Harvard/Yale Debate | PurplePillDebate

Pill cites anecdotes and evidence for effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of seduction strategies.

OtherPill refutes anecdote or evidence as outlying or irrelevant or moralizing/immoral or cherrypicking or confirmation bias.

So we have a Harvard/Yale debate, where one side argues for what the law is, and the other side argues for what the law oughta be and no one learns anything.

When you throw out your ideology glasses and look empirically at reproducible data, which seduction strategies are supported by evidence? Where's the response "if you want unbiased, reproducible, ideology-free heuristics for seduction, do this"?

If we condemn seduction strategies on the whole as unethical REGARDLESS of whether those strategies are effective or not, then how about identifying strategies proven to be effective, and then sorting those strategies on a scale of ethical vs. unethical, e.g., lift weights vs. Dread Game?

If, on the other hand, we condemn seduction strategies as not necessarily immoral, but merely unscientific or ideological, where are the citations for scientific, truth-driven seduction strategies?

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]chazzALB37yo Purple Perma-Virgin2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ianturpiesmoustache4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]couchpotatocarl0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]couchpotatocarl0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]couchpotatocarl1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Because there are other people involved, that's where morals and ethics come into it. Lots of people, men and women, don't approve of dread and negging, and they wouldn't change their minds if you said "hey, but it works!". Their problem with it isn't that it's ineffective (which it also is).

The fact that other people are involved would SUPPORT the idea of sorting effective seduction strategies ethically, and identifying WHY unethical seduction strategies are ineffective.

You may be absolutely right that ethics and effectiveness correlate for seduction strategies, but how would we know? Your response didn't state that people disapprove of weightlifting as a seduction strategy, so if we can assume people are okay with the strategy of weightlifting, for the seeker of seduction strategies, only RedPill provides an inventory. Their inventory might not be ethical, and it might not even be effective, but at least they have one.

Ethical or not, effective or not, RedPill provides a roadmap out of virginity. BluePill could provide an ethical, evidence-based roadmap but does not. You're right, other people are involved, so as the seeker changes his coping skills, he has to replace his coping skills with new coping skills that have better outcomes. Seekers come to The Pills seeking to get laid; they don't come to The Pills seeking to become better virgins.

TL;DR: I submit that there is an ethical sorting of effective seduction strategies based on science and that BluePill is better equipped to perform the sorting.

[–]couchpotatocarl2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

BluePill is too emotionally hung up on certain aspects.

Thought experiment1: You meet the love of your life. You get married. True love type. She would never leave you nor you her. You find out she loves the physique of a fit man, but she never told you because she loves you regardless. Would you not lift? Wouldn't you want to be the best version of yourself for your leading lady? Does that make you feel guilty? Why/why not?

Thought experiment2: It wasn't actually true love and you both go your separate ways. You lose the physique you once had. You later find out all women admire fitness and strength in a man. You want that for your future wife, and not only that, you enjoy being able to lift more than your weight. Does lifting make you feel guilty? Why/why not?

TRP says women are sexually selective (which they are), and shows you how to become desireable.

TBP says people should love you unconditionally for who you are (no one but your momma buddy) and gives you no roadmap to sexual success except hope something falls on your lap due to sheer dumb luck and hump it ferociously while you can.

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]couchpotatocarl0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]basilwhiteA Pox On Both Your Houses[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]9Choronzon1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]9Choronzon0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]9Choronzon0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Have you seen how the evolution of intelligence follows a normal distribution, meaning we have plenty of species who around about as smart as a six year old human? Yeah, me neither, because it is not actually so.

Human intelligence is a very unusual feature, precisely due to lacking this gradualness. The ability to fly has this fine gradation, this normal distribution, from the kind of flying squirrel who can glide 50m between a tree and another to the kind of albatros that does not even care about landing. Yet, this is not so with the ability to think: there are humans, then a big gap, then all the other species.

Since intelligence is precisely the ability to adapt to all kinds of stuff, in other words, intelligence is the nature of not having a fixed nature... and since humans are not really commensurable with other animal withs regards to intelligence, we are a different animal in kind, not just degree.

Hence we are social animals in the most profound sense of the term: made by society, not by nature, because our natures are so adaptable.

[–]9Choronzon0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you seen how the evolution of intelligence follows a normal distribution, meaning we have plenty of species who around about as smart as a six year old human? Yeah, me neither, because it is not actually so

But this is actually so. As far as I'm aware, plenty of animals are considered as smart as young children, including primates, dolphins, dogs and crows. Crows have been shown to pass certain reasoning tests at the same level as seven year olds. Whether or not they actually have consciousness and can reflect on these processes is probably a more thorny issue, but animals have been shown to display some sense of self awareness.

Since intelligence is precisely the ability to adapt to all kinds of stuff, in other words, intelligence is the nature of not having a fixed nature

Again, I'm not sure that no other species can adapt to changes in the environment. Humans may be distinct though, in our ability to build things and adapt to new environments this way, even changing the environment we live in to our benefit. However, to state that this means that we have no nature entirely, that there is no nature actually driving this social process itself is very extreme and I think totally unfounded. In regards to reproduction humans very much do have a fixed nature, we feel sexual desire which leads us to breed, caring feelings which lead us to raise our children. How could any of this be 'made by society', how would that even make sense? How would you have a society in the first place to 'make' them? If you could provide any proof for it I would be very interested, because I don't think it exists.

Many BP (as far as I have observed) would likely state that any use of a 'strategy' is in itself the wrong way of going about things, subscribing to the view that all people are individuals and therefore should be treated on a purely case by case basis. This doesn't really help out with the virginity thing of course.

Maybe strategies get a bad rap because once someone identifies a strategy as ethical, they no longer identify it as a strategy. Strategies include "saying hello," and "develop genuine interest in getting to know people." Are these two strategies more effective than Dark Triad? Who knows? And why choose among these three strategies if they don't impede each other's effectiveness?

Answer: some people want both to get laid, AND to not feel like a monster. Unfortunately neither Pill rank-orders strategies for effectiveness AND ethics.

"I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding." Anaïs Nin

Written by a bitch. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Means they arent getting any sex they don't want. If any 'strategy' works it's solely because women want it to. How then can you call it immoral. THEY choose who to fuck. THEY choose what works. They have agency. Guilt plays no role in this. This is not a moral/immoral debate. If it works, it's good, because the woman approves. You have some hang-ups on sex if sexual success makes you feel guilty. She is having sex with you. And if she is having sex with you it is solely because she approves of you and what you did. I repeat, she has agency and she chose this.

Maybe strategies get a bad rap because once someone identifies a strategy as ethical, they no longer identify it as a strategy

I think you're probably right. If a BP guy observed a RP guy flirting using basic game concepts, I very much doubt they'd immediately label it as a cynical strategy, even if the RP guy thought of it in that way. Some of this seems to be in the eye of the beholder, a classic 'is the action the problem or is the intent the problem?' question. If a guy consciously teases a girl as a 'strategy' and another teases her because he finds it fun to get a response, what's the difference to the girl? The guy who finds it fun might have just as little intent of forging a long term connection as the guy who uses it as a 'strategy', or even a much worse intent. But you're supposed to be able to do things without having to utilise a strategy, its actually the 'trying' itself which people (often especially women) consider to be weird. As many RP/game sources have said, its supposed to feel natural. The problem is that it isn't natural for many men.

[–]winndixie0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Harvard/Yale Debate
Author	basilwhite
Upvotes	3
Comments	27
Date	January 22, 2015 9:47 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2tc033/harvardyale_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/harvardyale-debate.283732 https://theredarchive.com/post/283732

Comments