of frustration and grief). And studying PUA and other “hard-nosed”, “pragmatic” sources is helping, but not much, and is costing me a lot in idealism, and motivation.
As for me, satisfying me is more important than satisfying my values. As I said, I’m ideologically egoistic.
Oh yes it is. To the extent that you’re a slave to duty, it’s because you choose to be one.
That’s the thing. People are quite predictable. In fact, you probably already know the predictive models, but are choosing instead to use your normative models to predict the world, or just as bad and much the same, modeling other people as if they have the same motivations that you do.
I haven’t delved much into the PUA literature, but my impression is that it focuses more on acquiring and controlling women than enjoying them once you have them. I don’t think that’s pragmatism, I think it’s missing the point.
If it’s costing you some idealism, it’s doing something useful. But if it’s costing you motivation, that’s not so helpful.
Would it really be so horrible if women are not what you think they “should” be? Would they be so horrible? A lot of things are not what you think women should be. Is a chair horrible for not being your ideal woman? A car? A spoon? You find uses for all of them, don’t you?
Look at the unwomen for what they are—are they so horrible? Entirely lacking in charm, beauty, warmth, intelligence? Maybe women don’t exist, and only unwomen do. What then? Time to throw yourself off a bridge?
The world is a wonderful place, and unwomen are among the most wonderful things in it. The world is a wonderful place, once you decide to live in it, instead of bemoaning that it isn’t what you think it should be.
… This sentence confuses me. Does the expression “I don’t know any other way to live” sound familiar to you?
I’ve tried that. It just gets me depressed, and doesn’t improve my predictive abilities at all; rather than make wrong predictions, I find myself unable to make any predictions.
It’s for this kind of insight that I frequent this community. Well-said. I knew something was bugging me. In trope terms, tt’s basically like wanting to take over the world, and not knowing what to do with it once you actually do win.
I can’t follow your chain of reasoning… It’s not a matter of them being women, that’s secondary to my needs. I wouldn’t mind a guy if being together with that person helped me fulfil my values (which don’t include “your romantic partner has to be of the opposite sex”).
How can the world be wonderful if it isn’t what I think it ought to be? The only way around that is to redefine my understanding of what it ought to be.
Otherwise, thank you for your post, this is being very interesting for me.
Should it? If this is an allusion, it’s going right past me.
I wasn’t trying to get at your sexual orientation with “unwomen”. That was meant to refer to “women who are unlike your ideal of what a woman and partner should be”. I think unwomen can be perfectly wonderful, and in fact, more wonderful than your ideal women. And even if they weren’t, unwomen have the merit of actually existing.
That’s half of it. There was something additional that I was trying to get at. They have a whiff of incompetent egoists about them. They seem to look for powers against and over women, instead of powers for what they want with women. It’s just a game they’re playing against women, and they “win” when they get control. But as you say, they don’t give a lot of thought to what to do with a woman once they have control.
That one really makes laugh. I mean that in a friendly way. You have an ideal in your mind that doesn’t correspond to the world, so you conclude that the world isn’t wonderful. You’ve set yourself a very tough standard for you being happy with the world. Your oughts don’t seem very conducive to your happiness. Why don’t you set them aside for a second, look at the world, and see what it has going for it in an unought way?
There are other ways. For my part, I don’t think that the world has a duty to be anything, and it sure as hell doesn’t have a duty to correspond to my moral preferences.
I mean whether you’re familiar with the feeling, the state-of-mind that would generate such a phrase, not the phrase itself.
I thought you didn’t mean my sexual orientation, I just wished to point out that “being a woman” was far less important than “being a sapient being with whom I can satisfy my values”. I honestly don’t care if it’s a woman, a man, a robot, an alien, or an uplifted banana (well, unless they’re very unpleasant in to the senses).
I also contest the notion that my “ideal” women don’t exist. I happen to know at least three such women, possibly seven (eleven people if I count the males), they just happened to be taken or live very, very far away from me at the moment, or unable or unwilling to be in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex, chaste though it may be.
That’s the Dark Side of the Arts you’re describing. Non LW could also be under the impression that being a “rationalist” is about winning arguments and uplifting oneself by telling other people how stupid they are. They’d be mistaken. I hope. Doesn’t stop some posters here to act like insufferable smug pricks, including our boss here (the fact that that piece is funny, for a certain value of funny, is beside the point XD).
Oh, but I do that all the time. I’m not too unhappy with the material world, as such. It’s people that confuse me, including myself. What I approve of, what I want, and what I like, don’t correlate very well, and it creates a lot of conflict and suffering, and I don’t know how to deal with that.