Important is not the same as interesting.

Absolutely, if the range is 55% mildly annoyed, 5% moderately annoyed, 35% life changing happiness, 5% nirvana, then engaging is a no brainer.

wittgenstein, really? Didn’t have you pegged that way

Except this is about norms, ethics and cooperative behavior. The ev of individual cases are almost irrelevent as none of this would matter if it was one off situations.

It could be argued that the ev of the individual situation takes inte account all of the other instances but a) it doesn't and b) in as far as it does it becomes much more complex

He is more plato reincarnated but plato too may have been influenced by some of the greats he didn't have the benefit of.

This is the kassouf v binger fight from the WSOP. Check your privilege, CP!

Not looking forward to a world in which I cant ever get to actually speak to an attractive women because everyone has grown a pair, done the EV calc and formed a polite and respectful mile long que.

If you are doing an EV calc you have to factor in the effect of aggregated effects on a specific.

If a very number of individuals are going to arrive at a nominal positive outcome you then have to factor in that the high number of positive outcomes has a negative effect.

No one wants to be approached by large quantities of strangers every day.

Well that is my guess and assumption about what most people want.

There has to be an equilibrium.

Great point. If a stranger is approaching you a few times a year to say something nice, that is likely a positive. If it is happening daily that is likely a negative. That is why the few times a year I give a stranger compliment it will be towards another dude. Like nice shoes or hat or something. Not that the hot 25 year old woman doesn't look good, but I don't think she would appreciate being told for the 5th time that week by a stranger. Whereas most guys it would probably be their first compliment that year.

That has to be incldued in the ev calculation. Not doing so is the standard mistake though, made by people who reduce problems to something far to simple to make the adding up easy

This applies to nearly all social decisions:

I loled. Don't worry most of us doing the ev calcs are theory-crafting. To go speak to a real life stranger lady is beyond our capabilities.

Its a long thread and I only got involved in the recent tangent.

It has been argued that the central premise is wrong though?

From where I am sitting its never been easier for young people to get laid.

The whole going on the pull rigmarole has been superseded by swipe right or is it left?

The young people I know are all making out like bandits on Tinder etc.

Young people making out like bandits are not the ones who start and post 30% of the entries in a thread like this. Pretty sure that is the point the OP is trying to make, one he can relate to in a very personal manner based on his activity.

I think the argument is that the ecosystem is kind of turning into the online poker ecosystem. In the pre internet (tinderless) world, the sharks (top 5% of guys) only played at the local casino (local club/bar), allowing the marginal pro (bottom 95% guy) to still make a living. Now in the internet world, the geographical barriers are not as strong. The sharks are able to play with many more people, shutting out the marginal pros (bottom 95% of guys).

I think that argument is partially true, but I think the reality is more complex. For guys with anxiety disorders, autism, general weirdness, etc this has been a great benefit. The bars and clubs are still open. It probably is harder for a guy who is below average in looks.

All of that said, I left the dating world nearly a decade ago so I could be wildly out of touch.

Think if you are in the 90/91st percentile of attractiveness then Tinder is not going to be negative.

I would not put any of the MOLB yewt I know even close to that level.

Even someone who is in the 51st is above average.

Complimenting someone's dress (fabulous hat) as an opening is as old as conversation when it comes to an introduction.

You say it is universally creepy in the way you do, meaning you can speak for all instances and all utterances and state for fact 'it should not be done'.

It is because you lack awareness and any hubris you feel you can do that.

So when a person who is not you approaches the author and says 'that is a fabulous hat. Are you so and so as I would like to introduce myself'.


You uke, hearing that have no issue telling that person they were creepy and wrong in what they did there and they should not have done it.

You are incapable of understanding that because you would not do it, and you think it is creepy, does not mean the other person should not, and maybe the person was flattered by the compliment.

You and I will never agree on this point. I mean, I am fine with you feeling that way with regards to how YOU engage. The difference is you deem to tell OTHERS they are wrong for not doing it the way you think it should be done.

(Carlin Meme)

I am not sure what you are trying to say but are you referring to ukes example of approaching the author?

Are you saying based on some EV calculation, of how 'we' think a person might receive a compliment about their dress or not, it is 'wrong or right' for another person to then deliver said compliment?

My position from the start has been that :

- Person A is in no position to know or assume how Person B will receive a compliment
- Person B may desire it. They may not. That is unknowable to Person A so if he assumes he can be wrong in either assumption
- What Person A controls is themselves. And if they desire to give a compliment, and its a public safe space, then as long as they are respectful and aware, that is fine to do


O.A.F.K argues against that saying 'he must assume as he assumes other things in life, and that assumption MUST be they do not want it'

uke actually changed his argument to match my view, as he always does, with the only difference now between us is uke says 'there are certain places that are off limits, the sidewalk being one, and he knows those places because they are obvious but he refuses to cite them. he will tell someone when they are wrong but never tell them the right places. And that is because he does not want to lose his right later to tell them they were wrong if an approach is not desired.

Just to be clear OAFK never gets within infinity+1 of arguing this.

Its absolute and complete fantasy.

Its funny seeing you attempt to reduce my arguments to something you can process.

David if you will lets focus on the central tenet here as I think we can craft a new fallacy that I would like to add to wikipedia and I can you are probably the best on this forum to point out what is logical fallacy or flawed logic application or not, imo.

Lets call it 'The Elevator Hello Fallacy'... Or maybe 'The Elevator Hello logic trap'.


I will use a situation that can be anxiety causing for many.




Person 1 is a female on an otherwise empty elevator going from the under ground parkade up to the public space above.
Person 2 is a large male entering that elevator last second to ride up with her

Does Person 2 say Hello or not? Who should dictate that answer?


Analysis :

- Person 2 is naturally affable and the type of person who always says hi in such an instance. His belief is it is nice but also disarming
- Person 1 may find any attempt at discussion creates additional anxiety (unwanted approach)
- Person 1 may find the small hi, disarming and alleviates anxiety (desired approach)


Person 2 has no way to know which of those two outcomes is true. So how does Person 2 act?

The argument here is that others (Uke and O.A.F.K) know the exact answer and perfect answer and can tell Person 2 exactly what is appropriate (that is the fallacy imo).

The counter argument is that only Person 2 can determine what is appropriate in their view and act on it accordingly and responsibly and in a non threatening way.


Those who argue against that last point use Results based Thinking, as if the outcome (how the approach is received) then determines if the proceeding action was right or wrong to do. I am saying the outcome is not relevant. Person 2 cannot act on an outcome they do not yet know.


I think this type of scenario is more and more common in todays 'Politically Correct' society where younger people always try to assume for others (ooboo) what they would want or not, based on their own desires and then speak for everyone else. I think this could be formalized into a new fallacy and added to wikipedia and I might do so.

Thoughts?

How did person 2 arrive at this belief?

Edit: Do you believe the naturally affable person has no choice to be affable or they choose to say hello in each instance? You mentioned previously that you chose to stop holding back compliments. Why did you decide it was better to compliment than hold back?

Ok I think I can express my position in a way even Cupee cant strawman.

This is the binary.

1. You can decide that a womens mind is unknowable, and decide to make zero assumptions about what she wants or does not want. You have desires, anything goes in how interact with the women. You wont let any third party judgements limit your behaviour.

2. You can make some assumptions about the women even though her mind is unknowable. You can say assume she would like you to be polite and respectful. You can make some adjustments to your behaviour according to social norms and approach her in a safe, secure public environment etc. You can assume she would not like her bottom pinched.

You cant make an argument that combines elements of 1 and 2, which QP has been doing, they are exclusive.

The argument (of which I have expressed no direct opinion) is about what assumptions to make, when to make them etc, not about the existence or non existence of them.

You cant say I wont make any assumptions about the womens mind, when you have already done that several times in modulating your approach via being respectful (assumption) and in certain permissible settings. (assumption/third party social norms).

So there is agreement that the assumption a women wont want her bottom pinched, but not agreement on the assumption she wont want to be complimented on her hat etc.

I have not expressed any opinion on that, just that you cant use 1 and 2 at the same time.

Shocker of shockers, Cuepee evaded. Like didn't even pretend to answer them. Let's investigate what he did say.

This is quite weird. There is no need to make up new scenarios, we have a video of the scenario that spawned this conversation where the person is clearly in the wrong leering after the hot chick that walked past him on the street. Instead you are concocting this totally new scenario where instead of stopping a random person on the street just because of her looks, you are introducing yourself to an author you know, and the comment you are making is about a "fabulous hat" which has to be the most innocent and least sexualized of possible examples of their "dress" to comment on. So no, in this totally different scenario, I don't have any problem with it.

You present my point as if I am making a universal claim that applies in every context with zero exceptions. I'm not. As I've said before:
Broadly speaking, I don't think you should be stopping random people walking past you on the street and commenting on their appearance. Broadly speaking, that is creepy af. Broadly speaking, I've added the broadly speaking quantifier so you don't think hahah I've concocted this hyper specific context where this is no longer true, checkmate uke_master!

Just don't be a creep. This shouldn't be so hard for you.

I agree with this.

Going to go into depth on the bolded. The reaction to any behavior is unknowable. Even the reaction to slapping someone on the ass is unknowable. But we can estimate the range of reactions. The range for reactions to compliments is heavily weighted positive. That is why we view it as acceptable behavior. The reaction range for slapping someone on the ass is so negative heavy that we have laws against it.

We shouldn't t slap a stranger on the ass and say "some people like it, it was impossible to know before hand which category she fell into". We shouldn't be considered in the wrong for giving a respectful compliment even it was negatively received.

Sure you did.

Remember the debate we have here is you objecting to MY position as wrong.

And here is uke making the usual turn to agree with and paraphrase MY position I have said since the start. The bolded being mine.


The only difference uke and I now have is he feels he KNOWS FOR FACT the appropriate spots and the ones that are not and that another person who is not him can use no situational discretion to determine that.

That is out ONLY difference.

Now uke will not list the 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' spots that he claims are so obvious because the same thing that could be done in the street (suggest she is approached too much and thus does not desire it) can be done anywhere he might suggest and then he would be wrong. So he wants to PRETEND there are known and obvious places when there are not.


BUt that IS the argument you have been arguing against. Mine and the one uke coopted from me.

There is no 'force' and there is no 'universal truth' that you guys seem to think or believe you can drill down to if you just ask the right questions.

It is ALWAYS situational.

Again.

Person A may or may not want the approach or complement and you will NEVER know in advance. It is foolish to try and act based on any prediction or assumption you are making in that regard. You end up holding back on saying 'hi' assuming she does not want the approach only to find out later, she did. Or vice versa. A fools guessing game.

Person B can only know what they desire to do. And if they desire to walk up to that gal or author and say hi, and it is a safe public space then there is NOTHING WRONG in doing so.

That person that day being irritated and in no mood for the approach... that person that day delighted to be approach... is irrelevant to whether the guy was right or wrong to a[pproach.

What we can and should expect is not that the guy be psychic but that he as uke says "use HIS common sense and pick what he thinks are appropriate spots'. Not what you Bubble think is common sense nor what you Bubble (or Uke) think is the appropriate spot.

Because if you try to hold him to that standard you are just playing the game uke wants to play. You tell him 'there are appropriate spots' but you refuse to tell him what they are s you are saying he has to guess, but you reserve the right to tell him he is wrong, when your opinion varies on the appropriateness.

In other words 'my opinion will dictate what is right or wrong for you'.

Go read the article in the Leftist Cancel Culture thread as it speaks specifically to this being a constant feature of the left. This group think dictates on appropriateness based on their view being the ONE TRUE opinion.