Am I exploited by curvy figures and symmetric faces too?
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
But even then we have no real data on any such traits in female LW users!
It seems like we’re disagreeing about something testable (specifically, whether susceptibility to PUA-style techniques correlates negatively with rationality). I am not particularly well-versed in all things PUA, but I have an inkling that some sort of rationality test could be incorporated in a routine, and we could find out that way.
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
You are missing the point. Ceteris paribus, I end up enjoying relationships both long term and short term with women that have curvy figures and symmetrical faces more than with those who don’t.
I might end up behaving disproportionately to the real strength of this signal, but before singling this out as a great irrationality that it is supposedly unethical to “exploit” me by using to plan your behaviour towards me, ask yourself if this is that much big a deal. Consider that we often overestimate the strength of signals like education, taste in music, intelligence, religious convictions, political stances, nationality or hair colour when it comes to picking mates.
Also if people genuinely crave X, but overestimate their utility gained from X, why in the world is it unethical to still optimize for X? I mean people are better of than if I hadn’t, they just aren’t as much better off as they thought they would be.
That implies symmetry and curvaceousness of the persuader are secondary in importance in terms of the views you hold.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
You are right you didn’t say it. But you did use the word “exploit” and that does carry such connotations.
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
It seems like we’re disagreeing about something testable (specifically, whether susceptibility to PUA-style techniques correlates negatively with rationality). I am not particularly well-versed in all things PUA, but I have an inkling that some sort of rationality test could be incorporated in a routine, and we could find out that way.
You are missing the point. Ceteris paribus, I end up enjoying relationships both long term and short term with women that have curvy figures and symmetrical faces more than with those who don’t.
I might end up behaving disproportionately to the real strength of this signal, but before singling this out as a great irrationality that it is supposedly unethical to “exploit” me by using to plan your behaviour towards me, ask yourself if this is that much big a deal. Consider that we often overestimate the strength of signals like education, taste in music, intelligence, religious convictions, political stances, nationality or hair colour when it comes to picking mates.
Also if people genuinely crave X, but overestimate their utility gained from X, why in the world is it unethical to still optimize for X? I mean people are better of than if I hadn’t, they just aren’t as much better off as they thought they would be.
That implies symmetry and curvaceousness of the persuader are secondary in importance in terms of the views you hold.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
You are right you didn’t say it. But you did use the word “exploit” and that does carry such connotations.