Voted up, however, your second version of Roko’s statement couldn’t really fit into his post as a whole.
Basically, Roko’s position was “I wish male rationalists who care about saving the world were also more interested in things like money and status and sex with women, because in the pursuit of those goals they would incidentally become better at saving the world.”
Or at least, that’s what I think he was saying. As I say, your second, “acceptable” version of what he said isn’t really what he said at all.
This, I think, is the core of this whole ongoing disagreement.
He could have foregone mentioning “sex with attractive women” altogether, as it is one of many, many things that higher wealth and status may be conducive to the attainment of. He went out of his way to make a normative statement that men should value sex (specifically) with very attractive (only relevant adjective) women (plural), and thus that a failure to desire having sex with numerous attractive women was some form of objective shortcoming that deserves (and was given) suitable derision. This seems seriously unrelated to his point, since (1) if this is your goal, there are probably easier ways to obtain it than by seeking wealth and status, and (2) if you need to be motivated to obtain wealth and status, there are many, many other desires that could legitimately motivate you, not least of which are the goals you already have.
Had he said:
If people here were more motivated to obtain wealth and social status, it would be highly conducive to achieving goals they already have. Indeed, if people were to put a higher value on nice houses, fancy cars, other material goods, or more desirable romantic, social, or sexual partners, this change in values might help them better achieve the goals that they already have.
This, I believe, succeeds both at being less offensive and at better communicating the point in question.
I realize there may be something unpleasant in the implication that having greater wealth and status are conducive to the goal of having more desirable partners, sexual or otherwise, but that does seem to be, in most cases, reality—it often helps and almost never hurts, and the statement is made with an appropriate “might.”
Voted up, however, your second version of Roko’s statement couldn’t really fit into his post as a whole.
Basically, Roko’s position was “I wish male rationalists who care about saving the world were also more interested in things like money and status and sex with women, because in the pursuit of those goals they would incidentally become better at saving the world.”
Or at least, that’s what I think he was saying. As I say, your second, “acceptable” version of what he said isn’t really what he said at all.
This, I think, is the core of this whole ongoing disagreement.
He could have foregone mentioning “sex with attractive women” altogether, as it is one of many, many things that higher wealth and status may be conducive to the attainment of. He went out of his way to make a normative statement that men should value sex (specifically) with very attractive (only relevant adjective) women (plural), and thus that a failure to desire having sex with numerous attractive women was some form of objective shortcoming that deserves (and was given) suitable derision. This seems seriously unrelated to his point, since (1) if this is your goal, there are probably easier ways to obtain it than by seeking wealth and status, and (2) if you need to be motivated to obtain wealth and status, there are many, many other desires that could legitimately motivate you, not least of which are the goals you already have.
Had he said:
This, I believe, succeeds both at being less offensive and at better communicating the point in question.
I realize there may be something unpleasant in the implication that having greater wealth and status are conducive to the goal of having more desirable partners, sexual or otherwise, but that does seem to be, in most cases, reality—it often helps and almost never hurts, and the statement is made with an appropriate “might.”