Buffet - If a Lady Says No, She Means Maybe

[KJP]

Also, consider the fact that the old men in this area too might know something about how the world works that you don't. Maybe it's we who are backwards.

 

Try reading some evolutionary biology/psychology and come back to the "double standards" in a year or so.

 

I'm sure you recognize the difference between a descriptive and a normative statement.

 

"How the worlds works," I take it, relates to descriptive statements about how humans currently interact with each other, as opposed to normative statements about how they should interact with each other.

 

Elsewhere on this thread, people have suggested that the first two sentences of the joke are descriptively accurate statements.  I'm not going to wade into that.  I'm looking at the punchline, the part that gets the laugh and makes the joke work as a joke:  "And if she says yes, she’s no lady."  That's not really a descriptive statement at all, is it?  It's a normative one about how women should behave, isn't it? 

 

At end of the day, this isn't really news.  As others have said, Buffett is from another time, he's done alot of good, and he shouldn't be crucified over this.  But just as over the top are statements like "SJWs are ruining the world" because some people have the temerity to point out that this joke is pushing a normative view with which they disagree. 

 

 

 

 

[ScottHall]

Maybe it's we who are backwards.

 

Yeah, no lol

 

It may be worth considering more than five seconds. We are very, very bad at accurately representing history and our elders with nuance.

 

In the case of Munger he has hints of many controversial views which you sometimes see outrage about (some cultures work better than others is an example which sets the "bigot alarms" blinking). A strange stance to take when you lap up every word he says in all other areas as if was the epitome of intellectualism. Suddenly his views are all down to age and senility, it couldn't possibly be because he read and reasoned his way to them just like in every other area. Only ideology can shut down an otherwise open mind so completely.

 

My view of Munger is more akin to something I've written about here in the past. That you can be wrong, and that it can be very useful for you to be wrong.

 

For example, I don't think Ben Franklin worship and puritanism makes pretty much any sense in the modern age with modern technologies. But I do think it can be useful to its practitioners, because a puritan work ethic should lead to at least decent results more often than not. That doesn't make it ideal for an accomplished or happy life, necessarily, merely that it's reasonably certain to work "well enough" that you're going to do alright. So all of the other stuff that goes along with that work ethic is comorbid, and not really necessary.

 

But if it's the only way to get it to "click" in the mind of that person, then it can be extremely necessary for that person.

 

We all react somewhat differently to different triggers and form of stimulus, and we can pick up many good traits this way. But they often come tied to other, unnecessary traits because of the unique way the concept clicked for us. I call them Second Order Traits. For example, there are times when I've been recommended a "life changing" book, and thought it was completely useless. It didn't find a way to connect with it like the other person did. Just like I've recommended books that changed me, but others didn't get much of use out of them.

 

We're influenced not only by the core message of whatever media it is that helps ideas "click" for us, but also the gloss, spin, and bull that comes along with it. Medicine might be good for you, but it's not without side effects.

 

This is why I do not judge Buffett for his joke. It's also why I think it's in bad taste. The same thing applies to my view of Charlie Munger. I think he's picked up a whole lot of really good traits, I just think they're comorbid with a few bad ones.

 

I know I've done this multiple times in my life. My initial admiration for Benjamin Graham helped teach me the concept of value investing, but brought with it a comorbid ideology that was very dismissive of growth stocks. It's not even what Ben Graham wrote, specifically. It's from how I interpreted it at the time. Benjamin Graham teaching me about value investing was very useful and profitable to me, but it brought with it an albatross of lost opportunity, that I had to work to get rid of.

 

Traits are not so often wholly good or wholly bad for us; the truth is more that traits are mostly good and bad, in different quantities and qualities. I don't think anyone, Buffett and Munger included, has reasoned their way to all of their views in life. Or even reasoned to the same views in two identical ways, that bring along two identical sets of these Second Order Traits I mentioned before.

 

That's why I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to view both men as intellectual giants, but also capable of being incredibly awkward at the same time. I'm perfectly comfortable with my ability to make up my own mind about when they're being which, thanks. :)

 

 

[CorpRaider]

Clever joke.  If he said the lady meant yes, I would have been offended.

[alwaysinvert]

Scott,

 

I wasn't implying they are incapable of ill-thought out statements. In Buffett's case, seeing as he hates controversy above all, this clearly was as such an instant as he seems blissfully unaware of some prudish aspects of our social morase. Some of which have rendered it a faux-pas to allude to innate differences in sexual strategy between the sexes.

 

What is socially acceptable and not varies with time and culture and we are prone to view everything through the moral lens of the current climate. I don't mean we shouldn't stand up for what we believe in, just that we could use some epistemic humbleness; after all there is no inherent reason why every single moral stance is better today than it was in the past. It may be the most common fallacy of our era to view moral evolution as a progressive deterministic force ever upwards.

 

There Munger's and Buffett's views "from the past" are worth considering as it seems exceedingly likely they are thought true as most of their views are. The same goes for all the other "old white guys" who have contributed to Western thought, by the way. If you consider and then dismiss them based on balanced personal judgement, that is great. It was dismissing out of hand with buzzword thinking which was what I was criticizing. 

 

And we are now talking past each other to some extent, I don't actually disagree with anything you wrote in this post. Just thought I should clarify what I meant.

[ScottHall]

Scott,

 

I wasn't implying they are incapable of ill-thought out statements. In Buffett's case, seeing as he hates controversy above all, this clearly was as such an instant as he seems blissfully unaware of some prudish aspects of our social morase. Some of which have rendered it a faux-pas to allude to innate differences in sexual strategy between the sexes.

 

What is socially acceptable and not varies with time and culture and we are prone to view everything through the moral lens of the current climate. I don't mean we shouldn't stand up for what we believe in, just that we could use some epistemic humbleness; after all there is no inherent reason why every single moral stance is better today than it was in the past. It may be the most common fallacy of our era to view moral evolution as a progressive deterministic force ever upwards.

 

There Munger's and Buffett's views "from the past" are worth considering as it seems exceedingly likely they are thought true as most of their views are. The same goes for all the other "old white guys" who have contributed to Western thought, by the way. If you consider and then dismiss them based on balanced personal judgement, that is great. It was dismissing out of hand with buzzword thinking which was what I was criticizing. 

 

And we are now talking past each other to some extent, I don't actually disagree with anything you wrote in this post. Just thought I should clarify what I meant.

 

You get more reactions with buzzwords; it's marketing.

[RobBob]

When Buffet says it, he gets a pass.  If Bill Clinton said it, he'd get a chuckle.  If Trump said it, they'd burn it down.

[CorpRaider]

Hopefully this won't contribute to the sullying of another thread with useless idealogical dribble, but it's not even in the same hemisphere with grab them by the pussy, not to mention the decades of work Buffett has done in service of women's issues.

[RobBob]

or rape or sexual harassment or relations with an gov intern in the oval or........

[RobBob]

my point is that there seems to be an epidemic of selective outrage

[RobBob]

that is sooooooo sexist to use that term "bae". I am outraged and upset. 

[Mephistopheles]

FWIW I just got back from a 3rd date with a girl. On the 2nd date we went to 2nd base. After which she said she didn't want anything physical on the 3rd date. 3rd date came and we went to 3rd, and left with her asking for more.

 

Hmm, maybe Buffett is right after all.

[writser]

FWIW I just got back from a 3rd date with a girl. On the 2nd date we went to 2nd base. After which she said she didn't want anything physical on the 3rd date. 3rd date came and we went to 3rd, and left with her asking for more.

 

Hmm, maybe Buffett is right after all.

 

I'm going to jerk off to that story. Please keep us posted about the next date.

[randomep]

FWIW I just got back from a 3rd date with a girl. On the 2nd date we went to 2nd base. After which she said she didn't want anything physical on the 3rd date. 3rd date came and we went to 3rd, and left with her asking for more.

 

Hmm, maybe Buffett is right after all.

 

I'm going to jerk off to that story. Please keep us posted about the next date.

 

TMI

 

[vox]

There's a surprising level of callousness on display from a group of people that pride themselves on intellectual curiosity.

 

Yes, for some people the joke was simply an amusing restatement of their personal experience in dating. But is it really so difficult to understand why others might take offense at it?

 

The experience of being sexually assaulted or subject to unwanted sexual advances is a common one for women in modern day society, and certainly one that you wouldn't wish on your mother, wife, or daughter. I am not suggesting that Warren Buffett was condoning such behavior, but the joke reinforces a mentality and creates a permission structure for men to not respect the will of women. Perhaps it encourages frat boys to believe and vocalize that "no means yes, yes means anal." http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/10/15/dke-apologizes-for-pledge-chants/

 

So while you are emotionally well-adjusted and can interpret the difference between someone saying no and someone playing coy, maybe that's not true of everybody, and maybe we shouldn't encourage people to assume consent and encourage guys to harass women.

[randomep]

There's a surprising level of callousness on display from a group of people that pride themselves on intellectual curiosity.

 

Yes, for some people the joke was simply an amusing restatement of their personal experience in dating. But is it really so difficult to understand why others might take offense at it?

 

The experience of being sexually assaulted or subject to unwanted sexual advances is a common one for women in modern day society, and certainly one that you wouldn't wish on your mother, wife, or daughter. I am not suggesting that Warren Buffett was condoning such behavior, but the joke reinforces a mentality and creates a permission structure for men to not respect the will of women. Perhaps it encourages frat boys to believe and vocalize that "no means yes, yes means anal." http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/10/15/dke-apologizes-for-pledge-chants/

 

So while you are emotionally well-adjusted and can interpret the difference between someone saying no and someone playing coy, maybe that's not true of everybody, and maybe we shouldn't encourage people to assume consent and encourage guys to harass women.

 

I must have missed something ..... how is callousness related to intelligence? 

 

We all know we are above average intelligence but who says intelligent people are less callous?

 

Nobody was posting porn or talking about rape.... what I learned but the last US election is that PC can drive people to the edge....... don't let PC rule this forum.....

 

 

[vox]

There's a surprising level of callousness on display from a group of people that pride themselves on intellectual curiosity.

 

Yes, for some people the joke was simply an amusing restatement of their personal experience in dating. But is it really so difficult to understand why others might take offense at it?

 

The experience of being sexually assaulted or subject to unwanted sexual advances is a common one for women in modern day society, and certainly one that you wouldn't wish on your mother, wife, or daughter. I am not suggesting that Warren Buffett was condoning such behavior, but the joke reinforces a mentality and creates a permission structure for men to not respect the will of women. Perhaps it encourages frat boys to believe and vocalize that "no means yes, yes means anal." http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/10/15/dke-apologizes-for-pledge-chants/

 

So while you are emotionally well-adjusted and can interpret the difference between someone saying no and someone playing coy, maybe that's not true of everybody, and maybe we shouldn't encourage people to assume consent and encourage guys to harass women.

 

I must have missed something ..... how is callousness related to intelligence? 

 

We all know we are above average intelligence but who says intelligent people are less callous?

 

Nobody was posting porn or talking about rape.... what I learned but the last US election is that PC can drive people to the edge....... don't let PC rule this forum.....

 

Intellectual curiosity is not intelligence, it is the desire to learn more about a person, place, or thing. One way we do that is by appreciating different perspectives from people with different backgrounds and experiences. I made no argument about a relationship between intelligence and callousness.

[Jurgis]

what I learned but the last US election is that PC can drive people to the edge.......

 

This is complete nonsense. Excusing Trump's election by "PC drove people to the edge" is utter bull crap.

At least if you said that white male entitlement drove people to vote for Trump, you might be a bit closer to truth.

 

We should not excuse misogyny, racism, homophobia, nationalism because their restriction supposedly drove someone to the edge. This is what the alt right racists want us to do. We won't surrender. We will not go back to the time when it was OK to denigrate people based on their gender, race, skin color or nationality.

 

And BTW this forum is becoming a swamp of alt right demagogues because of no moderation.

 

 

[tng]

SJWs are just performing mental gymnastics to rationalize why everybody is racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. Buffett never said that women should act like the Lady in the joke. The reason why the Lady acts in that manner is because the unnamed narrator judges her for saying yes. The irony is the joke (and the fact that some people don't see it and simply agree that women who say yes are not ladies proves another point). If you ask old people about it, a lot of them would get it. The joke would not have lasted decades if it is simply "LOL, women who say yes are whores!".

 

The idea that all old people are misogynists because women had less equality in the past is pretty ageist and discriminatory. Old people learn and adapt to social changes too.

[rb]

Look, I'm gonna try to cut through all the BS here and say give an old man a break. It's true that so called SJWs and the PC police can sometime go too far. It all depends on the context. It's clear that Buffett didn't mean any ill will here. Even though it's surprising that he chose a poor phrase considering that he's so careful in choosing his words. In addition most of us on this board know what he isn't one of the most socially adjusted people. He was probably just trying to be funny and folksy and one got away from him. It happens to all of us and to the best of us so let's lay off.

 

To the rest of you who are complaining about SJWs and PC ruining the country gimme a break. The moment you have people in the streets of New Haven, Connecticut chanting "No means yes, yes means anal" you have a problem as a society and you need SJWs and the PC police. Fix that problem and then complain about SJWs and the PC police but not before.

 

Let the hate mail come.

[wachtwoord]

what I learned but the last US election is that PC can drive people to the edge.......

 

This is complete nonsense. Excusing Trump's election by "PC drove people to the edge" is utter bull crap.

At least if you said that white male entitlement drove people to vote for Trump, you might be a bit closer to truth.

 

 

What the white males are entitled now? It's entitlement that is the issue here indeed, but not of white males but of a generation of special snowflakes.

[KJP]

SJWs are just performing mental gymnastics to rationalize why everybody is racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. Buffett never said that women should act like the Lady in the joke. The reason why the Lady acts in that manner is because the unnamed narrator judges her for saying yes. The irony is the joke (and the fact that some people don't see it and simply agree that women who say yes are not ladies proves another point). If you ask old people about it, a lot of them would get it. The joke would not have lasted decades if it is simply "LOL, women who say yes are whores!".

 

The idea that all old people are misogynists because women had less equality in the past is pretty ageist and discriminatory. Old people learn and adapt to social changes too.

 

Threads like this always show how different people's perspectives can be. 

 

Everyone seems to agree about what happened:  Buffett had an awkward business issue, and he dealt with it, in part, by trying to distract people with a joke whose punchline relies on the background societal belief that women who are open about their sexual desires are whores.

 

I would think it's fairly obvious that telling jokes like that reinforces the background societal belief, and if you think that such a societal norm is wrong, then using the joke in the manner Buffett did would be wrong.  Not a hanging offense, but simply a wrong that is worth commenting on.  This seems pretty straightforward to me, yet from another perspective it's apparently "mental gymnastics" and "ageist."

     

 

 

[rkbabang]

Today's Dilbert cartoon:

 

http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-03-03

 

 

[johnny]

Hey is this the thread where we discuss whether or not the billionaire who remained married to a woman who galavanted around the country with other men is Insufficiently Progressive in his Gender Politics? Just want to know where to post my HotTake. Thanks in advance.

[Gregmal]

What I think is funny, and probably worth an SNL skit or two, is the paradox between a man's pursuit of a woman(or I guess in today's day and age another man as well(although you never hear about sexual harassment on that front from MSM)) and the application of the same principle(once called resilience) in regards to other areas. Pretty much anything sales related for that matter.

 

Imagine a cars salesman if forced to behave with such little drive?

Salesman: hey, this is a wonderful car, perfect for your family, inexpensive yet well rated

Customer: No thanks

 

Salesman: OK have a nice day

 

How about T-Mobile which is very aggressive about recruiting customers?

 

"How much are you paying at Verizon?"

"I'm not interested"

"Ok, bye!"

 

Things were fine up until probably the last decade, when previously there were just natural pursuits and a girl saying No was sometimes just part of the game. A respectable and proper gentleman would not really have a problem deciphering whether he was getting the "NO" that meant get the F away or the "no" that meant keep trying, I like the attention.

 

But now today, a girl is given the message that as long as she says no once, she essentially has a free call option on whatever the heck she wants from a guy provided he didn't make her sign a legal contract.

 

This IMO is a symptom of the larger problem; things that were previously just common sense and common courtesy now need to be governed and regulated/legislated because society has gotten so petty and PC and there are no shortage of lawyers or politicians trying to capitalize on it.

[alwaysinvert]

That SNL skit already exists: