Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Euvoluntary PUA?

By request, the euvoluntarity of pick-up artistry.
 And before you ask, yes. I did indeed have to look up the acronym. It's probably not so much that I'm too old to know what's going on in the world around me, it's more that the language adjusted while I wasn't looking. Much like yesterday's stewardess is today's flight attendant, yesterday's sleazeball is today's pick-up artist. It appears to be a term of political correctness. I for one appreciate the gentler, more civil tone of the new term.

Here's the story from The Peej [link]. Evidently, the welfare state in Denmark travels well with women's self-esteem. They're not prone to the predations of self-styled Casanovas. It's beyond the scope of this piece to mull the arrow of causality here, so zip up your quiver, Mr. Tell. Instead, consider whether the behavioral arts applied to obtaining strange constitutes a euvoluntary transaction.

Does moral suasion constitute coercion? In the eyes of the law, nope. To count as forcible rape, law enforcement... well, here's the FBI's definition. Judge for yourself.
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Does something about that strike you as odd? Leave a note in the comments section.

Anyway, the pick-up artist uses psychological tricks, flim-flammery, patter if you will to flounder and woo. His skill is reminiscent of adept carnival barkers. But it's all talk, all body language, all communication. There are clear lines not to be crossed: no roofies, no physical force, no intimidation. Most importantly perhaps, no exchange of money for a night between the sheets. Just sexual kayfabe.

And even without any regrets, the endeavor will still strike many people as sordid. It's not classical exploitation, but it does explicitly endeavor to exploit psychological weaknesses. Contrast this with prostitution. In that case, there's a mutually beneficial business transaction with no deception, no trickery, no emotional fraud. It seems to me that but for an accident of history, prostitution is probably more euvoluntary than pick-up artistry. Yet one is illegal, the other is not. And I suspect it's a matter of cash changing hands.

So to answer Adam's question, I don't know for sure. For PUAs to be firmly euvoluntary, I suppose you'd have to assume strict rationality, no cognitive biases, no psychological weak spots. But that's wishing for a perfect egg. No such thing. Humans are beautifully flawed and as such are prone to illusion. Still, even if the practice is just off the shore of the land of euvoluntarity, the most reasonable response is to do as the Danes do: help your daughters and your sisters to be psychologically tough. Counter kayfabe with Truth. And then if she wants to have some fun while the getting is good, it'll be less likely to retain coercive overtones.

The same is basically true for any sort of contract. It's all in the offer and acceptance. You can't fault a guy for making an offer, but neither ought you fault a girl for her (informed, rational) response.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Credible Commentary

Brendan Nyhan, on Twitter: "Costly signals matter: Reporters should ask default truthers if they'll go long on US bonds in the case of a debt ceiling breach"

Is this true? For folks who believe that to be taken seriously, you need to put your money where your mouth is, then yes. Obviously. But these sorts of folks (myself included, I should point out) are also likely to be sympathetic to arguments that prostitution should be legal.

I think it's fair to say that this doesn't describe most people. I think most folks prefer to maintain a thick barrier between the marketplace for goods and the marketplace for ideas (indeed, many of these people loathe the term "marketplace of ideas"). Combining the two is offensive to people who see "bourgeois" as a four-letter word. Depending on who's listening, I'd say that having skin in the game could actually damage a person's credibility.

...Depending on who's listening. For abstruse government debt debates, I think Nyhan's spot on.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Need Bone Marrow, But Can't BUY Bone Marrow

Twitter campaign to find a bone marrow match for Amit Gupta.
********************************
Tweet by Cameron Moll: Seth Godin: "If you're a match for @superamit, I'll send a check for $10,000 for you or the charity of your choice." — http://t.co/0QdZ4tDs

by Cameron Moll at 10/7/11 4:19 PM

********************************
So, the above is a retweet of an attempt by Seth Godin to find bone marrow, essentially an organ, for his friend Amit Gupta.

Seth Godin says:
********************************
How about if we gamify it? Here's the deal: if you are a match for Amit and the marrow donation happens, I'll profile you or the project of your choice on the blog and send you a check for $10,000 for you or the charity of your choice. Winner take all, no purchase necessary, void where prohibited... (Even if you don't win, if you swab we all win). [Updated to reflect a statute I was unaware of: You win the prize if you're the first certified match, but donating is completely up to you. It takes a year for records to be released, but I'm good for it. If this still doesn't pass muster, the prize goes to charity. And of course, this is an offer from me, not endorsed by any agency or organization, etc.]

If I can be so bold as to suggest a hashtag: #IswabbedforAmit

********************************
Interesting that he had to update to "reflect a statute." The point is that people won't do it for free, but they might do it for a 1 in 100,000 shot at $10,000 for a charity. (assuming the "lottery" is the chance you will be a donor match on the cheek swab). Note, however, that that is only an expected donation of a dime, $0.10. Better to send your favorite charity a dollar, and save the postage

But then wouldn't it be better still if Amit Gupta's friends could contribute to a fund that would be used to PAY FOR THE BONE MARROW? I mean, we are talking about a tiny amount of money here. Why not let people take up donations to pay? That is quite different from saying that rich people get the bone marrow. This is a charity drive. But even a charity drive has to "reflect a statute." Oh, and here is a description of the statute in question...

(Thanks to Michael Tofias for the tip)