pickup culture

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Anne B

unread,
May 2, 2019, 10:59:25 AM5/2/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
I've been trying to figure out why I find pickup culture distasteful.
I think the following is part of it. There could be more, but this is
part of it.

When I watched this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlb0DTawwAI

I found it unpleasant to watch people hugging each other who had just
met. If someone tried to hug me after just meeting me I would find it
creepy and scary. I'd think he was trying to rob me and was using the
hug as a cover for it. I don't expect to get hugs from guys who aren't
relatives or romantic partners.

I grew up thinking that I'd get to know a guy before being
romantically involved with him. I'd get to know his background and his
character and his financial situation first. I'd get to know him in
ordinary situations before moving into romantic situations. Meeting
romantic partners on the street or in a bar or nightclub seems foreign
to me. I know that people do it, but I don't expect me or anyone I
know to be the kind of person who does it.

I think this post makes me sound like a snob, which is is not
something I want to sound like.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 2, 2019, 2:01:51 PM5/2/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
That's not a PUA thing, it's normal (both the hugging and the
bars/clubs/streets-outside-them). It's interesting and unfair how PUA
can be blamed for mainstream culture that people aren't familiar with.
The subject line is "pickup culture" but your complaint is about dating
and partying culture. Maybe you should watch some non-PUA videos of
spring break, parties or clubs.

FYI if you google there are a bunch of articles about who it's OK or hug
at *work* and how to navigate figuring out who to hug or not. Here's a
quote from the first article I clicked on:

https://www.themuse.com/advice/guide-to-who-its-ok-to-hug-at-work-not-awkward

> “I’m worried I crossed a boundary at work,” she said. “Several
> times a year, I meet with a group at a hotel or conference venue for a
> few days to plan a big conference. The group members aren’t my
> direct colleagues since they work at different organizations. I give
> everyone a hug goodbye when we leave, since we’re friendly and I
> know it will be a few months before I see them again. At our most
> recent meeting, there were several new people. As we said goodbye at
> the end of the week, I hugged the people I already knew. But then I
> felt awkward not giving a hug to the new people, so I went in to hug
> them as well. Now I’m worried that I was too forward.”

When that girl goes clubbing, she wants to be hugged and touched by guys
she's interested in. She thinks that's part of early stage flirting.


Quoting Anne again:

> I think this post makes me sound like a snob, which is is not
> something I want to sound like.

You sound old.

Anne B

unread,
May 3, 2019, 10:02:26 AM5/3/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Hmm. Looks like I was confused. I was thinking that "pickup culture"
referred to what you are calling "dating and partying culture".

What I want to say is: One thing I don't like about PUA stuff is that
it takes place within dating/partying culture, which I find
distasteful.

I think I find dating/partying culture distasteful because of my
cultural conditioning rather than because of rational reasons. I think
this because yes, there are rational reasons to not want to
participate in dating/partying, but those rational reasons apply to
other things that I don't find distasteful.

> FYI if you google there are a bunch of articles about who it's OK or hug
> at *work* and how to navigate figuring out who to hug or not. Here's a
> quote from the first article I clicked on:
>
> https://www.themuse.com/advice/guide-to-who-its-ok-to-hug-at-work-not-awkward
>
> > “I’m worried I crossed a boundary at work,” she said. “Several
> > times a year, I meet with a group at a hotel or conference venue for a
> > few days to plan a big conference. The group members aren’t my
> > direct colleagues since they work at different organizations. I give
> > everyone a hug goodbye when we leave, since we’re friendly and I
> > know it will be a few months before I see them again. At our most
> > recent meeting, there were several new people. As we said goodbye at
> > the end of the week, I hugged the people I already knew. But then I
> > felt awkward not giving a hug to the new people, so I went in to hug
> > them as well. Now I’m worried that I was too forward.”
>
> When that girl goes clubbing, she wants to be hugged and touched by guys
> she's interested in. She thinks that's part of early stage flirting.
>
>
> Quoting Anne again:
>
> > I think this post makes me sound like a snob, which is is not
> > something I want to sound like.
>
> You sound old.

I felt this way when I was young too. There are people who are young
now who feel this way.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 3, 2019, 4:32:10 PM5/3/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
When you were young, it was a different year with different social
norms.

> There are people who are young now who feel this way.

That is not the mainstream.

Disliking mainstream culture, which has changed from what you grew up
with, is *dramatically different* than having an issue with PUA.

Anne B

unread,
May 3, 2019, 5:34:24 PM5/3/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM anonymous FI
I'm not convinced that dating/partying culture is more mainstream now
than it was a few decades ago. I'd have to do some research to believe
you on that. I don't know if it's important enough to this
conversation or to me generally to research it now.

> Disliking mainstream culture, which has changed from what you grew up
> with, is *dramatically different* than having an issue with PUA.

I think that PUA culture is a subset of dating/partying culture. So my
unreasoned distaste of dating/partying culture carries over to PUA
culture.

I do plan to look into PUA culture some more, in spite of my distaste,
because it seems like it could have some good ideas which would be
important in other settings besides dating.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 3, 2019, 10:42:40 PM5/3/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Over 99% of Americans want to date (or something similar but less
formal/structured) at some point in their lives. Have you listened to
mainstream radio or watched mainstream TV?

I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand
then trying to debate the matter.

Justin Mallone

unread,
May 4, 2019, 8:47:30 AM5/4/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Compared to a few decades ago, a big difference in romantic/sexual stuff is that things happen faster and are not part of a clear track.

A few decades ago, dating was more part of a clear courtship ritual that would wind up leading to marriage. Even if a particular relationship didn’t result in marriage, relationships weren’t trivial. Now people have dozens of hookups and situationships and all sorts of stuff that doesn’t fall into marriage-track. There still exists marriage track but it’s not the default. I think the default these days is probably to assume you’re *not* on marriage track unless there is some specific reason to do so (like the length of the relationship, or the social situation and status of the people in the relationship, or whatever).

So in this new context where sex happens fast and people might only know each other for a night or a week, people do things like get touchier faster and it’s considered normal and fine and not scandalous or weird.

FWIW I share some of Anne’s visceral negative reaction towards what I think of as “overfamiliarity” regarding stuff like the amount of touching that is appropriate when first meeting someone. I recognize I’m an outlier on various social things though.

btw Anne said:

>>>>> I grew up thinking that I'd get to know a guy before being
>>>>> romantically involved with him. I'd get to know his background and
>>>>> his
>>>>> character and his financial situation first. I'd get to know him in
>>>>> ordinary situations before moving into romantic situations. Meeting
>>>>> romantic partners on the street or in a bar or nightclub seems
>>>>> foreign
>>>>> to me. I know that people do it, but I don't expect me or anyone I
>>>>> know to be the kind of person who does it.


One thing girls are into is mystery. Referring to an attractive man as “mysterious” is common. Various PUA people talk about how the LESS the girl knows about them, the more interesting they can be to the girl, and how that initially struck the PUA bro as weird and counterintuitive. But it makes a kind of sense if you think about it some. If you say less, the girl can fill in the blanks more and project her fantasies onto you more easily. It’s kinda like how if a movie doesn’t say a lot then people with different ideas can interpret it in ways compatible with their ideas (The Matrix had libertarian fans, socialist fans, solipsistic fans, Christian fans). You need a bit of detail in order for a girl to know you’re the rough sort of thing she wants, but every detail you add past that is going to partially ruin *somebody’s* fantasy, so you need to be careful. You want to project a sort of hastily done sketch of an attractive, confident, powerful man, and not a full 3D person with things like controversial political opinions and strong philosophical views.

-JM

Anne B

unread,
May 5, 2019, 4:35:42 PM5/5/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM anonymous FI
Some. Not a lot.

> I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand
> then trying to debate the matter.

I withdraw trying to debate the matter. I now consider myself ignorant
about it until I learn more.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 6, 2019, 8:48:18 PM5/6/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
are you going to do a post-mortem?

https://curi.us/2190-errors-merit-post-mortems

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 7, 2019, 2:40:15 PM5/7/19
to FIYG, fallibl...@googlegroups.com
On May 7, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Fallible Anon fallib...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:42 PM 'anonymous FI'
> anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas]
> <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 3, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM anonymous FI
>>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM anonymous FI
>>>>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 2, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been trying to figure out why I find pickup culture
>>>>>>> distasteful. I think the following is part of it. There could be more, but this is part of it..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I watched this video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlb0DTawwAI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found it unpleasant to watch people hugging each other who had just met.

...

>>>>> What I want to say is: One thing I don't like about PUA stuff is
>>>>> that it takes place within dating/partying culture, which I find
>>>>> distasteful.

If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because of its connection to *dating*, anon’s point that dating is mainstream applies. And Anne’s complaint about *hugging* behavior relates to *mainstream* social interaction, not clubs specifically.

If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because it takes place within *clubbing*, she’s wrong. There are e.g. daygame and social circle game. PUA is about social dynamics, which take place in connection with all types of dating/courtship/hookups/whatever (including long term relationships and marriages). It’s not specifically related to clubs.

A fair amount of the PUA knowledge of social dynamics, e.g. lots about social status, also applies to office politics, friendships, and other non-relationship things. That’s not the focus though.


> This is painful. Anon has performed a bait-and-switch on Anne and she
> is too timid to notice or something, so she just accepts it.

...

> Okay so far Anne is saying that meeting people on the street/at
> bars/at nightclubs —which are big areas of focus on PUA—seems
> unpleasant and foreign to her.

...

> It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
> when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
> basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
> an arrogant cunt.

You seem angry in advance of any discussion iterations to figure out which ideas are correct. That’s not a productive way to approach a conversation.


PS You have to join the FI google group, which is the main group, in order to send emails to it.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

Anne B

unread,
May 8, 2019, 5:11:28 PM5/8/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:12 PM Fallible Anon fallib...@gmail.com
[fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:42 PM 'anonymous FI'
> anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas]
> <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On May 3, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM anonymous FI
> > > <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On May 3, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM anonymous FI
> > >>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On May 2, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I've been trying to figure out why I find pickup culture
> > >>>>> distasteful.
> > >>>>> I think the following is part of it. There could be more, but this
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>> part of it..
> This is painful. Anon has performed a bait-and-switch on Anne and she
> is too timid to notice or something, so she just accepts it.
>
> Going to re-paste the relevant bits below with comments:
>
> > >>>>> I grew up thinking that I'd get to know a guy before being romantically involved with him. I'd get to know his background and his character and his financial situation first. I'd get to know him in ordinary situations before moving into romantic situations.
> > >>>>> Meeting romantic partners on the street or in a bar or nightclub seems foreign to me. I know that people do it, but I don't expect me or anyone I know to be the kind of person who does it.
> > >>>> That's not a PUA thing, it's normal (both the hugging and the bars/clubs/streets-outside-them). It's interesting and unfair how PUA can be blamed for mainstream culture that people aren't familiar with.
>
> Okay so far Anne is saying that meeting people on the street/at
> bars/at nightclubs —which are big areas of focus on PUA—seems
> unpleasant and foreign to her.
>
> Anon says that this isn't PUA's fault, it's a mainstream cultural norm.
>
> After this I'll refer to meeting people on the street/at bars/at
> nightclubs as "nightclub culture" to save on typing.
>
> > >>>>> I think this post makes me sound like a snob, which is is not something I want to sound like.
> > >>>> You sound old.
> > >>> I felt this way when I was young too.
>
> Here Anne is trying to say her distaste for nightclub culture isn't
> just because she's old. She's saying it's a cultural difference today.
>
> > >> When you were young, it was a different year with different social norms.
>
> Anon says that just because it's a cultural difference today doesn't
> mean it's not rooted in Anne's upbringing, and the norms when she was
> young. Hence his previous statment that she sounds old.
>
> > >>> There are people who are young now who feel this way.
>
> Anne makes an uargued assertion: there are young people today that are
> disdainful of nightclub culture.
>
> It's also an uncontroversial assertion that would take 5 seconds of
> googling to verify, so... shrug. Let's proceed.
>
> > >> That is not the mainstream.
>
> Anon does the same as Anne, with an unargued assertion that could be
> verified by googling: *mainstream* young people today are not
> disdainful of nightclub culture.
>
> Put another way: Anon claims nightclub culture is mainstream today.

I did notice at this point that anonymous (called Anon by Fallible
Anon) did not give any argument for "That is not the mainstream", just
as I had given no argument for "There are people who are young now who
feel this way."

> Is this as uncontroversial as Anon thinks??????
>
> It depends on what we mean by "mainstream." Does that mean 50% of
> people? 100% of people? Something in between?
>
> Right now, Anon is not yet the asshole. Anon's claim might be true.
> Let's continue.
>
> > > I'm not convinced that dating/partying culture is more mainstream now than it was a few decades ago. I'd have to do some research to believe you on that. I don't know if it's important enough to this conversation or to me generally to research it now.
>
> Anne doubts Anon's assertion. Anne thinks nightclub culture was just
> as mainstream a few decades ago as it is now, and yet she was not a
> fan of it even back then when she young.

Yes, this captures what I was trying to say.

> > Over 99% of Americans want to date (or something similar but less formal/structured) at some point in their lives. Have you listened to mainstream radio or watched mainstream TV?
>
> Here's the really bullshit part. We're not talking about whether or
> not people "want to date" at all.. That was not the topic at issue. The
> topic was what I've been calling nightclub culture. It was, again:
>
> > >>>>> I grew up thinking that I'd get to know a guy before being romantically involved with him. I'd get to know his background and his character and his financial situation first. I'd get to know him in ordinary situations before moving into romantic situations.
> > >>>>> Meeting romantic partners on the street or in a bar or nightclub seems foreign to me. I know that people do it, but I don't expect me or anyone I know to be the kind of person who does it.
>
> To which Anon said:
>
> > >>>> That's not a PUA thing, it's normal (both the hugging and the bars/clubs/streets-outside-them). It's interesting and unfair how PUA can be blamed for mainstream culture that people aren't familiar with.
>
> The thing Anne described, *as an alternative lifestyle to nightclubs*,
> was still 100% compatible with *wanting to date:*
>
> > >>>>> I grew up thinking that I'd get to know a guy before being romantically involved with him. I'd get to know his background and his character and his financial situation first. I'd get to know him in ordinary situations before moving into romantic situations.
>
> This is not the statement of someone *opposed to dating*. This is
> someone describing a totally normal *method* of dating. It's just a
> different method from nightclub culture.
>
> So why is Anon mentioning that 99% of people want to date?
>
> Because Anon has changed the goalposts from arguing about how
> mainstream nightclub culture is into arguing about how mainstram
> *dating* is. Dating, in general, as a broad concept.
>
> Anne never (in this email thread) contradicted any claims about the
> popularity of dating as a broad spectrum activity. In practice
> "dating" often means something like "anything two people engage in
> that is intended to in some way at some time lead to romantic/sexual
> encounters."
>
> Anne was always arguing about a specific subset of dating: approaching
> people on the street, in bars, and in nightclubs.

I did not notice here that anonymous was talking about dating in
general whereas I had in mind dating arising from partying and
nightclub situations. I was not thinking clearly enough.

> Does Anon think that all mainstream dating takes these three forms? Is
> Anon's evidence for this that movies and TV show these methods a
> disproportionate amount of the time, or what?
>
> Or is Anon's claim is that this specific type of dating—nightclub
> culture—is more popular now than it was "a few decades ago" ?? I guess
> if 99% of people are doing it, it would be super popular.
>
> But I don't think even Anon thinks 99% of people engage in nightclub
> culture. I think Anon just brought up dating in general as a
> distraction.
>
> So... *is* nightclub culture more popular now than it was a few decades ago?
>
> We could look up poll stats or whatever (which suggest nightclub
> participation is down among the current young generations) but I don't
> have much confidence in them.
>
> But we could also just kinda reason it out.
>
> A few decades ago probably puts us in the late 70s or the late 80s. A
> time before the internet but after the sexual revolution of the 60s.
> Two decades that are especially famous for their respective types of
> popular clubbing and musical scenes.
>
> Today we have dating apps and websites and tons of easy fast
> communication. Nightclubs are less necessary than ever before as a
> vehicle for meeting people. We have apps optimized for people that
> just want to jump to fucking and apps optimized for people that want
> to make friends first.
>
> Given all of that, why would anyone assume that nightclubs are a
> *more* popular way of finding romantic or sexual partners today? That
> seems like a bold assertion that needs some kind of evidence or
> argument or something.

This is the kind of thing I should have been thinking about.

> Instead of pointing any of this out Anne just rolls over and gives up.
> What gives?
>
> Maybe it's because of Anon's shitty close:
>
> > > I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.
>
> This is social posturing. It's trying to intimidate Anne into shutting
> up because she is so outclassed. Which is kind of embarrassing given
> how bad of a final argument immediately preceded it.
>
> It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
> when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
> basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
> an arrogant cunt.

Yes, I consciously rolled over and gave up. I wrote something that I
hoped would get anonymous to stop replying. I was uncomfortable with
the exchange and didn't want it to go on any further.

It was wrong of me to want to end the thread because I was
uncomfortable. I should have pushed harder to understand more what was
going on. It's good that Fallible Anon brought it up.

I didn't notice that anonymous and I were talking about different
things. Maybe it's because I was uncomfortable with the discussion and
maybe it's because I wasn't reading and thinking carefully enough for
other reasons, or both.

I did notice that the closing comment by anonymous seemed mean:

> > > I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.

This comment seemed like a social comment which normally means "You're
too dumb to be thinking about this stuff. Just admit I'm right and
shut up." Because this is FI and not some other place, I realized that
anonymous might have meant something different by it. But emotionally
I read it in a normal way and I admitted anonymous was right and shut
up.

A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
try to debate something you're ignorant about." This would have more
the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.

I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
subject than I do.

But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 8, 2019, 5:36:56 PM5/8/19
to FIGG, FIYG
On May 8, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:12 PM Fallible Anon fallib...@gmail.com
> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:42 PM 'anonymous FI'
>> anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas]
>> <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM anonymous FI
>>>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 3, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM anonymous FI
>>>>>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 2, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been trying to figure out why I find pickup culture distasteful. I think the following is part of it. There could be more, but this is part of it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I watched this video
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlb0DTawwAI
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found it unpleasant to watch people hugging each other who had just met.





>> Put another way: Anon claims nightclub culture is mainstream today.

Fallible Anon is being *dishonest* by claiming that anon claimed that.



> I did notice at this point that anonymous (called Anon by Fallible
> Anon) did not give any argument for "That is not the mainstream", just
> as I had given no argument for "There are people who are young now who
> feel this way.”

This comment hints that anon should have given that argument at that time, which I think is false.


> I was not thinking clearly enough.

When you screw up, you shouldn’t blame others.


>> Instead of pointing any of this out Anne just rolls over and gives up.
>> What gives?
>>
>> Maybe it's because of Anon's shitty close:
>>
>>>> I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.
>>
>> This is social posturing. It's trying to intimidate Anne into shutting
>> up because she is so outclassed. Which is kind of embarrassing given
>> how bad of a final argument immediately preceded it.
>>
>> It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
>> when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
>> basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
>> an arrogant cunt.
>
> Yes, I consciously rolled over and gave up. I wrote something that I
> hoped would get anonymous to stop replying.

That’s mean.

> I was uncomfortable with the exchange and didn't want it to go on any further.

You were hostile and adversarial following your own screw ups like "not thinking clearly enough”. You mistreated anon, not vice versa.

You dishonestly hid the problem and then acted to waste anon’s time. You need to either post things you are happy to talk about, or say that you are thinking and discussing badly, or don’t post. It’s unfair of you to post bad thinking, which is bad because of your adversarial emotions, and waste people’s time who make the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and acting with good will on the expectation that it’s mutual.


> It was wrong of me to want to end the thread because I was
> uncomfortable. I should have pushed harder to understand more what was
> going on. It's good that Fallible Anon brought it up.
>
> I didn't notice that anonymous and I were talking about different
> things.

That was not a bait and switch, it was Anne screwing up and saying things that weren’t what she meant (apparently) and were false.

> Maybe it's because I was uncomfortable with the discussion and
> maybe it's because I wasn't reading and thinking carefully enough for
> other reasons, or both.
>
> I did notice that the closing comment by anonymous seemed mean:
>
>>>> I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.
>
> This comment seemed like a social comment which normally means "You're
> too dumb to be thinking about this stuff. Just admit I'm right and
> shut up." Because this is FI and not some other place, I realized that
> anonymous might have meant something different by it. But emotionally
> I read it in a normal way and I admitted anonymous was right and shut
> up.
>
> A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
> understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
> try to debate something you're ignorant about.” This would have more
> the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
> assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
> the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
> could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.

You think someone saying they don’t understand why you did something is an attack, and saying that you’re being unreasonable is neutral.

Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.

Your preferences don’t make sense and aren’t consistent. They are not something that a person could reasonably be expected to predict. And I’m doubtful the thing you’re saying now is your preference. It might be. But I think it’s something you think *today*, but that you don’t know one way or another how you would have reacted to the alternative wording if anon said it on the day of his post, in the same post with nothing else changed.


> I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
> gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
> I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
> wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
> coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
> subject than I do.
>
> But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
> was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
> might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.

You made claims about what the world is like and about what PUA is about. You didn’t appear listen to what you were being told about the world or PUA and try to understand how it could be correct.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

Anne B

unread,
May 9, 2019, 12:54:00 AM5/9/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Note: I've spent many hours writing what I wrote below. It's less
organized than I would like because there are so many different things
going on and I don't understand them very well. Maybe I should have
broken it into smaller posts but I couldn't decide how to do that. Or
maybe I should have worked on it more tomorrow instead of sending it
now. Or maybe I should have written lots of short posts as I thought
of new things instead of re-writing what I had already written.
I don't understand how that is mean.

> > I was uncomfortable with the exchange and didn't want it to go on any further.
>
> You were hostile and adversarial following your own screw ups like "not thinking clearly enough”. You mistreated anon, not vice versa.
>
> You dishonestly hid the problem and then acted to waste anon’s time. You need to either post things you are happy to talk about, or say that you are thinking and discussing badly, or don’t post. It’s unfair of you to post bad thinking, which is bad because of your adversarial emotions, and waste people’s time who make the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and acting with good will on the expectation that it’s mutual.

I don't understand why you say I was being hostile and adversarial. Is
it because I thought anonymous was being hostile and adversarial, so I
was the one who brought the hostility into existence?

> > It was wrong of me to want to end the thread because I was
> > uncomfortable. I should have pushed harder to understand more what was
> > going on. It's good that Fallible Anon brought it up.
> >
> > I didn't notice that anonymous and I were talking about different
> > things.
>
> That was not a bait and switch, it was Anne screwing up and saying things that weren’t what she meant (apparently) and were false.
>
> > Maybe it's because I was uncomfortable with the discussion and
> > maybe it's because I wasn't reading and thinking carefully enough for
> > other reasons, or both.
> >
> > I did notice that the closing comment by anonymous seemed mean:
> >
> >>>> I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.
> >
> > This comment seemed like a social comment which normally means "You're
> > too dumb to be thinking about this stuff. Just admit I'm right and
> > shut up." Because this is FI and not some other place, I realized that
> > anonymous might have meant something different by it. But emotionally
> > I read it in a normal way and I admitted anonymous was right and shut
> > up.

Actually, I don't think this is true. I realized only later that
anonymous might have meant something different. At the time, I read
anonymous as wanting me to stop thinking about it and just take
his/her word for it, and I didn't think of alternative meanings.

It's taken me a lot of thought to be able to articulate that *I
thought anonymous wanted me to stop thinking*.

> > A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
> > understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
> > try to debate something you're ignorant about.” This would have more
> > the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
> > assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
> > the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
> > could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.
>
> You think someone saying they don’t understand why you did something is an attack, and saying that you’re being unreasonable is neutral.
>
> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.
>
> Your preferences don’t make sense and aren’t consistent. They are not something that a person could reasonably be expected to predict. And I’m doubtful the thing you’re saying now is your preference. It might be. But I think it’s something you think *today*, but that you don’t know one way or another how you would have reacted to the alternative wording if anon said it on the day of his post, in the same post with nothing else changed.

There is something in anonymous' post that I didn't like and that
Fallible Anon didn't like. It might not be the same something for both
of us. It might not be what either of us thought it was or currently
thinks it is. It might be something that anonymous did wrong or not. I
want to understand better what that something is.


Generally (not just in this thread), I'm confused by what kinds of
things you (Elliot) think are mean and why. I think you see meanness
differently than I do in some important way. I suspect that in this
area I am influenced by some cultural memes that are currently
invisible to me.

> > I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
> > gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
> > I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
> > wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
> > coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
> > subject than I do.
> >
> > But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
> > was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
> > might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.
>
> You made claims about what the world is like and about what PUA is about. You didn’t appear listen to what you were being told about the world or PUA and try to understand how it could be correct.

About PUA and the world: I could now try to state my position clearly,
and to state what I think anonymous said. Or I could go back and try
to improve what I originally wrote, line by line. Or something else?
I'm not sure what the best way is to go about learning how I could
have done better. It seems overwhelming.

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 9, 2019, 3:47:13 AM5/9/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
On May 8, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note: I've spent many hours writing what I wrote below. It's less
> organized than I would like because there are so many different things
> going on and I don't understand them very well. Maybe I should have
> broken it into smaller posts but I couldn't decide how to do that. Or
> maybe I should have worked on it more tomorrow instead of sending it
> now. Or maybe I should have written lots of short posts as I thought
> of new things instead of re-writing what I had already written.

I think you spent those hours hurting yourself (and partially blaming FI/me/anon/etc for that harm). I doubt they significantly improved the post, and they could easily have made it worse.

You spent those hours contrary to my advice about speaking on FI like you would in person (where you reply to people verbally within a few seconds).
You were trying to destroy the conversation and get rid of him (and you didn’t just tell him that, you tried to get rid of him by being so difficult to talk with that he would give up – *you tried to make him have a bad experience* so he’d stop talking). Instead of cooperating on a shared goal, you had a *secret* agenda, which anon didn’t want or agree with, which you tried to get via manipulation.

And the more anon was being patient and helpful, the more he will thwart your attempts to get him to stop replying. The more good will he has, the more work you will have to put into making him stop. So you were working against patience, helpfulness, and good will. You ended up on the opposite side of those things, so they became your enemies that you had to work against and overcome.


>>> I was uncomfortable with the exchange and didn't want it to go on any further.
>>
>> You were hostile and adversarial following your own screw ups like "not thinking clearly enough”. You mistreated anon, not vice versa.
>>
>> You dishonestly hid the problem and then acted to waste anon’s time. You need to either post things you are happy to talk about, or say that you are thinking and discussing badly, or don’t post. It’s unfair of you to post bad thinking, which is bad because of your adversarial emotions, and waste people’s time who make the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and acting with good will on the expectation that it’s mutual.
>
> I don't understand why you say I was being hostile and adversarial.

anon was trying to have a conversation and you were trying to end a conversation. When your goal contradicts someone else’s goal, you are their adversary. You were hostile to his goal (a cooperative conversation) – you didn’t want it, didn’t like it, and worked against it.

You tried to make his goal fail. You did this both directly by taking actions to make the conversation worse for him, and indirectly by lying (misleading him about your goals, the situation, what kind of reactions and future actions to expect from you).
You seem to have ignored (and still be ignoring) the literal meaning of the words he used, because of your adversarial goal of *not* having a cooperative conversation.


>>> A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
>>> understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
>>> try to debate something you're ignorant about.” This would have more
>>> the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
>>> assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
>>> the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
>>> could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.
>>
>> You think someone saying they don’t understand why you did something is an attack, and saying that you’re being unreasonable is neutral.
>>
>> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.
>>
>> Your preferences don’t make sense and aren’t consistent. They are not something that a person could reasonably be expected to predict. And I’m doubtful the thing you’re saying now is your preference. It might be. But I think it’s something you think *today*, but that you don’t know one way or another how you would have reacted to the alternative wording if anon said it on the day of his post, in the same post with nothing else changed.
>
> There is something in anonymous' post that I didn't like and that
> Fallible Anon didn't like.

I think you don’t like part of yourself. I think anon said things which got you thinking about issues where you have inner conflict. If so, the problem isn’t in his post.


> It might not be the same something for both
> of us. It might not be what either of us thought it was or currently
> thinks it is. It might be something that anonymous did wrong or not. I
> want to understand better what that something is.

No you don’t. If you wanted to find out you would have been curious. You did not act with curiosity. You were more interested in ending the conversation than asking questions. And you haven’t changed as a person in a big way since then.

You now feel like you want to know. That is a short term feeling which is not enough to base a conversation on.

> Generally (not just in this thread), I'm confused by what kinds of
> things you (Elliot) think are mean and why. I think you see meanness
> differently than I do in some important way. I suspect that in this
> area I am influenced by some cultural memes that are currently
> invisible to me.
>
>>> I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
>>> gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
>>> I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
>>> wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
>>> coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
>>> subject than I do.
>>>
>>> But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
>>> was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
>>> might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.
>>
>> You made claims about what the world is like and about what PUA is about. You didn’t appear listen to what you were being told about the world or PUA and try to understand how it could be correct.
>
> About PUA and the world: I could now try to state my position clearly,
> and to state what I think anonymous said. Or I could go back and try
> to improve what I originally wrote, line by line. Or something else?
> I'm not sure what the best way is to go about learning how I could
> have done better. It seems overwhelming.

Stop. Don’t. Abort. You have to do things you want to do. Otherwise you’ll mistreat people, especially yourself. When you dislike things and have a bad time, that means you don’t understand how to get value from them: they aren’t working, they aren’t productive, you aren’t learning (if those things were happening, you’d like it).

You don’t want to think rationally about PUA. You don’t want to learn it. You’re biased against it. You need to find some other topic where you can have a good time and make progress there instead.

Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com

Anne B

unread,
May 9, 2019, 8:50:50 AM5/9/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:47 AM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> On May 8, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Note: I've spent many hours writing what I wrote below. It's less
> > organized than I would like because there are so many different things
> > going on and I don't understand them very well. Maybe I should have
> > broken it into smaller posts but I couldn't decide how to do that. Or
> > maybe I should have worked on it more tomorrow instead of sending it
> > now. Or maybe I should have written lots of short posts as I thought
> > of new things instead of re-writing what I had already written.
>
> I think you spent those hours hurting yourself (and partially blaming FI/me/anon/etc for that harm). I doubt they significantly improved the post, and they could easily have made it worse.

Some of the things I first wrote were more defensive. I was defending
myself more than trying to find answers. I didn't think it would be
helpful to post that kind of thing.

> You spent those hours contrary to my advice about speaking on FI like you would in person (where you reply to people verbally within a few seconds).

I will try to write quickly this time and see how it turns out. I
don't think it'll be easy for me.
I wonder what I should have done instead.

It doesn't seem like things would have gone well if I said how I felt,
especially since I didn't and still don't really understand why I felt
that way. I've been trained to not express negative feelings.

It doesn't seem right to have just not answered. That would also have
had the effect of shutting down the conversation.

I could have said something like *I don't like talking about PUA and I
don't know why so I'm going to stop talking about it*. That seems
strange.
The literal meaning is that anonymous didn't understand something I'd
done. I have trouble seeing that literal meaning because I still have
the gut feeling that anonymous was being rude to me deliberately. I
don't know what to do about that gut feeling.

> >>> A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
> >>> understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
> >>> try to debate something you're ignorant about.” This would have more
> >>> the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
> >>> assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
> >>> the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
> >>> could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.
> >>
> >> You think someone saying they don’t understand why you did something is an attack, and saying that you’re being unreasonable is neutral.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.
> >>
> >> Your preferences don’t make sense and aren’t consistent. They are not something that a person could reasonably be expected to predict. And I’m doubtful the thing you’re saying now is your preference. It might be. But I think it’s something you think *today*, but that you don’t know one way or another how you would have reacted to the alternative wording if anon said it on the day of his post, in the same post with nothing else changed.
> >
> > There is something in anonymous' post that I didn't like and that
> > Fallible Anon didn't like.
>
> I think you don’t like part of yourself. I think anon said things which got you thinking about issues where you have inner conflict. If so, the problem isn’t in his post.

This seems likely to be true. But then why would Fallible Anon not
like the post either? It wasn't directed at Fallible Anon.

> > It might not be the same something for both
> > of us. It might not be what either of us thought it was or currently
> > thinks it is. It might be something that anonymous did wrong or not. I
> > want to understand better what that something is.
>
> No you don’t. If you wanted to find out you would have been curious. You did not act with curiosity. You were more interested in ending the conversation than asking questions. And you haven’t changed as a person in a big way since then.
>
> You now feel like you want to know. That is a short term feeling which is not enough to base a conversation on.

The feeling is still here. How can I tell when I actually want to know
something and when I just think I want to know something?

> > Generally (not just in this thread), I'm confused by what kinds of
> > things you (Elliot) think are mean and why. I think you see meanness
> > differently than I do in some important way. I suspect that in this
> > area I am influenced by some cultural memes that are currently
> > invisible to me.
> >
> >>> I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
> >>> gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
> >>> I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
> >>> wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
> >>> coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
> >>> subject than I do.
> >>>
> >>> But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
> >>> was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
> >>> might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.
> >>
> >> You made claims about what the world is like and about what PUA is about. You didn’t appear listen to what you were being told about the world or PUA and try to understand how it could be correct.
> >
> > About PUA and the world: I could now try to state my position clearly,
> > and to state what I think anonymous said. Or I could go back and try
> > to improve what I originally wrote, line by line. Or something else?
> > I'm not sure what the best way is to go about learning how I could
> > have done better. It seems overwhelming.
>
> Stop. Don’t. Abort. You have to do things you want to do. Otherwise you’ll mistreat people, especially yourself. When you dislike things and have a bad time, that means you don’t understand how to get value from them: they aren’t working, they aren’t productive, you aren’t learning (if those things were happening, you’d like it).
>
> You don’t want to think rationally about PUA. You don’t want to learn it. You’re biased against it. You need to find some other topic where you can have a good time and make progress there instead.

I agree that I don't want to learn PUA and that I'm biased against it.
I want to find out how and why I'm biased against it.

It seems too easy to just give up on PUA because I don't like thinking about it.

Would it be right to just give up on this whole thread because it's
unpleasant for me? Does that mean giving up on learning what my
problem is with it? Should I try to make myself stop thinking about
it? It seems to me that if I'm thinking about something I should be
writing about it. Should I write about it but with a warning to others
that they might not want to answer me because I'm pretty sure I'm not
rational about it?

If I decide to always give up on topics that are unpleasant for me
then I fear that I won't have any topics at all to discuss.

What if I feel compelled to keep trying to figure something out but I
find it unpleasant? I can't just tell myself to stop thinking about it
and have that result in me not thinking about it any more. I don't
have that much control over my thoughts.

I succeeded in writing this post pretty fast.

I'm going to send it even though I think it's a mess. Maybe it would
have been better just to say I'm dropping the whole thread. But that
seems too easy. Hmm, maybe I think it would make me look bad too, to
drop it.

Anne B

unread,
May 9, 2019, 11:19:34 AM5/9/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
What should I do the next time I think someone here is trying to
intimidate me? It seems scary to say something about it because if
they really were trying to intimidate me, pointing it out would invite
more of the same. I fear that if they really were trying to intimidate
me they wouldn't admit it, they'd just be even meaner.

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 9, 2019, 1:18:54 PM5/9/19
to fallibl...@yahoogroups.com, fallibl...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 11:40 AM Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us
[fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 7, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Fallible Anon fallib...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:42 PM 'anonymous FI'
> > anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas]
> > <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 3, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM anonymous FI
> >>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On May 3, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM anonymous FI
> >>>>> <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 2, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've been trying to figure out why I find pickup culture
> >>>>>>> distasteful. I think the following is part of it. There could be more, but this is part of it..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I watched this video
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlb0DTawwAI
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I found it unpleasant to watch people hugging each other who had just met.
>
> ....
>
> >>>>> What I want to say is: One thing I don't like about PUA stuff is
> >>>>> that it takes place within dating/partying culture, which I find
> >>>>> distasteful.
>
> If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because of its connection to *dating*, anon’s point that dating is mainstream applies. And Anne’s complaint about *hugging* behavior relates to *mainstream* social interaction, not clubs specifically.
>

So... is the claim something like:

*99% of people want to engage in some form of dating, and this group
also likes hugging when they first meet.*

... or what? Otherwise, why is the fact that 99% of people want some
kind of dating at all relevant?

Did Anne bring in the entire concept of "dating" as relevant somehow,
or did Anon?

It looks like Anne did, here:

> >>> I'm not convinced that dating/partying culture is more mainstream now than it was a few decades ago. I'd have to do some research to believe you on that. I don't know if it's important enough to this conversation or to me generally to research it now.

This looks like Anne using imprecise language in trying to respond to
Anon. Anne wasn't thinking of *anything that could conceivably be
considered "dating".* Anne was thinking of the specific nightclub
culture she's been talking about this whole time. This seems like
context that is easy to pick up on.

So why did Anon point out that 99% of people want some form of dating
like it was a point refuting Anne?

> If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because it takes place within *clubbing*, she’s wrong. There are e.g. daygame and social circle game. PUA is about social dynamics, which take place in connection with all types of dating/courtship/hookups/whatever (including long term relationships and marriages). It’s not specifically related to clubs.
>
> A fair amount of the PUA knowledge of social dynamics, e.g. lots about social status, also applies to office politics, friendships, and other non-relationship things. That’s not the focus though.
>
> > This is painful. Anon has performed a bait-and-switch on Anne and she
> > is too timid to notice or something, so she just accepts it.
>
> ....
>

"Painful" is metaphorical, in case this was somehow confusing. I
didn't feel literal physical pain. But seeing someone immediately cave
in to what seems (to me) to be an obvious change of the goalposts is
kind of pathetic and lame. See, "lame" is another word that has
origins in physical pain but colloquially has moved pretty far from
that.

> > Okay so far Anne is saying that meeting people on the street/at
> > bars/at nightclubs —which are big areas of focus on PUA—seems
> > unpleasant and foreign to her.
>
> ....

I'm curious why this excerpt made it in as an example of anger.

I see a typo though. I typed "on" instead of "in".

>
> > It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
> > when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
> > basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
> > an arrogant cunt.
>
> You seem angry in advance of any discussion iterations to figure out which ideas are correct. That’s not a productive way to approach a conversation.
>

Nah.

In another email in this thread you said:

> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.

So I think this specific phrase stood out to you as notably mean and
an indication I'm angry.

But you also said this:

> You seem to have ignored (and still be ignoring) the literal meaning of the words he used, because of your adversarial goal of *not* having a cooperative conversation.

I think it's interesting. This was in reference to Anon saying "I
understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand
then trying to debate the matter."

So, Anne thinks that "I understand being out of touch and ignorant,
but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" is mean. You
think that she is ignoring the literal meaning of the words because of
her adversarial goal.

You are viewing the phrase "I understand being out of touch and
ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" in
a strictly literal sense, where Anon is just saying the part they
understand (Anne is out of touch and ignorant; no meanness there), and
the part they don't understand (Anne is debating something she doesn't
know about; why would she do that). That's one possible
interpretation, sure.

Okay. Got it. I didn't call Anon an arrogant cunt, though. I didn't
even say that Anon looks like an arrogant cunt, necessarily. The
literal words that I used, that you cut off, were:

> > This is social posturing. It's trying to intimidate Anne into shutting
up because she is so outclassed. Which is kind of embarrassing given
how bad of a final argument immediately preceded it.

> > It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
an arrogant cunt.

So, when someone engages in a specific behavior it makes them look
like an arrogant cunt.

It's true that, if you read this with the lens of normal social cues
and context, it's pretty insulting and mean. But the literal words are
stating that my assessment of Anon as a cunt are directly contingent
on my interpretation of Anon's statement. If I'm wrong about Anon
engaging in social posturing, then I'm wrong about Anon being a cunt.

What happens if we use our lens of normal social cues and context to
view this sentence: "I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but
i don't understand then trying to debate the matter"

It's insulting and mean. Yeah, the literal words can be interpreted
other ways. But in normal social contexts this would be construed as
very aggressive, and an attempt to meanly shut someone up. "Out of
touch" is not a nice way of describing someone. "I don't understand
why you're trying to debate" is the meanest part of the sentence, in a
conventional sense. It's saying stuff like... you're so bad and
outclassed that this is ridiculous... you have no hope of winning
this... just give up now.

It's in the same class of language that villains say when plucky
heroes stand up to them.

So... when Anon uses words that are mean in a normal social context
but have a literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is
Anne's fault that she interpreted it meanly.

When I use words that are mean in a normal social context but have a
literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is mean and
Anne should have noticed that.

Huh. Seems like a contradiction.

BTW: Anne is behaving in a very socially normal way. She is hurt by
the conventionally mean words said to her. She's not bothered by the
conventionally mean words said to the person who was mean to her.
That's super predictable, not much to see there. I find your
apparently contradictory interpretations way more interesting.

> PS You have to join the FI google group, which is the main group, in order to send emails to it.
>

Thanks, fixed I think.

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 9, 2019, 3:27:56 PM5/9/19
to FIGG, FIYG
Do that. Your fear may not materialized. Has it ever, at FI?

If someone escalates, third parties like me may take issue with it. And you can get greater clarity about what’s going on.

If you post 3 times along the lines of saying you think someone is being mean, and all they do is escalate to more blatant meanness, I think you may actually feel better. You will lose all respect for what they are saying. It won’t be ambiguous in your mind that maybe they have a point. You will feel confident they don’t have a point.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 9, 2019, 11:17:01 PM5/9/19
to FIGG, FIYG
Yes, do that. Then other people will know what’s going on.

It seems strange to you because you’re used to being dishonest about your problems instead of saying them clearly and plainly like that. Then people treat you according to what you communicated, instead of the actual situation, so their actions match your situation badly. This happens more on FI than elsewhere because FI is a place for truth-telling and people are less eager to assume you’re a liar.
Your gut feeling is mistaken. anon was not rude to you deliberately, and you were rude to him deliberately.


>>>>> A more neutral way to write the sentence would be something like: "I
>>>>> understand being out of touch and ignorant, but it's not reasonable to
>>>>> try to debate something you're ignorant about.” This would have more
>>>>> the flavor of pointing out to me where I'm not being reasonable,
>>>>> assuming I would want to know that in order to correct it, rather than
>>>>> the flavor of saying it's incomprehensible (not understandable) that I
>>>>> could be unreasonable and therefore not possible to fix.
>>>>
>>>> You think someone saying they don’t understand why you did something is an attack, and saying that you’re being unreasonable is neutral.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.
>>>>
>>>> Your preferences don’t make sense and aren’t consistent. They are not something that a person could reasonably be expected to predict. And I’m doubtful the thing you’re saying now is your preference. It might be. But I think it’s something you think *today*, but that you don’t know one way or another how you would have reacted to the alternative wording if anon said it on the day of his post, in the same post with nothing else changed.
>>>
>>> There is something in anonymous' post that I didn't like and that
>>> Fallible Anon didn't like.
>>
>> I think you don’t like part of yourself. I think anon said things which got you thinking about issues where you have inner conflict. If so, the problem isn’t in his post.
>
> This seems likely to be true. But then why would Fallible Anon not
> like the post either? It wasn't directed at Fallible Anon.

He looks to me like an FI detractor.


>>> It might not be the same something for both
>>> of us. It might not be what either of us thought it was or currently
>>> thinks it is. It might be something that anonymous did wrong or not. I
>>> want to understand better what that something is.
>>
>> No you don’t. If you wanted to find out you would have been curious. You did not act with curiosity. You were more interested in ending the conversation than asking questions. And you haven’t changed as a person in a big way since then.
>>
>> You now feel like you want to know. That is a short term feeling which is not enough to base a conversation on.
>
> The feeling is still here. How can I tell when I actually want to know
> something and when I just think I want to know something?

Looking at your actions reveals a lot. I explained how I analyzed it in the text you’re replying to (“No you don’t [...] base a conversation on.”).


>>> Generally (not just in this thread), I'm confused by what kinds of
>>> things you (Elliot) think are mean and why. I think you see meanness
>>> differently than I do in some important way. I suspect that in this
>>> area I am influenced by some cultural memes that are currently
>>> invisible to me.
>>>
>>>>> I didn't think I was debating. I thought I was stating my un-reasoned
>>>>> gut feelings as a way to try to understand my bias against PUA stuff.
>>>>> I thought that anonymous was telling me my gut feelings were based on
>>>>> wrong facts, without explaining where anonymous' correct facts were
>>>>> coming from, other than that anonymous claims to know more about the
>>>>> subject than I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But maybe I was trying to debate more than I thought I was. Maybe I
>>>>> was trying to justify my gut feelings even while I was saying they
>>>>> might be wrong. It's hard for me to tell.
>>>>
>>>> You made claims about what the world is like and about what PUA is about. You didn’t appear listen to what you were being told about the world or PUA and try to understand how it could be correct.
>>>
>>> About PUA and the world: I could now try to state my position clearly,
>>> and to state what I think anonymous said. Or I could go back and try
>>> to improve what I originally wrote, line by line. Or something else?
>>> I'm not sure what the best way is to go about learning how I could
>>> have done better. It seems overwhelming.
>>
>> Stop. Don’t. Abort. You have to do things you want to do. Otherwise you’ll mistreat people, especially yourself. When you dislike things and have a bad time, that means you don’t understand how to get value from them: they aren’t working, they aren’t productive, you aren’t learning (if those things were happening, you’d like it).
>>
>> You don’t want to think rationally about PUA. You don’t want to learn it. You’re biased against it. You need to find some other topic where you can have a good time and make progress there instead.
>
> I agree that I don't want to learn PUA and that I'm biased against it.
> I want to find out how and why I'm biased against it.

I think finding that out is too hard for you right now. If that would provide you with a lot of motivation – which I doubt – then you could e.g. study the FI website essays as a step towards being able to find out in the future.


> It seems too easy to just give up on PUA because I don't like thinking about it.
>
> Would it be right to just give up on this whole thread because it's
> unpleasant for me? Does that mean giving up on learning what my
> problem is with it? Should I try to make myself stop thinking about
> it? It seems to me that if I'm thinking about something I should be
> writing about it. Should I write about it but with a warning to others
> that they might not want to answer me because I'm pretty sure I'm not
> rational about it?
>
> If I decide to always give up on topics that are unpleasant for me
> then I fear that I won't have any topics at all to discuss.

I think it’s important to find some topics which are easier for you and have some success there, and then try to build on that to some further success. See the essays, audios, and discussions about overreaching, powering up, only doing what’s easy, etc.

> What if I feel compelled to keep trying to figure something out but I
> find it unpleasant? I can't just tell myself to stop thinking about it
> and have that result in me not thinking about it any more. I don't
> have that much control over my thoughts.
>
> I succeeded in writing this post pretty fast.

The writing seems just as good as your other writing, about the same, in my opinion.


> I'm going to send it even though I think it's a mess. Maybe it would
> have been better just to say I'm dropping the whole thread. But that
> seems too easy. Hmm, maybe I think it would make me look bad too, to
> drop it.

I don’t think you should silently drop threads that have had a significant amount of discussion. But you can give a reason and drop them.


Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

Anne B

unread,
May 10, 2019, 7:27:30 AM5/10/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
I agree that this sentence, in most contexts outside of FI, would be
considered insulting and mean. I can't tell if Elliot agrees with
that.

I am confused about Elliot's general ideas about meanness, so I could
be way off. But my current guess at Elliot's position is something
like: *It doesn't matter whether that sentence would be considered
insulting in most social contexts. In FI we should read it literally
and not interpret it as insulting or mean.* And I think Elliot has
some reason for this position but I'm not clear on what that reason
is.

Anne B

unread,
May 10, 2019, 7:55:30 AM5/10/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Okay. I'm going to stop talking about the PUA part of this thread
because it's not going well for me. I may stop talking about PUA
altogether for now for the same reason.
I don't know if anonymous was rude to me deliberately. He has not said.

I do agree that his post, if read literally, was not rude. And I agree
that I should try to read FI posts as if they are not rude, when
possible. I can't think of a better idea than to keep trying to do
this, going forward.
This seems like cheating to me because I think learning has to be difficult.

But I realize it doesn't make sense that learning should have to be
difficult. I've learned lots of things in my life that were easy and
fun to learn.

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 10, 2019, 2:53:40 PM5/10/19
to FIGG, FIYG
Saying "So... is the claim something like:” suggests that you’re summarizing or interpreting the quoted text above that statement. But you’re not. The quotes you gave do not include “99%”.


> Did Anne bring in the entire concept of "dating" as relevant somehow,
> or did Anon?
>
> It looks like Anne did, here:

That wasn’t first. Did you do a text search?


>>>>> I'm not convinced that dating/partying culture is more mainstream now than it was a few decades ago. I'd have to do some research to believe you on that. I don't know if it's important enough to this conversation or to me generally to research it now.
>
> This looks like Anne using imprecise language in trying to respond to
> Anon. Anne wasn't thinking of *anything that could conceivably be
> considered "dating".* Anne was thinking of the specific nightclub
> culture she's been talking about this whole time. This seems like
> context that is easy to pick up on.
>
> So why did Anon point out that 99% of people want some form of dating
> like it was a point refuting Anne?

Anne said she was uncomfortable with seeing hugging in a PUA video.

anon said hugging is part of mainstream dating and partying culture. it’s really normal. anon’s point was that Anne was wrong to blame the hugging on PUA – that is not PUA-specific behavior, non-PUA people do it too.

Anne replied by claiming PUA is bad because it takes place within dating/partying culture, which she thinks is bad. That’s confusing because the term seems to be rather generic and include all dating, which is also the interpretation which makes the claim true (PUA really is within dating culture). Alternatively, if the term just means clubbing/partying, it’s false that PUA takes place within it. Anne was confusing and confused. There was no bait and switch by anon.


>> If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because it takes place within *clubbing*, she’s wrong. There are e.g. daygame and social circle game. PUA is about social dynamics, which take place in connection with all types of dating/courtship/hookups/whatever (including long term relationships and marriages). It’s not specifically related to clubs.
>>
>> A fair amount of the PUA knowledge of social dynamics, e.g. lots about social status, also applies to office politics, friendships, and other non-relationship things. That’s not the focus though.
>>
>>> This is painful. Anon has performed a bait-and-switch on Anne and she
>>> is too timid to notice or something, so she just accepts it.
>>
>> ....
>>
>
> "Painful" is metaphorical, in case this was somehow confusing. I
> didn't feel literal physical pain. But seeing someone immediately cave
> in to what seems (to me) to be an obvious change of the goalposts is
> kind of pathetic and lame. See, "lame" is another word that has
> origins in physical pain but colloquially has moved pretty far from
> that.
>
>>> Okay so far Anne is saying that meeting people on the street/at
>>> bars/at nightclubs —which are big areas of focus on PUA—seems
>>> unpleasant and foreign to her.
>>
>> ....
>
> I'm curious why this excerpt made it in as an example of anger.
>
> I see a typo though. I typed "on" instead of "in”.

It wasn’t 3 examples. The first two quotes were context.

>>> It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
>>> when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
>>> basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
>>> an arrogant cunt.
>>
>> You seem angry in advance of any discussion iterations to figure out which ideas are correct. That’s not a productive way to approach a conversation.
>>
>
> Nah.
>
> In another email in this thread you said:
>
>> Meanwhile you praised Fallible Anon’s post, and didn’t point out meanness, even though it said "you look like an arrogant cunt”.
>
> So I think this specific phrase stood out to you as notably mean and
> an indication I'm angry.

Yes.

Are you non-American and unfamiliar with what the word “cunt” means in America? Because you come off as pretty much trolling, but ignorant foreigner is one of the other possibilities.


> But you also said this:
>
>> You seem to have ignored (and still be ignoring) the literal meaning of the words he used, because of your adversarial goal of *not* having a cooperative conversation.
>
> I think it's interesting.

Your comment about someone looking like an "arrogant cunt" is *false if read literally*. You don’t know what anon physically looks like and weren’t actually talking about that. Also arrogance is not a literal trait of vaginas.

> This was in reference to Anon saying "I
> understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand
> then trying to debate the matter."
>
> So, Anne thinks that "I understand being out of touch and ignorant,
> but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" is mean. You
> think that she is ignoring the literal meaning of the words because of
> her adversarial goal.
>
> You are viewing the phrase "I understand being out of touch and
> ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" in
> a strictly literal sense, where Anon is just saying the part they
> understand (Anne is out of touch and ignorant; no meanness there), and
> the part they don't understand (Anne is debating something she doesn't
> know about; why would she do that). That's one possible
> interpretation, sure.

Maybe you’re unaware that I can do things like IM anon and ask what he meant, and that I know a lot about his posting history, character, knowledge, etc.

> Okay. Got it. I didn't call Anon an arrogant cunt, though. I didn't
> even say that Anon looks like an arrogant cunt, necessarily. The
> literal words that I used, that you cut off, were:
>
>>> This is social posturing. It's trying to intimidate Anne into shutting
>>> up because she is so outclassed. Which is kind of embarrassing given
>>> how bad of a final argument immediately preceded it.
>>>
>>> It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
>>> when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
>>> basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
>>> an arrogant cunt.
>
> So, when someone engages in a specific behavior it makes them look
> like an arrogant cunt.
>
> It's true that, if you read this with the lens of normal social cues
> and context, it's pretty insulting and mean. But the literal words are
> stating that my assessment of Anon as a cunt are directly contingent
> on my interpretation of Anon's statement. If I'm wrong about Anon
> engaging in social posturing, then I'm wrong about Anon being a cunt.

Yes, it’s contingent on something which you believe is true. So it’s your opinion.

> What happens if we use our lens of normal social cues and context to
> view this sentence: "I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but
> i don't understand then trying to debate the matter"
>
> It's insulting and mean. Yeah, the literal words can be interpreted
> other ways. But in normal social contexts this would be construed as
> very aggressive, and an attempt to meanly shut someone up. "Out of
> touch" is not a nice way of describing someone.

It seems to be true and relevant. One night stands are common and Anne is bothered by merely hugging a person you just met. Does Anne have any idea what happens on the dance floor inside those clubs, or in their bathrooms? She seems to, in fact, be out of touch, and that seems to be playing a role in the discussion. Whereas what you said about anon wasn’t productive.

It’s easy to google a few one night stand surveys. It’s one of the many activities Anne chose not to do. Here’s one:

https://www.metro.us/lifestyle/relationships/one-night-stand-survey-dr-ed

> Around 66 percent of those surveyed [...] had at least one one-night stand — the majority of which were “spontaneous.” About 14 percent of one-and-dones were planned.


lol @ people who go to a club to flirt and do sexual dancing and who then have a “spontaneous” hookup. they are dishonest.

> American men who participated in the survey had an average of seven one-nighters; American women had six. European men averaged six while women across the pond had four.


back to FA’s email:

> "I don't understand
> why you're trying to debate" is the meanest part of the sentence, in a
> conventional sense. It's saying stuff like... you're so bad and
> outclassed that this is ridiculous... you have no hope of winning
> this... just give up now.

Your reading is conventionally allowable but not mandatory (Anne also gave a reading which is the same way). There are also other readings, which are conventionally allowable, which are much less negative or are not negative. There are a wide range of options for how someone takes anon’s statement. They can get offended or not get offended, they have socially legitimate options. Reading it as meaning anon doesn’t understand something is allowed by conventional culture.

With the “cunt” comment, reading it in a neutral way is culturally disallowed.

> It's in the same class of language that villains say when plucky
> heroes stand up to them.
>
> So... when Anon uses words that are mean in a normal social context
> but have a literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is
> Anne's fault that she interpreted it meanly.
>
> When I use words that are mean in a normal social context but have a
> literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is mean and
> Anne should have noticed that.

what literal meaning? it was a metaphor. and you could have trivially rewritten the same ideas to be significantly less (conventionally) offensive. whereas with anon’s text, most of the offense was from the concepts being communicated rather than the wording.

It’s sufficiently hard to reword’s anon’s text to be less offensive, while retaining the meaning, that Anne’s suggested rewording – which did a reasonable job of keeping the same content – actually made it more offensive, not less.


> Huh. Seems like a contradiction.

that “huh” is socially-charged and (passive) aggressive. the “seems like” is also social. these are examples of some of the many signs that FA’s posts *actually are* partly socially normal communications, and should be read that way.

> BTW: Anne is behaving in a very socially normal way. She is hurt by
> the conventionally mean words said to her. She's not bothered by the
> conventionally mean words said to the person who was mean to her.
> That's super predictable, not much to see there.

yeah, i noticed.

> I find your apparently contradictory interpretations way more interesting.

explained above.

PS, tangentially:

Anne was asked to use the best PUA source material – specifically the Girls Chase book – if she’s gonna spend time on this. She dropped that topic then acted against that advice and then found videos involving clubs that she didn’t like. This whole incident would not have happened if she had taken the advice she did not refute. The book is more intellectual and is not club-oriented. She also could have found an RSD video with zero club scenes (there are lots of those). She’s sabotaging by finding stuff to get mad about.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 10, 2019, 5:19:15 PM5/10/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
Not trolling. "cunt" is an insulting word, sure. That was the point.
It's a statement that can straightforwardly be read as insulting in a
conventional way.

>
> > But you also said this:
> >
> >> You seem to have ignored (and still be ignoring) the literal meaning of the words he used, because of your adversarial goal of *not* having a cooperative conversation.
> >
> > I think it's interesting.
>
> Your comment about someone looking like an "arrogant cunt" is *false if read literally*. You don’t know what anon physically looks like and weren’t actually talking about that. Also arrogance is not a literal trait of vaginas.
>

There are layers of literal in any given statement. This is definitely
the most fascinating part of your response.

Here you're trying to apply a completely cultural-context-free
reading, being as literal as you possibly can, without any
understanding of common phrases, expressions, idioms, etc.

So you are ignoring e.g. "cunt" as a colloquial term for "mean
person", "looks like" also has colloquial meaning that can be
discerned from context.

But you're acting as though a *literal reading* would be a reading
where we strip away that context. I don't think you do this all the
time, when reading things literally. I don't think you're actually
*capable* of doing this all the time. I think you read things this way
selectively, when you feel like it, as an argumentation tactic.

Let's look at anon's statement again: "I understand being out of touch
and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the
matter."

Is this a *strictly literal* statement? Do you notice any metaphors?

Is Anon suggesting that the sensation of touch is some sort of
resource that can be depleted? And that Anon thinks Anne has depleted
her sense of touch?

Nope. Anon used a common metaphorical phrase, with a common meaning. A
*literal* reading of what Anon said still does not need to involve
pretending not to understand that phrase.

"Look like a cunt" is a similarly well-known metaphorical phrase.

The fact that you chose to ignore that when reading the phrase
literally, but did not apply the same standard to Anon, is
interesting.

> > This was in reference to Anon saying "I
> > understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand
> > then trying to debate the matter."
> >
> > So, Anne thinks that "I understand being out of touch and ignorant,
> > but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" is mean. You
> > think that she is ignoring the literal meaning of the words because of
> > her adversarial goal.
> >
> > You are viewing the phrase "I understand being out of touch and
> > ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" in
> > a strictly literal sense, where Anon is just saying the part they
> > understand (Anne is out of touch and ignorant; no meanness there), and
> > the part they don't understand (Anne is debating something she doesn't
> > know about; why would she do that). That's one possible
> > interpretation, sure.
>
> Maybe you’re unaware that I can do things like IM anon and ask what he meant, and that I know a lot about his posting history, character, knowledge, etc.
>

Isn't that anon a bunch of possible posters?
Did Anon know about this statistic and then misremember it upside down?

This is an example of a sarcastic joke. I think you think those are mean.

But I don't have much to say here. This survey does not address the
part where Anon brought up a 99% number and used it to claim Anne was
out of touch and ignorant. It's basically another goalpost switch,
which I am not interested in engaging with.

>
> lol @ people who go to a club to flirt and do sexual dancing and who then have a “spontaneous” hookup. they are dishonest.
>

Agreed.

> > American men who participated in the survey had an average of seven one-nighters; American women had six. European men averaged six while women across the pond had four.
>
>
> back to FA’s email:
>

You can call me Fallible Anonymous Guy if you want.That's got a better acronym.

> > "I don't understand
> > why you're trying to debate" is the meanest part of the sentence, in a
> > conventional sense. It's saying stuff like... you're so bad and
> > outclassed that this is ridiculous... you have no hope of winning
> > this... just give up now.
>
> Your reading is conventionally allowable but not mandatory (Anne also gave a reading which is the same way). There are also other readings, which are conventionally allowable, which are much less negative or are not negative. There are a wide range of options for how someone takes anon’s statement. They can get offended or not get offended, they have socially legitimate options. Reading it as meaning anon doesn’t understand something is allowed by conventional culture.
>

Heh. To the extent that this is true, it's because the hostility is
more nuanced and subtle. It's harder for people to defend against.

If you say "You're a dumb cunt, shut up," that's a very low-tier
insult. It's honest, not very subtle, doesn't display much social
superiority. Makes you look like a cunt, even. A lot of conventional
people will say "fuck off" and go about their business, continue
saying what they were gonna say. It's not very *powerful*.

By contrast, "You seem out of touch and ignorant, I don't understand
why you're trying to debate" is a lot more powerful. It's insidious.
It's got a good bit of plausible deniability while still framing the
speaker as superior and the person being insulted as beneath them.
It's a much more effective way to frame the situation, it's a good
attempt at playing the social game.

There's a reason I likened it to similar sentiments spoken by
fictional villains. Something like "you have no hope of winning, just
give up" is in the same category. It's an attack on the target's self
confidence. It's subtle enough that people can sometimes get away with
it.

Here, you're saying that because the social context is more subtle in
its insult, that's somehow a *good* thing. But normally I don't think
you would ever make that argument. Maybe you don't understand *why*
this sentence has more flexible conventional interpretations? I dunno.

> With the “cunt” comment, reading it in a neutral way is culturally disallowed.
>

Sure, because it's more honest. You actually have to ignore the
cultural context and read the sentiment literally (but not *that*
literally) for it to be less insulting. You have to make a specific
effort to not be insulted by it.

> > It's in the same class of language that villains say when plucky
> > heroes stand up to them.
> >
> > So... when Anon uses words that are mean in a normal social context
> > but have a literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is
> > Anne's fault that she interpreted it meanly.
> >
> > When I use words that are mean in a normal social context but have a
> > literal meaning that is not necessarily mean, you say it is mean and
> > Anne should have noticed that.
>
> what literal meaning? it was a metaphor. and you could have trivially rewritten the same ideas to be significantly less (conventionally) offensive. whereas with anon’s text, most of the offense was from the concepts being communicated rather than the wording.
>
> It’s sufficiently hard to reword’s anon’s text to be less offensive, while retaining the meaning, that Anne’s suggested rewording – which did a reasonable job of keeping the same content – actually made it more offensive, not less.
>
>
> > Huh. Seems like a contradiction.
>
> that “huh” is socially-charged and (passive) aggressive. the “seems like” is also social. these are examples of some of the many signs that FA’s posts *actually are* partly socially normal communications, and should be read that way.
>

Huh. Seems like an intentionally hostile way to read me. That's fair.
It's your choice how to read my posts.

> > BTW: Anne is behaving in a very socially normal way. She is hurt by
> > the conventionally mean words said to her. She's not bothered by the
> > conventionally mean words said to the person who was mean to her.
> > That's super predictable, not much to see there.
>
> yeah, i noticed.
>
> > I find your apparently contradictory interpretations way more interesting.
>
> explained above.
>
> PS, tangentially:
>
> Anne was asked to use the best PUA source material – specifically the Girls Chase book – if she’s gonna spend time on this. She dropped that topic then acted against that advice and then found videos involving clubs that she didn’t like. This whole incident would not have happened if she had taken the advice she did not refute. The book is more intellectual and is not club-oriented. She also could have found an RSD video with zero club scenes (there are lots of those). She’s sabotaging by finding stuff to get mad about.
>

Sure, I believe it. I didn't care much about Anne per se, just the
specific stuff I commented on.

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 10, 2019, 8:04:16 PM5/10/19
to FIGG, FIYG
...
FA thinks anon is an arrogant jerk. Where, in saying that, is the productive point? (And “arrogant jerk” was my original reading, and FA complained I wasn’t being literal enough with his statement. I don’t know what reading FA wants which is more literal than "arrogant jerk" but doesn’t involve a vagina.)

I get that FA said other things, e.g. about a bait-and-switch, which attempted to be productive. But I don’t see the value add in the “cunt” comment. What reading of it makes it a good thing to say?


>>> You are viewing the phrase "I understand being out of touch and
>>> ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" in
>>> a strictly literal sense, where Anon is just saying the part they
>>> understand (Anne is out of touch and ignorant; no meanness there), and
>>> the part they don't understand (Anne is debating something she doesn't
>>> know about; why would she do that). That's one possible interpretation, sure.
>>
>> Maybe you’re unaware that I can do things like IM anon and ask what he meant, and that I know a lot about his posting history, character, knowledge, etc.
>>
>
> Isn't that anon a bunch of possible posters?

Yes, nevertheless I can do what I said in most cases including this one.


>> https://www.metro.us/lifestyle/relationships/one-night-stand-survey-dr-ed
>>
>>> Around 66 percent of those surveyed [...] had at least one one-night stand — the majority of which were “spontaneous.” About 14 percent of one-and-dones were planned.

...

> But I don't have much to say here. This survey does not address the
> part where Anon brought up a 99% number and used it to claim Anne was
> out of touch and ignorant. It's basically another goalpost switch,
> which I am not interested in engaging with.

See: https://curi.us/2194-discussion-policy-quotes-or-youre-presumed-wrong

Also, I already tried, twice, to explain the issue to you and my experience has been that you basically ignored me. See:

On May 7, 2019, at 11:40 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because of its connection to *dating*, anon’s point that dating is mainstream applies. And Anne’s complaint about *hugging* behavior relates to *mainstream* social interaction, not clubs specifically.
>
> If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because it takes place within *clubbing*, she’s wrong. There are e.g. daygame and social circle game. PUA is about social dynamics, which take place in connection with all types of dating/courtship/hookups/whatever (including long term relationships and marriages). It’s not specifically related to clubs.
>
> A fair amount of the PUA knowledge of social dynamics, e.g. lots about social status, also applies to office politics, friendships, and other non-relationship things. That’s not the focus though.

FA responded to the first paragraph only. That response was confused and then he ignored me when I replied (partly above, partly quoted next):


On May 10, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> Anne said she was uncomfortable with seeing hugging in a PUA video.
>
> anon said hugging is part of mainstream dating and partying culture. it’s really normal. anon’s point was that Anne was wrong to blame the hugging on PUA – that is not PUA-specific behavior, non-PUA people do it too.
>
> Anne replied by claiming PUA is bad because it takes place within dating/partying culture, which she thinks is bad. That’s confusing because the term seems to be rather generic and include all dating, which is also the interpretation which makes the claim true (PUA really is within dating culture). Alternatively, if the term just means clubbing/partying, it’s false that PUA takes place within it. Anne was confusing and confused. There was no bait and switch by anon.


FA did not respond to this.

FA's research quality/skill appears to be that he can’t actually figure out who said what in what chronology (see above near the top), and does not know how to use quotes (above near the top, and also above before the two quotes from other emails), and wants to ignore those problems (the non-replies above near the top).

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

anonymous FI

unread,
May 11, 2019, 11:30:05 PM5/11/19
to FIGG, FIYG
On May 10, 2019, at 14:53 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> Anne was asked to use the best PUA source material – specifically
> the Girls Chase book – if she’s gonna spend time on this. She
> dropped that topic then acted against that advice and then found
> videos involving clubs that she didn’t like. This whole incident
> would not have happened if she had taken the advice she did not
> refute. The book is more intellectual and is not club-oriented. She
> also could have found an RSD video with zero club scenes (there are
> lots of those). She’s sabotaging by finding stuff to get mad about.

Do you think the sabotage is intentional? The first dictionary I checked
defines sabotage in part as a verb meaning “deliberately destroy,
damage, or obstruct (something)”.

Or is this use of sabotage like your use of lying? You say a lie is “a
communication (or a belief, for lying to yourself) which you should know
is false.”

https://rationalessays.com/lying

So is curi-sabotage (if you’ll permit me the hyphenated term for
clarity) something like “destroy, damage, or obstruct (something) when
one knows or should have known that would be the effect”?

Elliot Temple

unread,
May 11, 2019, 11:38:21 PM5/11/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
Her actions work to prevent success instead of cause success. She put effort into making it fail. The intentionality is similar to lots of lying. She could and should have known and done better than she did. She did not have full conscious of everything she did and its consequences. She acted unreasonably. Dishonesty was involved (presumably primarily with herself).

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 15, 2019, 1:08:23 AM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
That's a quote from the block of exchanges where it was discussed, and
seemed to be a good representation of Anne's perspective. But you're
right. I concede that Anne did not bring up "dating" as relevant, my
bad.

Anon did, which I missed. Here it is:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM anonymous FI
<anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The subject line is "pickup culture" but your complaint is about dating
> and partying culture. Maybe you should watch some non-PUA videos of
> spring break, parties or clubs.

And then Anne responded a lot using that same term. In my last email I
was only looking at her responses.

So in this thread Anon was the first one to bring up "dating" as a
relevant concept. Specifically, indicating that Anne does not
understand it.

And then later Anon said this:

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM anonymous FI
<anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Anne B <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that dating/partying culture is more mainstream now
> > than it was a few decades ago. I'd have to do some research to believe
> > you on that. I don't know if it's important enough to this
> > conversation or to me generally to research it now.
>
> Over 99% of Americans want to date (or something similar but less
> formal/structured) at some point in their lives. Have you listened to
> mainstream radio or watched mainstream TV?
> Over 99% of Americans want to date (or something similar but less
> formal/structured) at some point in their lives. Have you listened to
> mainstream radio or watched mainstream TV?

Therefore, Anon's claim is that "99% of Americans" want the stuff that
Anne could see in "non-PUA videos of spring break, parties, and
clubs."

That's super false. If Anon wants to argue that this very bold claim
is actually true, they can do so, and I might argue with them. I think
it's really common knowledge in America that this claim is false. I
think that someone with a sort of basic beginner-level knowledge of
American culture would know this. That Anon doesn't, and is lecturing
Anne about being out of touch and ignorant, is noteworthy.
No response to the "literal" stuff, huh? Kay.

>
> >>> You are viewing the phrase "I understand being out of touch and
> >>> ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter" in
> >>> a strictly literal sense, where Anon is just saying the part they
> >>> understand (Anne is out of touch and ignorant; no meanness there), and
> >>> the part they don't understand (Anne is debating something she doesn't
> >>> know about; why would she do that). That's one possible interpretation, sure.
> >>
> >> Maybe you’re unaware that I can do things like IM anon and ask what he meant, and that I know a lot about his posting history, character, knowledge, etc.
> >>
> >
> > Isn't that anon a bunch of possible posters?
>
> Yes, nevertheless I can do what I said in most cases including this one.
>

This might be why you are pretending Anon made good arguments that
weren't made, and generally attributing good motives/logic/etc. to
them without much cause to do so in the actual content of the message.

You having secret knowledge doesn't help the discussion much for everyone else.

>
> >> https://www.metro.us/lifestyle/relationships/one-night-stand-survey-dr-ed
> >>
> >>> Around 66 percent of those surveyed [...] had at least one one-night stand — the majority of which were “spontaneous.” About 14 percent of one-and-dones were planned.
>
> ...
>
> > But I don't have much to say here. This survey does not address the
> > part where Anon brought up a 99% number and used it to claim Anne was
> > out of touch and ignorant. It's basically another goalpost switch,
> > which I am not interested in engaging with.
>
> See: https://curi.us/2194-discussion-policy-quotes-or-youre-presumed-wrong
>
> Also, I already tried, twice, to explain the issue to you and my experience has been that you basically ignored me. See:
>
> On May 7, 2019, at 11:40 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> > If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because of its connection to *dating*, anon’s point that dating is mainstream applies. And Anne’s complaint about *hugging* behavior relates to *mainstream* social interaction, not clubs specifically.
> >
> > If Anne means that she doesn’t like PUA because it takes place within *clubbing*, she’s wrong. There are e.g. daygame and social circle game. PUA is about social dynamics, which take place in connection with all types of dating/courtship/hookups/whatever (including long term relationships and marriages). It’s not specifically related to clubs.
> >
> > A fair amount of the PUA knowledge of social dynamics, e.g. lots about social status, also applies to office politics, friendships, and other non-relationship things. That’s not the focus though.
>
> FA responded to the first paragraph only. That response was confused and then he ignored me when I replied (partly above, partly quoted next):
>

You're attributing more sense to Anon's argument than was there. I
don't/don't see the relevance, so not engaging with that much.

>
> On May 10, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> > Anne said she was uncomfortable with seeing hugging in a PUA video.
> >
> > anon said hugging is part of mainstream dating and partying culture. it’s really normal. anon’s point was that Anne was wrong to blame the hugging on PUA – that is not PUA-specific behavior, non-PUA people do it too.
> >
> > Anne replied by claiming PUA is bad because it takes place within dating/partying culture, which she thinks is bad. That’s confusing because the term seems to be rather generic and include all dating, which is also the interpretation which makes the claim true (PUA really is within dating culture). Alternatively, if the term just means clubbing/partying, it’s false that PUA takes place within it. Anne was confusing and confused. There was no bait and switch by anon.
>
>
> FA did not respond to this.
>

I've effectively responded to this issue above, with quotes and everything.

> FA's research quality/skill appears to be that he can’t actually figure out who said what in what chronology (see above near the top), and does not know how to use quotes (above near the top, and also above before the two quotes from other emails), and wants to ignore those problems (the non-replies above near the top).
>

lul

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 1:38:01 AM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG

On May 14, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Fallible Anon <fallib...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Did Anne bring in the entire concept of "dating" as relevant
>>>>> somehow,
>>>>> or did Anon?
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like Anne did, here:
>>>>
>>>> That wasn’t first. Did you do a text search?
>>
>
> That's a quote from the block of exchanges where it was discussed, and
> seemed to be a good representation of Anne's perspective. But you're
> right. I concede that Anne did not bring up "dating" as relevant, my
> bad.
>
> Anon did, which I missed.

"a good representation" does not mean "first". And that wasn't the first
mention from Anne either, which is something you also missed.

So it's time for you to practice text searches:

>> FA thinks anon is an arrogant jerk. Where, in saying that, is the
>> productive point? (And “arrogant jerk” was my original reading,
>> and FA complained I wasn’t being literal enough with his statement.
>> I don’t know what reading FA wants which is more literal than
>> "arrogant jerk" but doesn’t involve a vagina.)
>>
>> I get that FA said other things, e.g. about a bait-and-switch, which
>> attempted to be productive. But I don’t see the value add in the
>> “cunt” comment. What reading of it makes it a good thing to say?
>>
>
> No response to the "literal" stuff, huh? Kay.

Text search the 2 paragraphs there for the word “literal”. See what
happens.

>> FA's research quality/skill appears to be that he can’t actually
>> figure out who said what in what chronology (see above near the top),
>> and does not know how to use quotes (above near the top, and also
>> above before the two quotes from other emails), and wants to ignore
>> those problems (the non-replies above near the top).
>>
>
> lul

It's sad, not funny.

You're not going to learn with that attitude. Why are you here? What are
your learning goals?

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 15, 2019, 2:26:24 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:38 PM anonymous FI
wat

Why do I care which one is "first" exactly? I didn't bring up "first"
here. I never claimed my quote from anne was the *first* time she used
the word. Just that she brought it up, and then i said "here" and
provided an example of where she brought it up. But, again, I did miss
that Anon first used that term that Anne began using.

Honestly, this is such a disappointing thing to focus on. I probably
won't reply to further pedantry in this area unless it turns out to be
interesting.

> So it's time for you to practice text searches:
>

Yeah, nah. I don't care about your attempts to control the frame of
the discussion. The whole thing where posters like Anne, Rami, PAS,
Kate, etc. are repeatedly told to assume a subservient role to engage
here is pretty fucking weird from the perspective of a
non-frequent-poster. I'm good, man. I'll talk the way I talk. You're
welcome not to engage if you don't like it.

> >> FA thinks anon is an arrogant jerk. Where, in saying that, is the
> >> productive point? (And “arrogant jerk” was my original reading,
> >> and FA complained I wasn’t being literal enough with his statement.
> >> I don’t know what reading FA wants which is more literal than
> >> "arrogant jerk" but doesn’t involve a vagina.)
> >>
> >> I get that FA said other things, e.g. about a bait-and-switch, which
> >> attempted to be productive. But I don’t see the value add in the
> >> “cunt” comment. What reading of it makes it a good thing to say?
> >>
> >
> > No response to the "literal" stuff, huh? Kay.
>
> Text search the 2 paragraphs there for the word “literal”. See what
> happens.
>

Yes, I know he uses the word literal. That's not what I was surprised
to see no response to.

Okay, I'll be more explicit about what I am surprised to see no answer to:
---
Elliot, why do you not understand how to use the word "literal" in a
consistent way? Why do you (presumably intentionally) pretend that a
literal reading of "look like a cunt" is a reference to anatomy, but
"out of touch" is not a reference to the sensation of touch?

They're equally stupid "literal" interpretations. Why did you do one
but not the other? Before you answer: Do you know why? Did you have a
reason before I asked, or are you making one up now?
---

If you want a response to what Elliot said above... I never had an
issue with him interpreting "cunt" as "arrogant jerk". I never claimed
to have a problem with that.

The extent to which "literal" vs. conventional reading came into play
is that when I said:


> > I understand being out of touch and ignorant, but i don't understand then trying to debate the matter.
>
>This is social posturing. It's trying to intimidate Anne into shutting
up because she is so outclassed. Which is kind of embarrassing given
how bad of a final argument immediately preceded it.
>
>It's the kind of thing that makes you seem really confident and badass
when you're right. But when you say it after performing some really
basic argumentation bait-and-switch tricks it just makes you look like
an arrogant cunt.

Conventional reading is that I am calling Anon an arrogant jerk.
Literal reading is that I am specifically saying that *if* you use
social manipulation to try to get someone to give up, and you do it
when you are making a shitty argument, *then* you look like an
arrogant jerk.

You don't need to apply a stupid overly literal interpretation to the
word "cunt". The issue is that my statement literally had parameters
for determining "Is Anon a cunt? Y/N" — Yes, I think Y. But if you
think N, there's a clear path to dispute me.

If I had said "Anon, you're an arrogant cunt" then it's just an attack
with no purpose. The conventional reading might miss this detail, but
the closer more literal reading should not.

I was providing a Path Forward™ for us to decide how much of a cunt
Anon was. Including the possible answer of "zero"

But yes, I did so in a way that was conventionally insulting. I did
that intentionally. Because Anon had been, conventionally, a super
asshole. I thought it would be informative to take the same approach.
And, hey, it was! It seems like intentionally choosing language that
is super conventionally insulting can get in the way of clear
communication. Thinking emoji.

> >> FA's research quality/skill appears to be that he can’t actually
> >> figure out who said what in what chronology (see above near the top),
> >> and does not know how to use quotes (above near the top, and also
> >> above before the two quotes from other emails), and wants to ignore
> >> those problems (the non-replies above near the top).
> >>
> >
> > lul
>
> It's sad, not funny.
>

If it was true, it would be sad. Do you think that I think it's true,
and I am laughing anyway? That's kinda dumb. Why would I do that?

I'm laughing because it's not true and it's such a stupid
characterization that it's kinda funny.

> You're not going to learn with that attitude. Why are you here? What are
> your learning goals?
>

I'm learning what I came to learn so far.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 2:31:52 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG

On May 15, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Fallible Anon <fallib...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> You're not going to learn with that attitude. Why are you here? What
>> are
>> your learning goals?
>>
>
> I'm learning what I came to learn so far.

Why don't you have a question or criticism about something important?
You're picking fights about parochial side-issues. E.g. why don't learn
Yes or No Philosophy or tell us why it's mistaken?

What are some philosophical issues which you regard as important and
agree with FI about, disagree with FI about, or want to learn about?

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 15, 2019, 2:53:23 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG
Because I think my goal is more achievable given the situation. And
it's interesting to me. Why would I do anything other than pursue
conversations I find interesting?

Here, I'll elaborate even though I think the outcome is very predictable:

The core posters here seem to do their best to drive away anyone
interested in discussing "something important" by picking fights with
them about stupid shit. Often by using conventionally aggressive
language, belittling people, and other related tactics. As has been
done in the thread we just broke off from.

I think it's really interesting how the main FI community purports to
be against social games and yet invariably engages in all kinds of
social posturing and manipulation. The fact that they are kinda
awkward and bad at it doesn't excuse it. It still works on some
people! And that sucks.

Overall I think some of these behaviors appear to have gotten worse,
not better, as time has gone on. You could run a lucrative side
business as a bookie taking bets on how much (metaphoric) abuse new
posters take before they leave.

And I do think this is sad, not lulzy, because interspersed throughout
all of this are some good ideas and observations. There's plenty of
value to extract if you can work around the attitudes and tendencies
of the most prolific posters.

I don't see a solution. But I felt like stepping in and pointing out
some of the more blatantly stupid examples. Even when Anne or Kate do
what they're supposed to and submit to their betters, if they disagree
for more than one exchange they still get told stuff that reads like
it's a villain's monologue in a TV show. What a bummer.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 3:01:44 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG

On May 15, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Fallible Anon <fallib...@gmail.com>
Have you read ET's discussion with Ron Garett? Do you regard that as an
example of this pattern that you would want to discuss?

I don't think any previous thread with you will make a good example
because you intentionally opened by trying to pick fights about stupid
shit. That will distract from the issue of whether a core FI poster
caused a problem or not.

> I think it's really interesting how the main FI community purports to
> be against social games and yet invariably engages in all kinds of
> social posturing and manipulation. The fact that they are kinda
> awkward and bad at it doesn't excuse it. It still works on some
> people! And that sucks.
>
> Overall I think some of these behaviors appear to have gotten worse,
> not better, as time has gone on. You could run a lucrative side
> business as a bookie taking bets on how much (metaphoric) abuse new
> posters take before they leave.
>
> And I do think this is sad, not lulzy, because interspersed throughout
> all of this are some good ideas and observations. There's plenty of
> value to extract if you can work around the attitudes and tendencies
> of the most prolific posters.
>
> I don't see a solution. But I felt like stepping in and pointing out
> some of the more blatantly stupid examples. Even when Anne or Kate do
> what they're supposed to and submit to their betters, if they disagree
> for more than one exchange they still get told stuff that reads like
> it's a villain's monologue in a TV show. What a bummer.

I think the quality of your arguments has been low, and the quality of
your reaction to counter-arguments has been poor, and you’ve been a
jerk on purpose. I think your hostility is getting in the way of both
your adherence to logic and your honesty, though I also haven’t seen
any positive reason to expect them to be far above average even if you
were doing your best.

I think this post is more interesting than your previous posts, hence
the questions above.

Fallible Anon

unread,
May 15, 2019, 3:12:27 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:01 PM anonymous FI
Not closely. I'll consider it. Low hanging fruit was the more
straightforwardly garbage way Anne was being treated. Why abandon the
easy one for another one?

> I don't think any previous thread with you will make a good example
> because you intentionally opened by trying to pick fights about stupid
> shit. That will distract from the issue of whether a core FI poster
> caused a problem or not.

Nah, I was pointing out that a fight was being picked about stupid
shit. There's a difference.

I dunno why you'd see me using conventionally insulting language as
*me* picking a fight. You guys do it all the time. Either language
like that is fighting—in which case I'm joining a "fight" already in
progress—or it's not—in which case I was just joining a conversation
mirroring the existing tone.

>
> > I think it's really interesting how the main FI community purports to
> > be against social games and yet invariably engages in all kinds of
> > social posturing and manipulation. The fact that they are kinda
> > awkward and bad at it doesn't excuse it. It still works on some
> > people! And that sucks.
> >
> > Overall I think some of these behaviors appear to have gotten worse,
> > not better, as time has gone on. You could run a lucrative side
> > business as a bookie taking bets on how much (metaphoric) abuse new
> > posters take before they leave.
> >
> > And I do think this is sad, not lulzy, because interspersed throughout
> > all of this are some good ideas and observations. There's plenty of
> > value to extract if you can work around the attitudes and tendencies
> > of the most prolific posters.
> >
> > I don't see a solution. But I felt like stepping in and pointing out
> > some of the more blatantly stupid examples. Even when Anne or Kate do
> > what they're supposed to and submit to their betters, if they disagree
> > for more than one exchange they still get told stuff that reads like
> > it's a villain's monologue in a TV show. What a bummer.
>
> I think the quality of your arguments has been low, and the quality of
> your reaction to counter-arguments has been poor, and you’ve been a
> jerk on purpose. I think your hostility is getting in the way of both
> your adherence to logic and your honesty, though I also haven’t seen
> any positive reason to expect them to be far above average even if you
> were doing your best.
>

Kissing face emoji

> I think this post is more interesting than your previous posts, hence
> the questions above.
>

Heh.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 3:15:41 PM5/15/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG

On May 15, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Fallible Anon <fallib...@gmail.com>
I preemptively gave a reason for that:

>> I don't think any previous thread with you will make a good example
>> because you intentionally opened by trying to pick fights about
>> stupid
>> shit. That will distract from the issue of whether a core FI poster
>> caused a problem or not.
>
> Nah, I was pointing out that a fight was being picked about stupid
> shit. There's a difference.
>
> I dunno why you'd see me using conventionally insulting language as
> *me* picking a fight. You guys do it all the time. Either language
> like that is fighting—in which case I'm joining a "fight" already in
> progress—or it's not—in which case I was just joining a
> conversation
> mirroring the existing tone.

You seem to be refusing to differentiate between degrees of rudeness
(and ambiguity of rudeness). You said things dissimilar to what's
typical here.

Anne B

unread,
May 15, 2019, 4:47:32 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@yahoogroups.com, fallibl...@googlegroups.com
I am hoping for answers from Elliot to these last two paragraphs I wrote.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 4:56:30 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
Aren't you aware of what Elliot has said about how to ask questions
well, how to follow up productively, etc? Try some of that instead of
*hope*.

Anne B

unread,
May 15, 2019, 10:16:36 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
Hmm. I notice that I didn't ask questions explicitly. That could be
part of the problem.

Elliot has said:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/et0FOAbloTY/73MavD7GAAAJ;context-place=forum/fallible-ideas

> a good way to present questions is as a point you got stuck in your own thinking process. you tried to solve W problem, you thought X and Y, you ran into difficulty Z, and the question is how to make progress on W problem. tell that story. you should be looking for help making progress yourself, not for other people to think for you. and you should be putting questions in a context like that so that people have more information about what would be helpful to say.
>
> also, don't ask yes/no questions when you want a useful explanation.

This doesn't seem applicable when I want to know what someone in
particular thinks about something in particular. I think I should just
ask them. I didn't do that. I could try that.

But anonymous (in this post, by anonymous, I mean the anonymous I am
directly replying to, not any previous anonymous people in the thread)
suggested I ask my questions in the way Elliot has suggested. So I
could try that too. Anonymous may have good reasons for their
suggestion.

Below, I tried asking both ways. I think the second way turned out a
bit of a mess. I think I'm still not doing enough of my own thinking
there. I don't know how to fix that. But I did give more information.
Maybe that extra information will be helpful.


# Direct Questions

Elliot, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you think that the sentence “I understand being out of touch and
ignorant, but I don't understand then trying to debate the matter.”
would, by non-FI people and in non-FI social contexts, usually be
considered mean?

2) You have said that this sentence, if read literally, is not mean
and I have agreed. Are you suggesting that here on the FI list, we
should use the standard of whether something is literally mean in
judging meanness? If so, why?


# Questions in the Form of Presenting the Story of a Problem

My problem is that I don't understand how to tell what is mean. I see
that Elliot's judgment of meanness is often different from my own. He
thinks thinks things are mean that I don't think are mean. I think
things are mean that he doesn't think are mean. This thread contains
an example. (If it's not clear what that example is, please ask and
I'll say more.)

Elliot has probably given more thought to this than I have. He is
probably less bound by inexplicit social rules about meanness than I
am. He probably has rational reasons for his determination of what's
mean. So I may have something to learn from him here. I want to know
what he thinks. I also want to know what other people here think,
since some of them have reasons too. People here strive to not just go
by their gut feeling but to have reasons for things.

Elliot and I have agreed that the sentence “I understand being out of
touch and ignorant, but I don't understand then trying to debate the
matter.” can be read literally to be just a statement with no intent
to be mean. But I don't know whether he thinks this sentence would,
outside of FI, normally be taken to be mean, and I want to know. If he
doesn't think it would normally be considered mean, then maybe he's
right and other people in the rest of my life might not consider it
mean either. That would be new information for me, information that
I'd like to have. I trust Elliot's opinion enough that I think it
would help me to know what he thinks. I could also go about solving
this part of the problem by asking lots of other people I know whether
they think that sentence is mean. But it's easier to ask one person
something than lots of people. If Elliot agrees with me that that
sentence would normally be considered mean, then I don't think I need
to investigate further. If he doesn't agree with me that this sentence
would normally be considered mean, then I do need to investigate
further. If Elliot doesn't want to answer then maybe I should
investigate further. So Elliot, please, if you are willing, tell me
whether you think that sentence would normally be considered mean. A
yes or no answer would be fine.

Also, I want to understand better the social situation here on the FI
list. I have a guess that one of the rules about meanness might be
*When judging meanness, read things literally. If the literal meaning
is not mean, then don't take the thing as mean.* This guess seems to
fit with what I've seen so far. I want to know if it's correct.

That leads to another question. I expect that the social rules on the
FI list were made more consciously than the social rules I'm used to
were. I expect that there are good reasons for the FI social rules
being the way they are, since people here try to have good reasons for
doing what they do. So I not only want to know if my guess in the
previous paragraph is right, I want to know what the reasons for the
social rule are, whether the rule is the one I guessed or something
else.

To anyone who might want to answer: Is my guess correct?

I would like to think about what kinds of social rules about meanness
would be good to have. I suspect people here have already done some
thinking about that. I'd like to learn what that thinking is. I'd
appreciate anyone who is willing to share some of that.

---

Maybe it would have been better if I had come up with a quick, short
response instead of writing all this. I've been given the advice to
write short emails and I didn't follow it here. But I also wanted to
give a try at anonymous' suggestion and I couldn't figure out how to
do that faster.

Note that I could have read anonymous' response as mean. I consciously
decided to follow my proposed rule and not read it that way. My
literal answer to it is: *I had forgotten what Elliot had said about
how to ask questions well until you reminded me. Once you reminded me
I did remember and I went and found it so I could read it exactly and
quote it. Thank you. This gave me a chance to practice this way of
asking questions. I don't yet know how it'll work out but I'm glad I
gave it a try. There might have been another place where Elliot said
something else about how to ask good questions. I could look for that
but I'm tired now. I believe that Elliot has said to follow up first
by asking, “Why didn't anyone answer this?” If no one answers this
I'll try to find the post about it to check my memory. And thank you
for reminding me that hope isn't very useful. I agree and I should not
have phrased my request that way.*

Anne B

unread,
May 15, 2019, 10:24:42 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
I may be overreaching by trying to talk about meanness at all. Maybe I
should have, instead of my previous post, written something like:

I am interested in thinking about meanness but I don't think I can do
so without overreaching. For now, I will try to interpret what people
say to me here as not mean if I possibly can.

anonymous FI

unread,
May 15, 2019, 11:27:59 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, FIYG
Stop making things about ET. You should want to know how meanness works
rather than know something about ET. That is a thing you can work on
regardless of whether ET replies to you or not. Then you would have a
better story to talk about: the story of your ongoing attempts to make
progress on the issue, which you will continue whether or not anyone
else helps.

This stuff has been discussed before. Your way is needy, pressuring and
helpless.

Anne B

unread,
May 15, 2019, 11:51:55 PM5/15/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:28 PM anonymous FI
Okay. This makes sense to me now. I did not think of it when I wrote
my posts in this thread.

Separate point: I think maybe I wasn't getting at my real question or
problem anyway. I will give it some more thought and maybe post more
or maybe drop it for now.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages