site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35687 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not about social skills. It's about the fact that women are only attracted to a small minority of men. Any society where women are free to make their own sexual choices is going to be a society where the majority of men end up as incels.

Completely normal guys who shower and hold jobs and have friends and are non-obese or autistic get lectured by feminists that doing the bare minimum doesn't entitle them to a girlfriend while a small number of men plow their way through entire harems. And not even good men, but terrible human beings like Henry and Dean Moriarity, because not only are women only attracted to a small minority of men, but the minority of men they are attracted to are cocky assholes with options.

We increasingly live in a world where the average guy's best chance of getting married is to wife-up a 30+ single mother after she falls off the bottom of Chad's booty call list. And if you are an average man in your teens and twenties, you don't even get that, you get a "fuck you" and told to wait your turn.

If you wanted to fix this with advanced technology, and you did not want to resort to wire-heading or something morally equivalent like creating non-conscious sycophantic cat girls, digital or otherwise... well, you could create conscious male-complements that required some effort and level of social skills to successfully court but who were not impossible to please the way that human women are, what Eliezer calls verthandi... or you could modify human women to actually be satisfiable by regular men, perhaps with human men being modified in some other way in return... or, you know, we could just go back to what worked for the last 5000 years and force women to get married while they are still young to hard-working, law-abiding men, who would then be allowed to take their marital rights whenever they wanted (hey, you don't even need the advanced technology for that one!)

But if you don't want to wirehead, and you don't want to create sycophantic cat girls who will fuck and cuddle you at the drop of a hat, and you don't want to create bespoke Belldandys who will act like the love interest of a shonen romcom and get together with the nerdy loser after a few years of character growth and sexual tension, and you don't want to edit existing human women to make them something that could ever be satisfied with not being the exclusive wife of Chad, and you are not willing to bite the bullet and force young women to get married and perform their damn marital duties...

...then the problem is over-constrained and has no solution.

Any society where women are free to make their own sexual choices is going to be a society where the majority of men end up as incels.

Seems like this is a claim that should come with some evidence. Depending on what you mean by "free to make their own sexual choices," women have more or less been able to choose and reject suitors for centuries in the West. And even in ancient times, they usually had some say in who they got married off to. Where they didn't, they were literally property, and if you are advocating that we'd be better off in a world where fathers simply sell their daughters and females are livestock, well... You need to read less Dread Jim. In very few societies have women ever been sexual and breeding chattel in the way he keeps advocating.

He did. It’s the old OKCupid data showing that, while male rate the average woman as averagely attractive, women rate the average man as extremely unattractive. And indeed any man below the 5th percentile or so.

Of course, it would be nice to have replications but there never will be, because if true this strongly indicates that any society where women are free to choose their mates or to remain single will be one where huge numbers of both sexes die alone. The latter choice was not possible in historic societies and is the main reason for our current predicament IMO. That is why I advocate for progressive and extremely high rates of taxation for single men and women approaching 30.

From the link:

Men don’t just find women more attractive; men’s ratings closely follow a bell curve, with 6% of women getting the minimum rating and 6% getting the maximum rating.

Women don’t just find men less attractive; the median and mode rating is 2 out of 7. Even more strikingly, the second most-common rating is 1 out of 7 — and near-zero men in the sample received 7 out of 7. (Over the years, by the way, I’ve repeatedly said “exactly zero,” but if you look close at the original post archived by Gwern, that’s not quite true).

The OkCupid results are far from unique. But the graphs are stark enough to inspire mutual anger. Common angry male reactions include: “Women have absurdly unrealistic standards” as well as “Women are just cruel.” Common angry female responses include: “It’s not our fault that most men suck” and “Why should I settle?”

But the only thing less constructive than anger is mutual anger. The data reveal an ugly truth that we all need to face. While there are several ways to capture this ugly truth, my favorite is just: The typical man disgusts the typical woman. You can expand this to: The median man moderately disgusts the typical woman, and the bottom quarter of men strongly disgust the typical woman.

[Various musings on how men and women can treat each other with empathy]

Update: Stefan Schubert points out that the OKCupid estimates of the male-female gap are unusually extreme. Emil Kirkegaard agrees after thoroughly reviewing a wide range of measures. True enough, but we should trust the OKCupid data more. The big advantage of the dating website rankings is that they greatly reduce Social Desirability Bias by getting both men and women in a “What do you REALLY think?” frame of mind.

That is why I advocate for progressive and extremely high rates of taxation for single men and women approaching 30.

You're still doing it. If men are single because women would prefer not to settle for anyone but Chad, taxing single men is punishing the victim.

Men and women. If both sexes are aware of an imminent need to pair up, I think that they will be able to sort it out. The current system encourages both sexes to shoot for the stars and crash to earth.

If the men are looking for Chad, that's a different problem. But the OKCupid data you were referring to earlier do not indicate it's "men and women".

You’re implying there’s no marginal men who who would marry before 30 facing huge tax penalties but don’t when they aren’t facing those penalties? That seems unlikely. Many men are in long relationships around that age that would likely see faster marriage and children. Others would feel more pressure to find a spouse. So would women since the same would apply to them, and bigamy remains illegal in much of the West. So, yeah, I’m pretty sure it would make a big difference.

I am sympathetic to the idea of a bachelor tax, but it seems like it would either end up being a cruel punishment on the unattractive. And if you add some sort of loophole, it is bound to get exploited (see: professional rejecters)

There couldn’t be professional rejecters – you’d get 3 rejects and then you’re out, you pay the bachelor-spinster tax. If you do not reject, and are therefore rejected by those who drop out, you keep getting official dates with counterparts. Imagine the creatures who would find each other in the deepest depths of hell, 20-30 one-sided rejections below ground.

Anyway the real problem is not lack of cohabitation/marriage but childnessness. And that power lies entirely in women’s hands, legally. Just give some of it back to men: no abortion or contraceptives unless the husband/boyfriend gives his consent. His DNA, his choice, it takes two to tango, whatever cliché you prefer. Then you put the spinster tax on childless couples.

Or just pay like 10% of the most motherhood-friendly women to produce 20 children and raise them in an orphanage (they can visit of course) , that also works and intrudes less in people's personal lives.

Or just pay like 10% of the most motherhood-friendly women to produce 20 children and raise them in an orphanage (they can visit of course) , that also works and intrudes less in people's personal lives.

I am always amazed at the things people will propose just to avoid rolling back 70 years of feminism.

Can’t turn back abortifacients.

And it’s one thing to want more children, another to force others to have children they don’t want to have.

Just give some of it back to men: no abortion or contraceptives unless the husband/boyfriend gives his consent.

In most longterm cohabiting childless couples the man is often as or more opposed to kids than the woman.

He has no say in the matter legally, therefore his opinion is irrelevant and he is blameless.

Besides, let’s go with your hypothesis, say in 40% of couples who could be having more children, the woman holds out – remove her lock, and that’s still a substantial increase in fertility.

Or just pay like 10% of the most motherhood-friendly women to produce 20 children and raise them in an orphanage (they can visit of course) , that also works and intrudes less in people's personal lives.

Orphanages???

This exists, it's called surrogacy, there are couples who will pay for it, and there would be more if it were subsidized, as there's a waiting list for adoption of young children, though 20 sounds excessive. There probably isn't any way to make giving birth more than a couple of times for someone else not extremely low status. There was a thread a bit ago on DSL where a poster was talking about considering surrogacy so that his hot young wife doesn't lose her figure, and there's no way for the relationship between him and the surrogate, or the well off gay couple and the surrogate not to be pure power dynamics at scale.

Pumping out 20 children would be their career, they’d be comfortable. Just wombs essentially; artificial ones would also work. Our bottleneck is in the production of children, yet paradoxically, in resources, children are not costly, and we are swimming in resources. It should be easy to lift the barriers and ramp up production, provided we do not take an exceedingly sentimental stance on where children come from (“when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much….”) .

Then, if most women would rather have status than children, that’s not the state’s problem. It gets its taxpayers anyway, and children are brought into the world, which I find morally good, while still not forcing anyone.

More comments

A bachelor/spinster tax wouldn't necessarily be a cruel punishment on the ugly, because it would encourage them to couple up with eachother. A punishment on the shy, maybe.

Most girls are shy by default (at least when it comes to dating), particularly the ugly ones.

I'm not necessarily sure this is the case; I suspect fewer options encourages more active attempts to garner attention.

More beautiful people can wait for love to fall out of the sky, but less conventionally attractive people don't have this option and tend to have to fight for it. Attractive people can afford to be coquettish, less attractive people need to be direct. You can tell this is the case by how strongly many women react to the idea of asking men out: the implication is that you're a loser if you have to ask a man out -- what are you, a pick me?

You’re implying there’s no marginal men who who would marry before 30 facing huge tax penalties but don’t when they aren’t facing those penalties?

That is not, in fact, what I am implying. I am implying that the penalties on men would barely move the needle (except perhaps in useless ways such as sham marriages for cash), not that it literally wouldn't move it at all.

I suspect that it would convert a large number of cohabiting relationships into marriage.

Assuming we accept OK Cupid data as accurate (which I see no reason not to), it still captures only a slice of online perspective. The incel takeaway is "Women are unreasonably selective and would rather get run through by Chads than settle down with a nice ordinary guy." And yet plenty of nice ordinary guys find wives. Hmm. Curious.

I believe the modern dating market is hellish and I'm glad I'm not in it. But I'm personally a data point in favor of "you don't have to be a Chad, and no,.you don't have to settle for an obese single mother either."

I am unsympathetic to arguments against women having choices for a number of reasons, but most of all because the men most likely to make them tend to also make it obvious why they don't get chosen.

I think one could make a very reasonable argument that both women and men shouldn't have choices (or at least, not that many).

What is that argument? Given a choice between loneliness and being stuck with someone undesirable, the latter is worse, IMO.

When you're given too many choices (and particularly when some of those choices are sort of fake), your standards for "undesirable" grow to the point to which you end up alone instead of with someone that could be good enough if both parties could put an effort (which they won't, because they have "choices").

Then there's the issue of dating apps, they are just too frictionless: you can swipe like 300 people if you so wish, conversations will end abruptly for the slightest reason, plans will be cancelled at the last moment, etc.

This means that, even if you're engaging them in good faith, your incentive is to actively get many matches, and then you're suddenly setting up dates with n different girls, and then rather than having to individually reject the ones you like the least, your incentive is to ghost them.

It's all some sort of terrible prisoners' dilemma that brings the worst out of both sexes.

I agree that the current dating market is kind of hellish and having seemingly infinite choices (except they all have infinite choices too) is unhealthy. However, I think realistic proposals have to encompass the sort of slow-moving, societal changes that require persuasion and adoption of healthier attitudes, not some sort of patriarchal regime or state-mandated breeding program, which is what incels proposing that young people (but especially women) shouldn't be given a choice usually circle around to.

The "not that many" is key. This one specific man you don't like or spinsterhood is a bad deal. But so is 100 messages a day from random men on an app. I'm not sure what approach rate is ideal, but maybe it's something like six realistic choices.

Aside from how overused that one study is, the other major problem is that the womens’ answer is straight up incorrect, therefore bullshit. Women have the capacity to actually rank men on a respectable bell curve (just like gay men can rank women), they just choose not to because they concentrate on the ‘what will that answer say about me?’ implications. Similar to how straight men will sometimes performatively deny that an attractive man is attractive, or say that they can’t tell because they’re so straight it hurts and blinds.

The big advantage of the dating website rankings is that they greatly reduce Social Desirability Bias by getting both men and women in a “What do you REALLY think?” frame of mind.

It’s the opposite. If they were ranking some strangers as anthropologists, far from the context of their own coupling, they’d give a straight answer, as they usually do in the other studies. But on Okcupid, they think rating merely above average men as above average marks them as easy, low quality, desperate participants in the coupling game.

Also possible. It would be nice to have some kind of backing, though. Are you going on experience? Intuition?

Aside from how overused that one study is

I agree wholeheartedly, I just don’t think that a serious attempt at real data collection is going to happen for societal reasons, so we’re stuck with stuff that got scraped when nobody cared yet.

I just don’t think that a serious attempt at real data collection is going to happen for societal reasons

In "The Typical Man Disgusts the Typical Woman" post Update (the post that y'all are discussing), Caplan links to Emil Kirkegaard's analysis of four much more representative data collections:

  • General Social Survey (GSS), USA
  • NLSY Add Health, USA
  • Wisconsin longitudinal study (WLS), USA
  • German General Social Survey (ALLBUS), German

In all of these, the OK Cupid's stark disparity in ratings do not reproduce. Women's photos do tend to get slightly higher attractiveness ratings, but, you know, there's probably a reason why both men's and women's magazines are full of half-naked women.

You need to read less Dread Jim.

Or perhaps more practically, locate the bars that cougars frequent, if one looks/is still on the younger side.

(hey, you don't even need the advanced technology for that one!)

That's the problem. Advanced technology is good. Humanity having more power and control over itself and its biological/planetary destiny is good. Retvrning to the kind of society that can happily (half of it at least) paddle on for millenia with zero incentive to evolve beyond its feudal agricultural formula until it encounters an out of context problem is, simply put, rank stagnation and unbecoming of creatures that have brains larger than walnuts.

That's not exactly true. The effect you're pointing at here didn't seem to happen before modern dating apps. I also find that women treat me much better in Asian communities, so the current hostility and distrust between genders is most likely cultural.

Politics are reaching pathological levels and causing a lot of issues. Another big issue seems to be that women have too many choices (rather than too few) which makes them look for better alternative all the time (and comparison is the thief of all joy or whatever). Many relationships are the most fun the first few months, and then the novelty will wear off, but if these people jump from guy to guy as a consequence of this, then they're messed up in a sense (for instance, addicted to the dopamine rushes associated with the early stages of relationships). It's not a biological fact that most men will end up as losers.

But this is what the Rat community wanted: More technology, more connection, fancy algorithms on which people could compete. The Amish do not seem to have these problems, and women who have only had one sexual partner are much less likely to want a divorce on average. All these problems are a result of materialistic rat-adjecent mentalities. You cannot solve a problem with the same way of thinking which caused the problem in the first place.

It's difficult, by doable (and when compared to engineering cat-girls, downright trivial) to become a high-value man. This won't help you get a high-quality women though, unless you're in an environment in which they exist, so women will have to improve themselves as well. It's nothing difficult, they'd just have to be feminine, which would happen automatically if our society didn't hinder the process.

As far as I know, forced marriage was mostly done out of necessity, but a second (and very common) cause is that teenagers have sex and get pregnant, which is a social no-no. So they rush a marriage, because then it's okay. Crisis averted I guess. This still happens today by the way.

And no, I'm not a drug addict, and neither am I so psychologically broken that I can find enjoyment in effortless pleasure. It's sad that you even have to ask. Even actual mice will resist free cocaine if they have a space to play around in

Then the problem is over-constrained and has no solution

We need to get rid of modern politics, it's awful. We also need to get rid of modern views of human nature which are entirely false (the erasure of gender, tabula rasa, the fear of masculinity, the lie that women should be masculine). Oh, and likely porn as well. This would basically solve every problem you listed.

A couple of interjections if you’ll forgive me:

The effect you're pointing at here didn't seem to happen before modern dating apps.

It absolutely did, I was there. Lots of people got interested in dating apps b/c trying to solve this in the real world had failed for them.

neither am I so psychologically broken that I can find enjoyment in effortless pleasure. It's sad that you even have to ask. Even actual mice will resist free cocaine if they have a space to play around in

My understanding is that ‘true’ wireheading is not endless cocaine, it is figuring out all the reward systems in the brain and replicating the signals directly. Including those you get from playing and achieving things. Whether or not it’s desirable, I think this would probably work as the relationship between feelings of accomplishment and happiness already seems pretty plastic: there are people who feel satisfied with very small accomplishments and literal billionaire geniuses who feel like failures.

EDIT: for the reward signal thing, a useful analogue is hacking software. It's very difficult to make software unhackable because however sophisticated your DRM system is, sooner or later you have to flip a bit that says user_has_been_verified = True. Rather than hacking the DRM system you just find and hack the check. Picking combination locks works the same way: rather than finding some way to hack the combination, you just insert a hook and manipulate the part of the mechanism that unlocks the door if the combination is correct.

It absolutely did, I was there. Lots of people got interested in dating apps b/c trying to solve this in the real world had failed for them.

When did the first larger-scale dating app launch? I was also there in the 2000s, apps weren't really a thing until very late in that decade as I recall?

I am also not very good at dating, but things were more or less along the traditional lines where 'go out drinking and/or dancing, occasionally you will meet somebody' was pretty much true. I even landed a wife!

Now AFAICT there isn't really even anywhere to do those things, and if you find somewhere I'd certainly expect a high concentration of Chads and/or skilled PUAs -- so the apps are all there is, and it doesn't seem that great.

No idea. Maybe OkCupid was around in 2012/2013?

I am also not very good at dating, but things were more or less along the traditional lines where 'go out drinking and/or dancing, occasionally you will meet somebody' was pretty much true. I even landed a wife!

Good for you. Didn’t happen for lots of people. See “Radicalising the Romanceless”. There were absolutely lots of lonely young men, most of whom were perfectly decent looking and dutiful, who didn’t appear on women’s radars.

Lots of people didn’t have anyone to go out drinking or dancing with, or were too low down the hierarchy and therefore repellent. Newspaper ads and then later dating sites came into being to serve this demographic, which is why they were originally called ‘lonely hearts’ ads.

I am quite prepared to believe that dating apps have made this worse. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing - you need a sufficiently large number of angry young men before the problem even becomes visible. But modern dating was working badly for a lot of people a long time before the apps.

How old are you?

Early thirties.

I think you are a little too young to remember the before-times -- this is what bars were for. If you didn't have anyone to go out with, you could go to one, sit down at the bar, have a drink -- and start talking to people.

You probably still can (if you can't find a bar that hasn't gone out of business yet), but it won't get you laid unless you are into aging drunks.

I have honestly been reading this whole subthread with the early dating websites rolled in with dating apps in my head. I wonder if that changes the dynamics, or if "dating app" has to specifically mean mobile apps and not just any Internet dating service.

I do know people that found partners on those site -- also quite a few guys who used them to fuck around, but I think the difference is that this was before the people running the apps figured out that people finding partners only shrinks their market, and changed their focus accordingly.

I also recall the transition in which finding a partner on the internet shifted from "kinda weird" to "kinda OK" --maybe it's just a shorter walk to "swipe right" from there?

Sure!

It absolutely did

After dating apps appeared, dating was ruined as a result, and this quickly started to influence dating outside of said apps as well. If you go back another 20 or 30 years, I'll claim that this wasn't much of an issue, meaning that dating was ruined by something recent (be it wokeness, feminism, signaling games or moralizers. With dating apps serving to accelerate us towards the nash equilibrium).

Now, people complain about the past because it was "immoral" and "unequal", and fair enough, but if you're on the side of modern morality and equality, then you're supporting the forces which are making healthy human relationships into a rare occurrence. People who want to "improve the world" in a way which rejects tradition are to blame that the world is getting worse, and it doesn't matter if they have IQs in the 140s, that they love altruism, that they have mathematical frameworks for reducing poverty and "saving the planet", they will fail, life will get worse for everyone, and they will continue to double down on their methods because they sound correct and make sense theoretically, especially to other smart people.

If the real world failed you, it's either because:

1: Society told you to be a "Good person", and you became somebody that society approved of but that women had no interest in. In other words, society told you how to act in order to benefit society, and not how to act in order to benefit yourself or be popular with women.

2: You're a reasonable human being, but the women around you bought into feminism, or have so many men to choose between that you can't compete. Once these women start to become reasonable, they're already old (and have high bodycounts or children). This is not yet the case in Asia (I'm afraid it will be soon, but I hope not).

There are people who feel satisfied with very small accomplishments

This is true. But if they could control their own circumstances, then they'd mess everything up for themselves. Imagine this, you're playing a game, and you have the ability to cheat, you literally decide how difficult the game is. Can you prevent yourself from cheating? If you die and lose your items, can you prevent yourself from giving them back to yourself? For every cheaty action you take, you lower the value of everything you worked for, as the subjective value of everything is the same as the amount of work you put into it. It's my understanding that very few people have the self-control to keep such a game fun for themselves. They would have to create something to fight against, something which resists their efforts, which is counterintuitive to them.

It's another understanding of mine that the "optimization mentality" of rat-adjecent communities lead them to maximize rewards, meaning that they are much more likely to ruin the game for themselves than average people. Well-being consists of balance, and both maximizers and minimizers will almost surely fail to achieve this even if they have intelligence, money and cutting-edge technology.

If the real world failed you, it's either because:

Both 1 and 2, unfortunately.

In general, I largely agree with you. I differ on two key points:

  • That it is difficult, but easier, to fix men and women than to create alternatives. Our society is very, very good as solving technical problems, whereas human problems tend to be intractable. In the end, it turned out to be easier to invent Ozempic than to fix obesity. It was easier to invent the pill than to stop young girls getting pregnant. Etc. I think that erwgv3g34 is essentially right on this point.

  • That literal wire-heading would not still be unsatisfying. I think it is entirely plausible - though not desirable - that we figure out a satisfaction reward signal and manage to replicate it, at which point games at any level of difficulty are no longer required. Dopamine / heroin etc. are very crude substitutes.

I find it strange that, in an imaginary scenario where we approach AGI level of intelligence, we cannot seem to imagine coming up with a way to help people who have terrible social skills.

We don't want to, really. I can imagine trying to make a chatbot that guides them / us into better social skills, but the temptation for whoever builds it is always going to be optimising it for society's benefit rather than for the benefit of the chump in question: I attended a 'Men's Leadership' course once, out of curiosity, and it was a series of lectures on how best to talk yourself into rolling over and showing your belly to your betters. And trying to help very shy people one-on-one is like pulling teeth - I'm far from the most social person but I've sometimes gone over to chat to the lonely guy in the corner out of pity and it's almost always agonising. Finally, humans are a group species and innately sort themselves into a relative hierarchy and most people, ultimately, don't want to risk their place by helping the lower orders too much.

the temptation for whoever builds it is always going to be optimising it for society's benefit rather than for the benefit of the chump in question

I think this is very hard to avoid, unless the person asking for help has extremely clear goals that they are articulating well, and the person trying to help him actually knows how to get them. There's an autism program I sometimes interact with, and it's very clear that the goal is mostly teaching them to interface with a large institution. It isn't even clear what else it could be about, since there's a pretty rigid schedule that includes interfacing with a different teacher, therapist, or situation every 45 minutes or so. It seems like a smaller setting with l fewer transitions would be better, but maybe then they wouldn't even feel like they had anything to teach.

Apologies in advance for the long reply. Read what you want and ignore the rest

1: Is not hard to fix. It's arguably easier to throw away the restrictions that society has told you to place on yourself. You can be more true to yourself and be more successful as a result.

2 is harder. I got an Asian girlfriend myself, seemed easier all things considered.

I have to disagree that human problems are difficult. I think that the non-existence of these problems is the natural state. Society messed up when it created obesity, it introduced new problems which do not occur naturally. Most foods I see in stores have about 10% sugar, and even most "healthy" food is fraud (the apple juice is sugar-water with chemicals which taste like apple). Even if society can find a way to solve these problems, it also created them. My grandma grows her food in her own garden, these problems are alien to her.

Unwanted pregnancy is a good argument though, since it's natural. It's a feature though, rather than a bug. Your body knows exactly what it's doing. The same applies to depression and such, it's no accident, it's a strategy to increase yours odds of survival. I think it's good that self-modification is so difficult (in fact, it's likely difficult because those who were good at it didn't pass on their genes, meaning that wireheading killed them).

Wire-heading is really dangerous. If you do any, I recommend gratitude meditation (since it won't interferer with your functioning). Many forms of wire-heading can effectively destroy people. When girls grow up watching disney movie depictions of love, notice how many years it takes to reverse the standards and how many disappointments they must experience. If you feel pleasure 10 times stronger than anything real life would offer you naturally, it's really hard to go back. Gratitude meditation makes you enjoy real life more though, which is why it's safer.

Whoever builds it is always going to be optimising it for society's benefit

Yeah, or income, and that would ruin it. That's how society functions. But it's not how we have to function, nor is it how everyone is forced to function. I don't feel any desire to optimize for socities benefit personally. These destructive incentives seem to emerge statistically. A company need not be evil, but companies are evil. A person need not be self-serving, but people are self-serving. The answers to all social struggles are quite simple. There's no real weights keeping people down. You can pirate "No More Mr. Nice Guy", "The University of Success" and "The Dating Black Book" and perhaps "12 rules of life" and read them in a few days. Internalize the gold nuggets which resonate with you and you're already ahead (the average person is very far from their potential)

You write as if some people are lower and some people are higher, and as if only years of hard work can ever hope to change this fact... But that's only true for ones socioeconomic position. Mental domains (social skills, happiness, charisma, confidence, likability, etc.) are completely mallable. Even if you've been a coward all your life, you can suddenly start being like John McAfee. Not acting like, but being like.

Helping shy people 1-on-1 is not difficult for me, I've done it many times. The hardest part is helping them believe in themselves, rather than to believe in you (even if you're prepared for this). It's also hard to keep them from falling in love with you (seriously. And gender doesn't matter.) I know a guy who involves everyone he meets in fun activities. It feels natural when he does it. You might feel like it's awkward, but it only gets awkward if you act like it is. Just pretend it's not awkward, and be casual and unconcerned (but friendly), and it will probably work out. They will likely relax when they notice that you don't seem to be uncomfortable because of them. People mirror eachother a lot, and you can control your side of the equation.

I think it's fine that people naturally fit into a position. Not everyone can be at the top, due to how hierarchies work. But I don't think lower positions are meant to be as terrible as they are. Consider a family which owns a dog - the dog is at the very bottom, right? But everyone takes care of it and treats it well. You'll be okay a long as you don't have unlikable traits.

Teaching people how to be likable is not difficult if you know how, but it probably takes a small books worth of information in total to communicate all the axioms (but in order to find all of them you have to read 100s of books and do some introspection as well). But if you follow the axioms, you literally cannot fail. There's not even any need to sell your soul, nor to roleplay and pretend. Of course, this alone will not make you into a millionare, but you could act with the exact confidence of a millionare if you wanted to.

(This is a placeholder to say that I read your comment with interest and enjoyed it, and hope to write some kind of response eventually).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats