You join the Red team, go out to a bar, meet a girl you’ve never seen before. That is a novel scenario—the alternative is to accept that the Red techniques work because of biological imperatives hardwired into all human females, something I think you’d be loath to do.
Red Theory: Go to the bar wearing a suit and rolex because it signals wealth and status, find a girl and take her home. Make an advance. She’ll act reluctant at first, but she’s just testing your dominance so you should make another attempt later on. She’ll rationalize it later in the morning—you have to provide plausible deniability, so she can pretend that “it just happened” and enjoy herself without feeling like a slut. She’ll be attracted to your willingness to assert your desire.
Blue Theory: The display of wealth did catch her eye—she was raised in a traditional manner and wanted to settle down with someone who could provide, and she’d always had a thing for suits. However, once she got back to your place, the woman really didn’t want to, but she felt awkward, was alone with a strange man, and was too tipsy to make good decisions. She just wanted to get the situation over with and go home. She regretted playing along with it and not giving a more clear denial the next morning. Her self esteem lowered as a result of the encounter.
The above scenario plays out repeatedly in clubs and bars everywhere. Same sequence of events, and same predictions about what will happen...but very different underlying models of what is happening. Why should Red get to be the privileged hypothesis about what’s really going on here? Especially when Blue seems more in line with what people say they have experienced in such situations?
(Also, “a technique produces the results it has produced in the past” is not the same as “empirical testing of a hypothesis”)
once she got back to your place, the woman really didn’t want to
What exactly did she go “back to your place” for? What were her expectations at the moment she said “OK, let’s go to your place”?
same predictions about what will happen
Really? That just casts women as helpless powerless victims. Sure you want to go in that direction?
Why should Red get to be the privileged hypothesis about what’s really going on here?
So, what’s the Blue hypothesis? Why did the woman go back to his place? Why did she consent? Which falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) assertion about what really happened can Blue make?
Blue seems more in line with what people say they have experienced in such situations?
Really? That just casts women as helpless powerless victims. Sure you want to go in that direction?
Sort of, yes. I think a large segment of humanity (women and men) are hopelessly unable to assert their own preferences, and if an assertive person tells them to do something, they just sort of...go along with it. This is even more apparent when alcohol is added to the mix. You don’t even need to go so far as the Milgram experiment—humans are shockingly (pun intended) compliant to much weaker forms of authority. The aversion to conflict can override a lot of other preferences. It’s kind of disappointing, but that’s just how humans are.
And that’s before you add in complications relating to impulse control and people’s short term vs. long term preferences.
However, it’s not really victimhood I’m describing here—what I described isn’t quite at the point where I’d call it a crime scene. I’d say it’s primarily a mis-communication of preferences between two parties, fueled by hyper-assertiveness on one end and conflict-aversion on the other.This is the reason that feminists advocate much stronger forms of communication and consent.
selection bias
Yes, but it would be foolhardy to ignore available evidence in favor of some hypothetical speculation about what the evidence that slips my notice might be. In any case, this seems like the sort of scenario where I’d advocate everyone err on the side of caution by making sure to get verbal consent in the absence of strong, insistent application of social pressure, and most importantly to take reluctance at face value.
I think a large segment of humanity (women and men) are hopelessly unable to assert their own preferences, and if an assertive person tells them to do something, they just sort of...go along with it.
Well, that’s interesting. To hell with who gets to screw whom—what do you think about social and political implications of this? This approach basically says that democracy cannot be anything but a sham, for example. It also heavily implies that people need a benevolent philosopher-king to rule over them.
If a “large segment” of people have, basically, reduced capabilities, what does that imply about their rights?
it’s not really victimhood I’m describing here—what I described isn’t quite at the point where I’d call it a crime scene
Oh, come on, the common use of the word “victim” nowadays (especially in the SJ circles) has nothing to do with crimes and legality in general.
what do you think about social and political implications of this?
Pretty bleak. See: Third Reich. But I don’t see how knowing that humans are vulnerable to do things they don’t like when authority tells them to means we should have more central authorities—there’s some inferences you’ve made that are opaque to me. If anything, I would think it means we should be all the more suspicious of authority and vigilantly maintain egalitarianism. (Of course, if you’re somehow guaranteeing that they be benevolent and competent philosophers to boot, that does seem pretty good...)
Oh, come one
I don’t think there is any need to adopt any other group’s broadened usage of “victim” here?
it means we should be all the more suspicious of authority
Your premise is that a “large segment” of people is basically incapable of this, and even if it gets suspicious can be just intimidated and shouted down into submission.
I don’t mean this as confrontational way, just an observation: there’s this pattern of where I write something, and then you respond as if I wrote a subtly exaggerated version containing some additional points which I didn’t actually write. This comment really typifies the tendency.
Just because I think many humans have a weakness for obeying authority and avoiding conflict (do you actually dispute that?) doesn’t mean I think society is going to collapse as a result of this tendency
Just because a lot of drunk people at a night club are often pressured into making quick decisions they regret later doesn’t mean that no one is capable of questioning authority and standing up for themselves.
Maintaining egalitarianism means preventing people from systematically exerting power over one another in a way that significantly overrides each others preferences, and that’s not a non sequitur.
there’s this pattern of where I write something, and then you repeat back a subtly exaggerated version
Yes, I find it an efficient way to gain understanding of other people’s positions. Basically, if you make a point, I don’t know—and I lack a proper word for that—how far are you willing to take it. So I sharpen that point and repeat it back to you. There are several possible outcomes. One is that I misunderstood you and what I repeated back to you isn’t what you meant. Another one is that yes, you are fine with the “sharpened” point. Yet another one is that the sharpened point goes too far so you want to define a boundary beyond which your point doesn’t apply. In any case I understand your point much better.
doesn’t mean I think society is going to collapse as a result of this tendency
I don’t have in mind a collapse. I have in mind a totalitarian state.
systematically exerting power over one another in a way that significantly overrides each others preferences
As far as I can tell, the main function of democracy is to prevent the power structure from dramatically violating the citizen’s preferences. Totalitarian rule doesn’t have that feature, creating a higher risk of it becoming an unpleasant to live in, as well as unstable.
Isn’t that, essentially, what government is?
Yup.
There’s a balance to be struck between facilitating centralized organization and decision making, which involves a top down structure, and preventing top-down coercion.
I think we’re reaching realms of political science which are outside the domain of things which I know about / have thought about enough about to speak confidently.
Red Theory: Go to the bar wearing a suit and rolex because it signals wealth and status, find a girl and take her home. Make an advance. She’ll act reluctant at first, but she’s just testing your dominance so you should make another attempt later on. She’ll rationalize it later in the morning—you have to provide plausible deniability, so she can pretend that “it just happened” and enjoy herself without feeling like a slut. She’ll be attracted to your willingness to assert your desire.
Blue Theory: The display of wealth did catch her eye—she was raised in a traditional manner and wanted to settle down with someone who could provide, and she’d always had a thing for suits. However, once she got back to your place, the woman really didn’t want to, but she felt awkward, was alone with a strange man, and was too tipsy to make good decisions. She just wanted to get the situation over with and go home. She regretted playing along with it and not giving a more clear denial the next morning. Her self esteem lowered as a result of the encounter.
The above scenario plays out repeatedly in clubs and bars everywhere. Same sequence of events, and same predictions about what will happen...but very different underlying models of what is happening. Why should Red get to be the privileged hypothesis about what’s really going on here? Especially when Blue seems more in line with what people say they have experienced in such situations?
(Also, “a technique produces the results it has produced in the past” is not the same as “empirical testing of a hypothesis”)
What exactly did she go “back to your place” for? What were her expectations at the moment she said “OK, let’s go to your place”?
Really? That just casts women as helpless powerless victims. Sure you want to go in that direction?
So, what’s the Blue hypothesis? Why did the woman go back to his place? Why did she consent? Which falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) assertion about what really happened can Blue make?
You know about selection bias, right?
Sort of, yes. I think a large segment of humanity (women and men) are hopelessly unable to assert their own preferences, and if an assertive person tells them to do something, they just sort of...go along with it. This is even more apparent when alcohol is added to the mix. You don’t even need to go so far as the Milgram experiment—humans are shockingly (pun intended) compliant to much weaker forms of authority. The aversion to conflict can override a lot of other preferences. It’s kind of disappointing, but that’s just how humans are.
And that’s before you add in complications relating to impulse control and people’s short term vs. long term preferences.
However, it’s not really victimhood I’m describing here—what I described isn’t quite at the point where I’d call it a crime scene. I’d say it’s primarily a mis-communication of preferences between two parties, fueled by hyper-assertiveness on one end and conflict-aversion on the other.This is the reason that feminists advocate much stronger forms of communication and consent.
Yes, but it would be foolhardy to ignore available evidence in favor of some hypothetical speculation about what the evidence that slips my notice might be. In any case, this seems like the sort of scenario where I’d advocate everyone err on the side of caution by making sure to get verbal consent in the absence of strong, insistent application of social pressure, and most importantly to take reluctance at face value.
Well, that’s interesting. To hell with who gets to screw whom—what do you think about social and political implications of this? This approach basically says that democracy cannot be anything but a sham, for example. It also heavily implies that people need a benevolent philosopher-king to rule over them.
If a “large segment” of people have, basically, reduced capabilities, what does that imply about their rights?
Oh, come on, the common use of the word “victim” nowadays (especially in the SJ circles) has nothing to do with crimes and legality in general.
Pretty bleak. See: Third Reich. But I don’t see how knowing that humans are vulnerable to do things they don’t like when authority tells them to means we should have more central authorities—there’s some inferences you’ve made that are opaque to me. If anything, I would think it means we should be all the more suspicious of authority and vigilantly maintain egalitarianism. (Of course, if you’re somehow guaranteeing that they be benevolent and competent philosophers to boot, that does seem pretty good...)
I don’t think there is any need to adopt any other group’s broadened usage of “victim” here?
Well, should we stock on ammo and beans, then?
Your premise is that a “large segment” of people is basically incapable of this, and even if it gets suspicious can be just intimidated and shouted down into submission.
That’s a non sequitur.
I don’t mean this as confrontational way, just an observation: there’s this pattern of where I write something, and then you respond as if I wrote a subtly exaggerated version containing some additional points which I didn’t actually write. This comment really typifies the tendency.
Just because I think many humans have a weakness for obeying authority and avoiding conflict (do you actually dispute that?) doesn’t mean I think society is going to collapse as a result of this tendency
Just because a lot of drunk people at a night club are often pressured into making quick decisions they regret later doesn’t mean that no one is capable of questioning authority and standing up for themselves.
Maintaining egalitarianism means preventing people from systematically exerting power over one another in a way that significantly overrides each others preferences, and that’s not a non sequitur.
Yes, I find it an efficient way to gain understanding of other people’s positions. Basically, if you make a point, I don’t know—and I lack a proper word for that—how far are you willing to take it. So I sharpen that point and repeat it back to you. There are several possible outcomes. One is that I misunderstood you and what I repeated back to you isn’t what you meant. Another one is that yes, you are fine with the “sharpened” point. Yet another one is that the sharpened point goes too far so you want to define a boundary beyond which your point doesn’t apply. In any case I understand your point much better.
I don’t have in mind a collapse. I have in mind a totalitarian state.
Isn’t that, essentially, what government is?
As far as I can tell, the main function of democracy is to prevent the power structure from dramatically violating the citizen’s preferences. Totalitarian rule doesn’t have that feature, creating a higher risk of it becoming an unpleasant to live in, as well as unstable.
Yup.
There’s a balance to be struck between facilitating centralized organization and decision making, which involves a top down structure, and preventing top-down coercion.
I think we’re reaching realms of political science which are outside the domain of things which I know about / have thought about enough about to speak confidently.
It was a nice arc from PUA techniques to viability of sociopolitical structures :-)