I have seen a a post on LW that suggest RationalWiki is a poor source of information. Their post on Pick-Up Artists also avoids some key questions and focuses on the controversial points, making the article misleading. That is just two observations. What do you think about the site in general?
Epistemic status: Exploring new area, making bold claim What is a shittest? In conventional usage, a shit-test is a behavior strategy in which a woman challenges a man's status/value/loyaly/ by observing his response. Some common variants include: giving a man an unreasonable task to see if he does it (where...
How should a rationalist approach dating? - I have just finished Geoffrey Miller's excellent book Mate, a reductionist, signalling-heavy guide to how to attracting women for men. This post lays my "dating plan" a la Miller. I post for constructive comments and to give an example of applying LessWrong style...
I am currently improving my courtship skills and am reading Mate by Geoffrey Miller. The book relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, which I was previously critical of. My earlier perspective was that because we know little about the human evolutionary environment, evo psych is full of "fully general arguments". I...
I've seen discussion of IQ tests around LW. People imply there's a benefit to taking the test. I assume it is related to belief in belief or something. Can anyone flesh out this argument?
Beloved LessWrongers, Recently I experimented with radically changing my texting strategy to increase women's interest. It was stunningly successful because I fixed awkward conversation killers and learn to perform high-status behaviors. Reductionism OP, please nerf. I am now considering applying the same strategy to my in-person flirting. Ten or so...
I have seen a a post on LW that suggest RationalWiki is a poor source of information. Their post on Pick-Up Artists also avoids some key questions and focuses on the controversial points, making the article misleading. That is just two observations. What do you think about the site in...
David Roodman was fired from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for his poor office politics skillS. He’s my greatest role model so you’re in good company.
He talks about it on his 80k interview, iirc.
Much of this thread is long time rationalists talking about the experience of new people like me. Here's my experience as someone who found rationality a year ago. It bears more closely on the question than the comments of outliers. I read the sequences then applied rat ideas to dating, and my experience closely resembles Jacobians model. Note that LW has little dating advice, so I did the research and application myself. I couldn't just borrow techniques, had to apply rationality[^1]. My experience is evidence that rationality is improving our outcomes.
I picked up The Sequences in February 2020 on a recommendation from 80k. I read the Yud's sequences cover to cover.... (read 433 more words →)
Interesting question.
A separate reference class is cartels formed around profitable emerging technology. Many of the examples you cited refer to state lead projects in basic science. We would expect breakthroughs to cluster there because the cutting edge is rarely on the commercial applications side. The problem is that IF artificial intelligence advances become immediately profitable at some time, companies
Do you believe that unpopular statements, supported by novel arguments, damage the commons? I think having more voices particularly voices that challenge our preconceived notions and values is good for the commons.
I don't agree that I should be required to anticipate all counterarguments. That seems a bit silly.
The main complaint people make about shittesting is that its irrational or unfair. That complaint was addressed by my post by reframing it from the perspective of the tester and their goals. I did not make that argument explicit to avoid insulting the reader and to stay within my own experience (robustness).
People have raised an additional claim that some forms of shittesting are used for abuse. This is a rare complaint and I was interested to learn it, but I was not obligated to scour the interwebs for complaints before pointing out the value of an oft-maligned behavior.
Those are some cool phrases to pull apart different types of testing partners. I think using that phrase would change people's moral attachments to the same behavior. I also think they are generally more precise which is cool.
Woah woah woah, I don't think my title is "simply wrong". I could have been more sensitive to your concern, but I'm not endorsing such sweeping moral generalizations about complicated courtship behaviors at all. Let's break it down in a couple ways.
Firstly, you've asserted a pretty narrow definition of the word shittest, where it means "loyalty test". In the usage cases I've seen, a minority of uses of shittest refer to loyalty testing. The most common usage case is shittesting of a man's status or social skills. So if you are asserting that loyalty tests are ethically wrong in all cases, that does not mean that shittesting is ethically wrong in all... (read more)
Mate is very good. I should write an entire post reviewing the book.
Much of the value from Mate is that it helps you understand your own experience. The most valuable single chapter in Mate is the chapter on mating markets. The effect size of moving mating markets is so huge that its obvious to me. Of the five mating markets I've explored, by far the largest factor is the demographic ratios. When I was 24 and in a terrible mating market, my friends really did tell me the market didn't matter and the problem was my behaviors. I felt so unnatractive and stupid and socially incompetent while in that market. In retrospect the religious customs of that country just made dating a foreign atheist impossible. My mate value determined my outcomes much less than I thought.
If any straight readers are in a terrible mating market I have three recommendations. Read "Mate" then watch "Sex and the City". Also, consider moving.
I'm sorry that your ex hurt you like that. It sounds terrible.
I also apologize for the way I titled and framed the ideas of this post. I was aware that it would provoke strong emotional responses, and intended that. Many people respond to slightly edgey dating posts with strong norm-enforcing comments. I like these comments because they highlight places where readers misunderstand my arguments, they tend to come with compelling advice, and I can evaluate the moral content of dating strategies.
It did not occur to me that I would hurt people by reminding them of the pain that so many of us carry from our romantic lives. But that was reasonably foreseeable from my perspective. You deserve an apology.
Epistemic status: Exploring new area, making bold claim
In conventional usage, a shit-test is a behavior strategy in which a woman challenges a man's status/value/loyaly/ by observing his response. Some common variants include: giving a man an unreasonable task to see if he does it (where negotiating or refusing the request would signal high status), insulting a suitor, or behaving in a particularly unpleasant way to test for loyalty. The phrase "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best" is sometimes the idea. I won't link to any PUA or romance blogs becuase most of them suck: as always I recommend Geoffrey Miller's... (read 593 more words →)
The problem with mansplaining -
Why do men mansplain and why do people (particularly women) hate it? People sometimes struggle to articulate what mansplaining is and why they dislike it, but I'm surely not the discoverer of this argument.
Recently I was talking to a colleage during a strategy game session. He said "You are bad because you made these mistakes" and I said "yes I am bad at these aspects of the game. Alsol, you should have invested more into anti-aircraft guns". He immediately began repeating a list of mistakes I had made, as evidence that his investment in AA was optimal. But I have seen the AA formula so I made a... (read more)
How should a rationalist approach dating? - I have just finished Geoffrey Miller's excellent book Mate, a reductionist, signalling-heavy guide to how to attracting women for men. This post lays my "dating plan" a la Miller. I post for constructive comments and to give an example of applying LessWrong style rationality. The plan is for me, a heterosexual man, but I appreciate input from all gender/sexual identities.
***EDIT*** A NOTE ON MOTIVATION AND ETHICS
I'm writing this because I am sad that so many are alone and don't know why. I was lonely for much of my life and lacked tools to understand or change my situation. Talking to friends and family taught me... (read 891 more words →)
I am currently improving my courtship skills and am reading Mate by Geoffrey Miller. The book relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, which I was previously critical of.
My earlier perspective was that because we know little about the human evolutionary environment, evo psych is full of "fully general arguments". I can assert lots of attributes to the evo environ to support any position, so I can support no position.
But I do not have a good source of priors for what women find sexy. Evo psych is offering priors and most of them so far match observational data. Was my previous view of Evo psych wrong, and if so how?
I've seen discussion of IQ tests around LW. People imply there's a benefit to taking the test. I assume it is related to belief in belief or something. Can anyone flesh out this argument?
Beloved LessWrongers,
Recently I experimented with radically changing my texting strategy to increase women's interest. It was stunningly successful because I fixed awkward conversation killers and learn to perform high-status behaviors. Reductionism OP, please nerf.
I am now considering applying the same strategy to my in-person flirting. Ten or so behaviors (eye contact, slow movements, posture, etc.) are likely to inspire attraction. Given that learning the optimal behaviors in texting was so effective, I intend to learn the in-person behaviors next. I will hire an acting coach and we will pretend flirt exactly like learning a golf swing - adding a few more behaviors each time until they feel natural. I expect the acting coach will have other tips.
Some say "faking" confidence is impossible. But they said the same for tinder. Furthermore, if there is a 90% chance they are right that confidence is unfakable, the acting class is still positive utility.
If I'm missing something, post below.
Best, Snog
I have seen a a post on LW that suggest RationalWiki is a poor source of information. Their post on Pick-Up Artists also avoids some key questions and focuses on the controversial points, making the article misleading. That is just two observations. What do you think about the site in general?
Preregister a Tinder Randomized Control Tiral:
In a previous post I suggested that early in a relationship hetero women prefer men who show only slight interest. I argued the optimal early dating strategy is to show only as much interest as she does and cultivate a state of "Is he into me or does he just want to be friends". This RCT is intended to test the theoretical issue, and advise future Tinder and Bumble policy specifically.
Method:
I will randomly select Tinder/Bumble matches to receive disinterested, low-energy messages and the rest will receive control messages. Matches will be split by flipping a coin. My swiping will continue as normal, as the algorithm is weird... (read more)
The affect heuristic suggests that being attractive has many subtle advantages, both in social and professional life. These advantages might be too subtle to notice at any one interaction, but they are important in aggregate. If getting rhinoplasty made me 5 percentile more attractive (say from 35th percentile to 40th, or 65th to 70th), over my entire life it might be worthwhile. Rhinoplasty in a low-healthcare-costs country might run just 3,000 USD, and to my knowledge is a one time expense which does not require repairs or updates.
How can I assess the value for money/time? For one thing, asking people if you have a big nose is awkward and they would mostly... (read more)
This post is about applying rationality to my dating life. It is gooey and rich in self-disclosure. But it was a great triumph over motivated reasoning.
I notice my confusion
When I was 22 I that my romances began mainly when I was busy. They began most often, paradoxically, when I was unable to pay attention to my interest in early courtship. The observation was interesting but did not then replace my preferred explanation for romantic successes and failures.
At the time I subscribed to, what I call, the “mental health” hypothesis[1]. When I was healthy and confident women could sense it and chose to date me. Sometimes I became “unhealthy” and women became disinterested.... (read 1102 more words →)
Thanks for this well researched comment.
I believe you that the experts rationalize their behavior like so. The problem is that underselling a growing emergency was a terrible advocacy plan. Maybe it covered their asses, but it screwed over their stakeholders by giving us less time to prepare.
Their argument really proves too much. For example, the Wuhan provincial government could also use it to justify the disastrous coverup.