Read this before you spend your money on products and seminars or even worse, before you lose a lot of priceless time in your life trying to put into practice concepts that have been made up by greedy con artists or obsessed daydreamers.
*Seduction* is the biggest SCAM played on men in history! Just like the “get-rich-quick” schemes, only this time it’s a “get-laid-quick” scheme.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying average Joes cannot pick up hot babes. It happens sometimes. Only the real process going on has nothing to do with the distortion of reality that people call “seduction.”
I am not only saying this “art” has never been proven effective. Oh no… I am saying much more… I show on this website that seduction does not exist at all. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is: I can take any bet against the seduction community. I elaborate it in “A Job for the MythBusters.”
We are discussing a worldwide movement, a multimilion dollar industry, and I am only asking for 1 (one) fair scientific experiment proving it. Just don’t tell me about a poll taken near a seduction boot camp.
Some underestimate the power of this argument thinking “OK, they didn’t prove it yet, big deal.” They didn’t prove these PUA theories, and they NEVER will. How do I know it? Because, although there is a huge financial incentive to test it, no one has even tried so far. You don’t have to be an economist to realize what it says about PUA delusion. Let me suggest you imagine something. Imagine that a pua guru could put the following on top of his his salesletter or the back-cover of his book:
“Oxford University Study says that UltraPuaCompany gets you laid! In a 2012 oxford study, the group of men coached by us outperformed the control group by 174% – as featured on CNN, Times, Fox, New England Journal of Science”
That box alone would double his conversions overnight. Let me remind you, most of these guys spend upwards of 40 hours a week tweaking their marketing, their salesletters, all in desperate attempts for a little more conversion. So let me get this straight… A game guru will spend 150 hours split-testing every comma on his salesletter to get an additional 0.5% boost in his ebook sales, but he doesn’t have a single weekend to double his profits? Give me a fucking break.
Scientific research evidently contradicts the very idea of seduction. Sections “Genes and Personality Types” and “Her Type” give you a brief overview explaining why the concept that attraction can be created is against the laws of nature. It is a myth. Also many comments below this blog include information about various studies that brought results contrary to PUA teachings.
When asked about scientific evidence the PUAs use this little trick:
These gurus point at research proving VERY GENERAL concepts like “women pursue men of high status.” We all do! If you have two identical twin sisters, with the same personality, education etc. wouldn’t you choose to enter in a relationship with the rich one? Or “women feel good around men who have sense of humor.” Sure they do, so what? Does it prove the effectiveness of all that PUA techniques??
Of course it is not what seduction is all about. It’s not the core of PUA pseudo-science. Seduction is the belief you can “create” sexual attraction in the head of a woman who previously hasn’t been attracted to you (for ex David DeAngelo frequently repeats that you can “create attraction”). This particular claim has never ever been evidenced! Not even Chuck Norris can create attraction!
I thought the above is clear. However, I keep getting responses from PUA pseudo-intellectuals pointing at studies that supposedly prove seduction. What’s worse many of them insist that they have read this website. So if you still think there is some merit in PUA stuff because of [insert any scientific hypothesis] – then you should get acquainted with “Alpha-Excuses” under menu “Alpha-Lames”.
As a matter of fact, you can test the effectiveness of all that seduction techniques yourself. Make an effort, don’t just go out approaching women and assuming something worked when you succeed. At least once try to verify all that seduction philosophy with a simple experiment that I describe in “Do Yourself a Favor” section.
The fact that attraction cannot be created doesn’t mean that you can’t analyze human mating process, and come up with an effective strategy to spot attraction that is already there or move out when there is no potential for a pick-up (read more in section “Approach Guide”).
If you believe in things like horoscopes leave this website. But if you are a rational person ask yourself the question: why hasn’t any scientist ever produced any evidence for the existence of such happening as seduction? After all, it’s a multimilion dollar industry: books, downloads, CDs, seminars sold worldwide! Renown journalists began to seriously examine the subject after Neil Strauss had released the bestseller “The Game”. The answer to this question is included in the question itself: it is a multimilion dollar business. You don’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, do you? Just like in case of seduction, horoscopes have their advocates, who publish thousands of books, run websites, even produce TV shows, although both of these ideas are beyond crap.
People have always considered love and sex as magical or divine. As always when people didn’t know how something worked they turned to magic or other superstitions. That’s why the belief in the art of seduction has its long history. Seduction patterns are just like spells in magic. It has as much to do with science, as chemistry had to do with alchemy. Pseudoscientific terms mixed with success stories without any rational connection whatsoever.
I must admit that there is a fraction of the whole seduction “science” that can be useful after you remove the ridiculous alpha male ideology. I mean all the tips on self-confidence and similar advice based on pop-psychology. But it has nothing to do with seduction itself. These “inner game” information can be found in a public library under the psychology section.
Yes, all you Wanna-Be-Casanovas heard me right: there is no such thing as seduction! Seduction is just a cultural label, nothing more.
RATIONAL THINKING
I am a “beta male”, I don’t use pick-up lines, negs, patterns nor any other techniques recommended by the pick up artists (PUAs). I am still “myself”, and I DO pick up HBs, I mean attractive women. I also DO believe many PUAs pick up (but not seduce) attractive women. I just DON’T believe they do so because of the skills they claim to have.
I DID give seduction a try years ago. It’s not like I am criticizing something I don’t know at all. I ’ve been there, done that.
That’s all about me. A lot a people take this whole topic very personally. I cannot understand it. There is nothing more annoying in a discussion than someone who criticizes the opponent instead of the opponent’s views.
I will be happy to exchange thoughts (even harsh but material arguments) with anyone who:
- focuses on the facts – it’s not like someone made up all that seduction stories, right?
- respects science – after all some even call it “seduction science”,
- and most important of all: follows basic laws of rational thinking. If you gonna say something about your intuition, karma, stuff like that, realize that in fact you are just saying: “I don’t agree with you cause I like blue, and you think red is much more better.” You are not arguing, you are just expressing what you like or dislike. Remember, there is no such thing as illogical thinking.
“Logic is the underpinnings of reason and argument. To be logical is to follow a pattern of reasoning that doesn’t contain flaws or weaknesses. A true logical debate puts forward the best possible arguments from both sides and allows the evidence to carry the conclusion rather than fallacies that appeal to attacks, emotions, or trickery.”
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic
Pick up artistry appeals to emotions and trickery (read more in “Logical fallacies” section under “Alpha-Lames” tab). This is one example of common flawed reasoning:
Is the lawn moist?
Yes, it is.
IT MEANS => it has rained.
WRONG. The gardener could have watered the lawn.
The PUA picked up a lot of pretty women?
Yes, he did.
IT MEANS => his seduction techniques do work.
WRONG. It could have been his looks or a million other things you didn’t even think of.
Here is the TRICKY PART:
most people automatically associate that other option (the gardener in the first example) only with money or being good looking. So when those two are eliminated (the PUA turns out to be average in both financial status and looks) they reason => it must have been his skills! They simply have no clue about stuff like the „Self-Seeking Like Theory“ or maybe a million other undiscovered yet factors. This is also called the Third Cause Fallacy – see section “Logical Fallacies.” The bottom line is until you PROVE IT with FAIR experiment, you cannot assume it works.
Why we accept that such fields as economy, politics, law or even sports should be understood in accordance with the laws of rational thinking, and at the same time we don’t use logic in the field of dating? For sure not as carefully as in other areas of life. Most reasoning is very shallow, very superficial: “I have seen many hot girls around this guy, so he must be successful with the babes.” Really? How successful? How did you measure it? Maybe the girls you have seen this guy with amount to just like 0,1% or less of the number of chicks that he approached last year. So his success rate is 0,1% or less!
Now think rationally for a second: IF there is seduction, IF this PUA stuff really works, what should be the success rate of a player who is like the “full package”, not only socially skilled but also deadly handsome? You guessed 99%? Maybe 80%? OK, at least 50%?
WRONG – the reality is even less than 9,8% ! (9,8% is his number-to-lay ratio, so his approach-to-lay ratio must be a lot lower!) Read ending of section “BS Created So Far” under tab “Alpha-Lames.” How can they explain it?
Small digression: Some seduction fans ignore scientific evidence and facts, and try to defend these nonsenses with analogies. First off, why do you need analogies given the thousands of studies in this field? If you are really stubborn about analogies, the ending of the above mentioned section also give an example why analogies have no use.
So now you see why success rate is such an important term. Disregarding success rate enables those con artists to trick you into believing they discovered the true love elixir! We challenged all those PUA freaks to test their skills (section “The Experiment”) – no replies so far. Except one guy who said he will take part… as long as we pay him! Imagine what a huge occasion it is for those self-proclaimed casanovas. They have the chance to prove their techniques in a FAIR, scientific manner! What a great advertisement opportunity!
STICK TO THE FACTS
You playas take a lot of things for granted! For ex. the player is not a stud, he scores a beautiful babe, so all guys immediately exclude “looks” as one of the reasons that accounted for his success. Hold on! You just assumed that “looks” is the same thing as “beauty.” The world we live in is much more complex. Read “Reality Check”, in particular section “Her Type.”
Short history lesson: yes, there was life on this planet before Ross Jeffries opened the Pandora box of seduction. Men hit on women all the time, and sometimes even “average frustrated champs” (AFCs as the Neo-Casanovas say) picked up beauties – ask your parents or grandparents. So next time you hear some seduction addict trying to sell you enlightening stories about his average looking PUA master who just scored a “perfect 10”, ask him how can he be so sure that it wasn’t a coincidence? How can he be so sure that his success had anything to do with his “skills”? Does he score 9s or 10s on a regular basis? Are you sure it’s not like 1 pretty babe for every 100 girls he approaches?
There is like a million things that can have influence on attraction between men and women. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? No, not the dumb teen movie starring Ashton Kutcher. I mean the scientific theory. The Chaos Theory sure works in the field of dating. If there are millions of things that may be responsible for a hurricane in US, even a butterfly in South America, then imagine how many variables are there when you are hitting on some girl? The PUAs treat this subject in a very superficial manner. They just take one element, like some pick-up line or NLP anchor, ignore thousands of others, observe what work, and come up with a seduction theory. Wow! This way I could prove a lot of Harry Potter’s spells do work!
Small digression: When I began this website I often used the comparison regarding Harry Potter spells to make some guys realize that the way they “prove” PUA stuff I could prove magic love spells. But Piotr noted in one of his comments:
“The parallel is more literal than figurative. Jeffries ran a seminar and sold a tape that purportdely showed how to use “magick” (i.e. spells, sigils, rituals, incantations etc) to seduce women. It looks like Jeffries has dropped it from his catalogue but here is a review of the product “Secrets of Kick-Butt Magick and Psychic Influence”:
http://www.bestpuatraining.com/ross-jeffries/secrets-of-kick-butt-magick-and-psychic-influence-review”
So Pick Up Artistry is limitless! Some people will swallow ANY kind of crap, even magic! PUAs have the mentality of the folks from dark middle ages!
The PUAs could ask why be so sure about genes theories? (read more in “Reality Check”) Couldn’t the Chaos Theory also tackle these ideas, as there are millions of other causes that can affect mate choice? The huge difference between the Self-Seeking Like Hypothesis or Dr. Fisher’s theory and all that seduction stuff is that genes theories were proved by carrying out experiments that are almost impossible to question. All that couples’ faces by accident seemed so similar to all those volunteers? No, there is no room for coincidences, so millions of other factors are eliminated. Helen Fisher’s theories are also based on research that involved thousands of couples. She ruled out other factors and focused on the patterns she could find. This is not just the impression that some PUA and his wingman got after a night out. These are years of meticulous research. Also confirmed by the choices of thousands of users of Chemistry.com.
Websites you should also check out:
Aaronsleazy.com
Puahate.com
Anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com
Just remember that among many rational people there are also some crypto-PUAs on Puahate.com.
Aaron’s “Minimal Game” is one of the few pickup guides I can honestly recommend. Don’t let the title fool you. Although he used the word “game”, his techniques have nothing to do with game as understood by the seduction industry. But first get acquainted with the “Approach Guide” under tab “Reality Check” which is free of charge : )
As mentioned by one of the contributors to the “Approach Guide”: One of the things that brought me closer to understand just how crappy most game crap is – was when an older ex-gamer said something like “the truth is, mainstream 7$ books on self-help or dating are far superior than any community course”.
I totally agree with this remark, and that’s why I also recommend the “Flirting Bible”:
One last book that I just have to recommend here on the front page is “Love At First Sight”. Although this is not a scientific analysis, one has to be blind not see the striking facial similarities reported in the book (most of us guys are visualizers). Correlations that can’t be just a coincidence. It explains the grand puzzle of the average looking guy who gets “the girl.” It explains the distinction between “looks” and “beauty” that I am going to repeat all over throughout this website. Without understanding it, one cannot fully comprehend the real dynamics of sexual attraction (to paraphrase Durden’s absurd RSC).
Suzi Malin who as a famous British portraitist observed facial features throughout all her life, discovered a pattern of facial resemblance that is followed by famous couples. Remember she chose celebrities only because as public persons their photos can be used for such analyzes, and for the same reason it is easy to track information about their romantic lives. These people have everything that matters in the “game of love” – looks, cash, fame. These men also have all the psychological advantages that are considered as an attribute of womanizers – the beloved by gamers social skills that cool guys usually have, the charisma of Hollywood stars, politicians and famous journalists, or the laid back personality of rock stars. But somehow they get chosen by women whose faces remind their own (or their first blood). And note that this has been reported in case of long-term relationships where psychology matters for women a lot more than when casual hook ups spark up (yes, contrary to what PUA crap tells you, almost each and every study distinguishing long- and short-term relationships confirms this tendency). Now imagine, what happens when women look for a one night stand. You think they simply choose the most handsome guy around? Let me put it this way, trendy bars and clubs are filled with good looking people during the weekend, who in general just want to “have some fun”, but somehow the result is NOT a massive orgy. Although a lot of guys would have nothing against it…
Always new there was something wrong with these guys. just didnt know exactly what. Many friends of mine still believe it.
So send ‘em a link, educated ‘em
So, there are now two possibilities:
1. You like the PUA style, you’re doing it yourself, you see that it works and you are now afraid that too many other man will do it (competition)
2. You jump on the running machine and you just want to earn money with this website (I see cheap advertising)
When you say “but make the same effort as when you are using seduction techniques, work on your confidence, sense of humor, wear nice clothes. Most important of all: approach as many chicks as when using the alpha-lame strategies, and have fun with it! You only need basic psychology, available on the Internet for free.” you sum up the basics of PUA, you cannot put it on the same stage as horoscopes (actually a PUA whould NEVER believe in crap like that) in fact it IS plain SIMPLE psychology, that’s all this whole seduction thing is about.
You are missing the most important point!
The basics of PUA are according to you the same as basic psychology?? Then why the different terminology? Why would anyone buy PUA stuff instead of psychology books, if you claim it is the same thing?
I assure you that most guys who are in it, believe seduction is much more than “regular” psychology.
The “core” of seduction is to belief that men can “create attraction”, manipulate women – and this belief is absurd, is complete bullshit, it has never been proved.
And yes I can and I must put it on the same stage as horoscopes.
Yes, I have some ads on my website (btw I have no influence on their content), so what? Website hosting is not for free you know… I need to at least cover the costs of running this website.
You think (point 1) I am a PUA who is afraid of competition? You are joking right? There are like thousands of PUA websites already…
PS: Can’t you really see that people who believe in seduction follow exactly the same ridiculous reasoning as those who believe in horoscopes?
Seduction addicts say they have seen guys using PUA techniques and… bingo! they picked up hot chicks!
Horoscope fans say they have seen people reading in horoscopes that they gonna experience smth sad in the next month and … bingo! it turns out that smth sad really happened in their lives!
Both these groups ignore basic principles of rational thinking:
you have to consider also other reasons that could cause a particular outcome. You cannot assume something works before excluding other possible explanations. That’s how scientific studies are carried out – contrary to PUA “field testing”. Unless you tell me that some PUAs for instance measured the hormones of the players and the chicks they have managed to pick up – scientist like Helen Fisher did that.
Or at least some other procedures that would exclude other factors such as:
analyzing the success rate (not just one pick-up!) of two groups of guys during a longer period of time, that’s what I suggest in section “A Job For the MythBusters”
your grammar is terrible. In my opinion its better to write fewer, well thought out responses than more poorly written ones. His point 1 still stands despite your objection. The fact that there are so many PUA sites means that more and more men are using the strategies on those sites. This will lower the chances of you picking up women using PUA strategies.
Your “Core” argument breaks down into an argument about correlation vs causation. Was the attraction created because of your appearance and sent or was it a response to your personality? Most people (including you) appreciate the fact that personality influences who you are attracted to. Psychology books can tell you being a confident male will increase your chances of mating with women. However, implantation of this fact (showing women that you are confident) is not as straight forward. This implementation is taught by PUA.
Also, your claim that you can’t create attraction is childish. Given that 1. Women are attracted to the personalities of some men more than other men. 2. Personalities have their origins in genetics however they are malleable and can be changed. Conclusion: Attraction in a sub set of women can be created by altering a man’s personality.
This system is not perfect of course, because by changing your personality you are excluding a sub set of women who were attracted to your former personality. (David Deangelo and other writers admit this) However, if the new sub set is bigger then there will be more women who are attracted to you. Another thing this strategy does is target a sub group most likely to engage in causal sex.
your grammar is terrible.
That’s classic, you pua morons put much effort to comment a lot of things that have no influence on the accuracy of my views. So I heard a lot about my alleged emotional problems, problems with women etc … from people who don’t know anything about me. They don’t even know whether I am a man or a woman LOL Now you tell me my grammar is horrible – listen, keep those comments to yourself, coz no one visits this website to discuss my grammar or my personality. THIS is just childish. Before approving your comment (coz later you at least try to form material arguments), I deleted a comment that was exclusively about me and my alleged personal problems. You puas have the mentality of 10 yo kids.
The fact that there are so many PUA sites means that more and more men are using the strategies on those sites.
Yep, just like horoscopes, black magic, get-rich-quick schemes – a sucker is born every minute.
Was the attraction created because of your appearance and sent or was it a response to your personality?
Did you even read this website?? Numerous studies confirm that your physical appearance is decisive – “Reality Check” menu. It does not exclude other factors (such as psychology) but they are secondary, coz even if you master psychology, there will be women who will reject you.
So your rhetorical question only shows that you have big problems with rational thinking.
Most people (including you) appreciate the fact that personality influences who you are attracted to.
So what?? Does it contradict my views??
Psychology books can tell you being a confident male will increase your chances of mating with women.
Yes, INCREASE your chances (not “create” any new ones) – your chances with the women who “match” you genetic ally. Again, no contradiction between psychology and my views, and at the same time science contradicts PUA fagotry.
Also, your claim that you can’t create attraction is childish.
I am gonna show how childish your reasoning is by breaking it down below:
Given that 1. Women are attracted to the personalities of some men more than other men.
I have never denied this. Are you able to comprehend that this notion does not contradict the fact that women “have their types”?! (“Her Type” section, read it so I don’t have to repeat myself!) So yes, among those types certain men have personalities that are more attractive than others. But it does not rationally mean that if you start behaving differently you can change things that have been shaped during prenatal life. Furthermore, personality has very little or no influence on women’s choice when it comes to casual sex – studies quoted by Alek Novy.
2. Personalities have their origins in genetics however they are malleable and can be changed.
Only to a certain extent – again Helen Fishers and a multitude of other studies.
Conclusion: Attraction in a sub set of women can be created by altering a man’s personality.
LOL major non sequitur – principally because of what I wrote under point 1 above.
This system is not perfect of course, because by changing your personality you are excluding a sub set of women who were attracted to your former personality. (David Deangelo and other writers admit this)
Again, lots a speculations and perfect grammar LOL
No, you are not “excluding” any woman, coz as research proved attraction cannot be created, so you cannot swap one group of women for another, and suddenly become attractive to other females. You cannot alter you genetics and prenatal hormones levels.
It’s funny how you pua suckers start with an ASSUMPTION (no evidence this thing works!), and than you just jump straight to further deliberations “this system is not perfect….” First prove this system works, instead of boring me to death with further theories.
Another thing this strategy does is target a sub group most likely to engage in causal sex.
Really? How can you explain the massive amount of studies showing that in case of casual sex what matters for women is almost exclusively physical appearance? Can you quote any studies confirming the PARTICULAR claims from your comment. I emphasized the word “particular” so you won’t quote again studies proving very general things, such as women take personality into account (for long term relationships).
I DEMAND EVIDENCE FOR THE PARTICULAR NONSENSE IDEAS YOU POSTED, EVIDENCE PROVING THAT MEN CAN CHANGE THEIR PERSONALITY AND BECOME MORE ATTRACTIVE TO WOMEN LOOKING FOR CASUAL SEX.
I demand statistically significant samples, proving certain theories – like those obtained by Fisher, Alvarez and others. Or you gonna tell like some other morons that I should prove the negative?
Re: Grammar
It’s pretty obvious that admin is from a different country. Are you Ben saying that only native English speakers are allowed to criticize PUA?
I’ve never seen a “psychology book” talking about mating first of all.
Secondly, nobody here denies it anyway. Of course confidence increases your odds to get the chick, get te job, pass yoga class (etc)…
What PUAs say is that “confidence creates attraction where none existed” – this is what admin is dismantling.
Re: Psychology
All the research that talks about psychological (personality) traits in relation to “mating” is talking about long-term mating such as relationships.
The distinction is continually made that it doesn’t translate to short-term mating.
Secondly, even if you could fake certain universally attractive traits such as status… That would only work to postpone the rejection, the chick would hang out with you longer, but she’ll run away the moment she finds out you don’t actually have that status.
A chick who’s looking for a long-term partner (preferring status.
- Will postpone sex until she confirms you’re for real.
- She still only selects from men within her group of men (her type of men genetically), she merely prefers the higher status men in that group
See this paper for an example (there’s hundreds of papers that make the same distinction):
http://www.seductionmyth.com/looks-and-cash/#comment-2441
You are presenting a false dichotomy, your two options don’t exhaust the field of possibility. PUAs believe they have a profound insight into human psychology or even the supernatural (recall that Ross Jeffries has a course on using magick (i.e. spells, incantations, sigils, rituals) to get laid. Each PUA guru has their own spin to make their brand unique. For example, Eben Pagan’s is psuedoscience in the form of a misreading of evolutionary psychology. Ross Jeffries is NLP and magick. Mystery’s is a hodge-podge. Stephan’s is the pretence of New Age sensitivity. It is anything but actual psychological understanding. These guys know that they must present a unique value proposition. If it were textbook psychology they wouldn’t be able to charge their exhorbitant fees.
Glad you mentioned Ross Jeffries belief in “magick”. Just wanted to show people out there that my analogy with magic is very accurate. Believing in PUA patterns is like believing in Harry Potter’s spells.
The parallel is more literal than figurative. Jeffries ran a seminar and sold a tape that purportdely showed how to use “magick” (i.e. spells, sigils, rituals, incantations etc) to seduce women. It looks like Jeffries has dropped it from his catalogue but here is a review of the product “Secrets of Kick-Butt Magick and Psychic Influenc”:
http://www.bestpuatraining.com/ross-jeffries/secrets-of-kick-butt-magick-and-psychic-influence-review
Oh right, I discovered it recently. Aleister Crowley’s magick is just classic pseudoscience. And those PUA gurus have the guts to claim their ideas are based on science.
I definitely think you are right!!! It is all about psychology and there you have wide and profound research which proves that it works!
cheers
What works?? PUA philosophy is NOT the same as psychology: show me any respectable psychologist who agrees with the statement that “sexual attraction” can be created. That’s what every school of seduction I came across teaches. If PUA stuff is simply psychology it would be mentioned during psychology courses…. Why the different terminology? I could go on with such questions for hours…
All evolutionary psychologists point at genes, not skills. Read sections under tab “Reality Check” just for the sake of example.
Moreover, what Alek noticed here show how these guys ignore common sense – all studies show that when looking for casual encounters women value principally physical attractiveness. Now those PUA warlocks base their techniques on status, psychology etc. in order to help their students get … one-night stands!
Dear all,
Before commenting please also read other tabs on this website. I will not approve comments asking questions about issues that are already explained on other sections.
The most common mistake is saying smth like:
“seduction works cause there are a lot of videos showing real successful PUA pick-ups”
I explained numerous times that it doesn’t prove anything.
“Remember, there is no such thing as illogical thinking.”
you can think illogical by claiming 1+1=3 (in the strict sense).
Touche, in the strict sense:)
but I guess you get my point, when you debate someone and you don’t want to accept rational arguments, in fact you are only saying “oh, I like this and that…”
Falling in love is a process during which someone moves through a series of mental and/or emotional states in a predictable way.
By describing a process (like falling in love) to someone in a particular way, you can cause that person to go through those states and experience that process just as if it had happened to them “naturally”.
By telling stories or directing a conversation using special language “patterns”, you can describe any process you want and move a person through that process and have them end up in the emotional state you desire (think “lust”). That is the basis o Ross Jeffries Speed Seduction
What a great theory, but …. where are the evidence? You really believe in everything some self-proclaimed Casanova Jeffries tells you? Why? Cause he has some testimonials on his website? On this website you can find research based on REAL LIFE PARTNER choice (see tab “Reality Check”).
Are you aware that pua theories could be proved in a very simple way? Take a look at my suggestion for an experiment that could verify this pua bullcrap once and for all – tab “Just Prove It!” Guess why no one has ever conducted such test?
If you really believe that:
“By telling stories or directing a conversation using special language “patterns”, you can describe any process you want and move a person through that process and have them end up in the emotional state you desire”
why don’t all those Jeffries students use these skills in business?? If that was real they could “move their business partners or customers through that process and have them end up in the emotional state” they desire – for instance in the emotional state of lending them money or buying their stuff LOL
Read the part about Ross Jeffries under section “BS Created So Far”
(I shouldn’t approve your comment, cause your arguments show that you didn’t even read all tabs of this website. But just for the sake of example for other people I reply to it )
Well Ross Jeffries adapted his system from the theories on NLP (o which I am a certified practitioner) and Conversational Hypnosis. You claim that you disagree because the logical proof isn’t there. There are a multitude of scientific studies done on the power of the Art Of Hypnosis. I invite you to do some research into the topic before you place absolute judgment. I suggest you look up “The Zone Induction” it’s a great example of a conversational hypnosis induction.
Like I wrote on this website (read other sections as well), I do believe NLP works when U apply it on yourself. But there is no evidence that you can change a woman’s state of mind when it comes to sexual attraction.
You say: “There are a multitude of scientific studies done on the power of the Art Of Hypnosis. ” Send me a link to at least one psychological experiment that confirms men are able to CREATE sexual attraction in women’s minds using NLP.
Again, I have to emphasize that a fair scientific study must rule out other factors, such as looks for instance. So you gotta have a sample big enough to exclude other variables…
NLP is a load of bullshit. There is zero evidence that it works and actually several papers that indicate that it doesn’t work.
I have never studied NLP thoroughly. So that was only my guess that these techniques can change my own state of mind. But maybe you are right, maybe NLP in general is crap. Do you remember those papers you mentioned?
Admin,
When I contributed to the Wikipedia NLP article several years ago I had all the papers. I don’t think I have them now but the references in the Wikipedia article are quite complete and the skeleton of my prose survives in the critical sections of that article. Sharpley’s papers I recall as being good in that they summarised several other studies.
Actually, Ross Jeffries claimed that he used NLP modelling to obtain speed seduction.
NLP and Ericksonian Hypnosis certifications aren’t even useful as toilet paper (they are too stiff). Anyone can get a practitioner or master level certification you just needs to pay the requisite fees.
The many NLP “professional” organisations are granfalloons i.e. a proud and meaningless associations of human beings.
All of the studies that I have seen regarding hypnosis doubt that even such a thing as hypnosis exists or that there is such a thing as a hypnotic state (it appears to be nothing more than the placebo effect and relaxation). For example, it has been discovered that hypnotic analgesia works by reducing anxiety and that the same effect can be achieved by progressive relaxation techniques or the administration of an anxiolytic. The content of the suggestions is immaterial [ "The Role of Suggestions in Hypnosis for Chronic Pain: A Review of the Literature."; Dillworth & Jensen; 2010; "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21686037 ] ["THE EFFICACY OF HYPNOTIC ANALGESIA IN ADULTS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE."; Steolb et al; 2009; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20161034 ].
Whoa. Hang on a minute! It is you that needs to research the topic. There is no evidence that there is even such a thing as a hypnsotic state. Look at the two reviews I provided you.
The phrase “zone induction” does not occur in any of the journals indexed by PubMed it only occurs on the commercial advertising websites of various NLP shonks. The zone induction is nothing — literally nothing. It is just like a choreographed dance where each party knows what the other party expects of the other. It is baroque bullshit, i.e. bullshit with lots of decorations, it is a piece of performance art.
There is no such thing as “conversational hypnosis” and there is no evidence that such a thing exists. All of the results obtained by “hypnosis” can be explained with reference to the placebo effect and anxiety reduction via relaxation.
In the mid-1980s the US Army Research Council asked the National Research Council (the USs peak scientific research organisation) to form a committe to assess all current techniques that were claimed to enhance human performance. This led to to the constitution of the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance. Their investigation included NLP and hypnosis. The Committe reported their results in 1988 [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1025&page=R1]. The Committe was unimpressed with NLP and did not recommend that the US military spend money on it. They also stated that NLP has no evidence base for its claims.
So don’t you think if NLP and Ericksonian hypnosis worked the DoD would have been all over it?
No such thing as a hypnotic state?
Not so fast there, buddy boy:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111028103302.htm
Clarence,
You slightly changed the subject here. As you see this study was not about “creating sexual attraction”…
That’s the main concept behind seduction. Post a link to any study that proves it is possible, and I promise to apologize every incarnation of Casanova out there
Just make sure not to commit the same mistake as the guy who posted a link under section “Just Prove It!”
Don’t get excited hypno-boy.
Firstly, Kallio et al (2011) is one study based on one person where the authors themselves concede that this is the one and only paper that even suggests there is auch a thing as a hypnotic state. I quote:
[Kallio et al; 2011; p.1]
Read the paper, not a story about the paper. The result from Kallio et al needs to be replicated and with a sample of n > 1
One paper, based on one person is not sufficient to overturn all the preceding studies which indicate that there is no such thing as a hypnotic state. Science doesn’t work that way.
Secondly, Kallio et al pertains to traditional hypnosis NOT “conversational hypnosis” which what some of the PUA gurus claim to be performing. There is one paper that suggests a traditional, somnambulistic hypnotic state may exist. There zero papers that indicate that conversational hypnosis exists.
Thirdly, even if there were such a thing as a hypnotic state that would in no way demonstrate that attraction can be created.
There is no evidence for the model of consciousness that your (Jeffries’) theory implies. Further, implicit in the model is the notion of the subject as passive automaton. You can’t cause attraction — that is the grand myth that you have imbibed. You simply don’t have access to the parts of the brain (the most primitive parts) that are responsible for attraction — they are entirely out of reach and they don’t understand stories or “language patterns”.
In all mammals, sexual attraction (which is the basis for emotional bonding) originates in the oldest and simplest parts of the brain (in simplistic terms: the paleocortex). These parts of the brain are pre-linguistic and even pre-affective (i.e. of or relating to emotion) so the idea that you can use “language patterns” or stories to create attraction is absurd. The direction of neuronal circuitry is biased towards Paleocortex—>Neocortex. That is to say there are many more connections running from the paleocortex to the neocortex rather than the other way around. This is why you can’t talk someone out of a phobia — you can’t reason away a phobia. In broad schematic terms attraction originates in the paleocortex and this drives the neocortex. You are in effect claiming that the neocortex drives the paleocortex and this is simply false because in relative terms there are few neuronal connections running from paleocortex to neocortex. Your theory of mind vis-a-vis attraction is contradicted by the evidence from neuroscience. If you could create attraction then you would also be able to reason your way out of compulsive behaviour, phobia, explosive anger, sexual attraction, hunger and fear. But you can’t because reason is in one region of the brain and these primal drives (including lust) originate in a different region of the brain and never the twain shall meet.
In a nutshell, the parts of the brain that are responsible for attraction don’t understand language nor even the emotions associated with bonding (which come after attraction not before).
Thanks for the theoretical background Piotr.
But even without possessing all this knowledge, I find it really amazing how any man can believe he can actually CREATE sexual attraction in a woman’s head with “linguistic patterns” – i.e. by simply saying stuff loaded with romantic or sexual allusions. I mean, all those guys really think women are that different from us men? Has any of those PUA addicts ever fell for a girl because of the stuff she said?
The idea that words cannot influence your instincts is the absurd one. As you now read my post, you feel an urge to show value, an urge to prove your dominance over the outside of yourselves by talking me out of my nonsense. Everything goes back to power. Affirming what you affirm, you are also ignoring the milennia of storytelling, even in sole written form — which still evokes emotions despite no acting involved. The more I think about your reasoning, the more laughable it gets! Language is a tool for communication, which pervades living existence. I will not plunge further into linguistics, but you both are making language transcendent, extracting it from emotional response and experience. Thinking about it, I feel excluded from human race: in hindsight, I shouldn’t have held my breath while reading Henry James or gotten angry when people insulted my family, after all, those were only words, weren’t they? Words convey intentions. And that’s what people are looking for when you open your mouth.
“In other words, you can never be sure that she wouldn’t fall for him anyway even without all that seduction patterns.”
Are you prepared to deny all psychology? Are you prepared to deny causality? People like other people through some process, as much as a box is built by obeying some methods. If you are able to repeat the same movements, provided you are using the same materials, you will get the same results. One box may end up loose and fragile, as you are not very skilled in the beginning, but now you know how to do it; you must now develop coordination to perform the task more smoothly. Some tasks are more complex, others are not that much, but everything has a determining factor, a cause. Produce that cause, and you will see the expected outcome.
Pietro read Piotr : )
At least try to debate his arguments that rely on a deep understanding of the functioning of the human mind. Moreover, you only give examples relating to other areas than sexual attraction (“As you now read my post, you feel an urge to show value” – yes but not an urge to fuck you , pardon my French).
“The idea that words cannot influence your instincts is the absurd one.”
My idea is that words cannot influence sexual attraction. I know what you meant referring to instincts but lets’ stick to the subject, so the discussion is precise.
My basic argument is this:
You pointed at “milennia of storytelling”. Yes, agreed. Milennia of storytelling, NOT millennia of creating sexual attraction with those stories. Otherwise the brothers Grimm would have a harem at their feet.
You asked
“Are you prepared to deny all psychology?”
What “all psychology”?? Quote at least one scientific study that shows men can create sexual attraction in women’s heads with linguistic patterns! I demand evidence, not some PUAs anecdotes. Think of the thousands of scientific experiments conducted each year, this one could be easy to organize – like speed dating in which your linguistic seducers would take part, and than we measure their success rate and the success rate of other volunteers with similar physical attractiveness. Why there is not even one study confirming these seduction story telling theories?
“Language is a tool for communication, which pervades living existence.”
Yes, a tool for communication not a “tool for creating sexual attraction”
You also ignored my argument about our own relation to women – the one from my comment above. You say that:
“I shouldn’t have held my breath while reading Henry James or gotten angry when people insulted my family, after all, those were only words, weren’t they?”
Again, you give another example that has nothing to do with sex appeal. But tell me honestly, have you or any of your friends ever felt attracted to a woman only because of the things she said (imagine a female you consider physically very unattractive)?
Piotr’s other comment is an even better point against your reasoning:
“when a prostitute has sex with a customer and she is sexually aroused as a result of the mechanics of the sexual intercourse do you also think that she is sexually attracted to her customer? Sexual attraction between a prostitute and her customers is a rarity — it does happen but very rarely not as a matter of course. By your reasoning, all prostitutes should be sexually attracted to their customers.”
And finally, how do you combine your linguistic theories on sex appeal with the studies cited in “Reality Check” that clearly show genes (not skills) are decisive in mate choice?
“My idea is that words cannot influence sexual attraction. I know what you meant referring to instincts but lets’ stick to the subject, so the discussion is precise.”
You assert attraction is the only thing words cannot influence. Of all emotions and drives, the only chemicals unable to respond to words are those related to attraction. I ask you now to explain, either logically or biologically, why this should be or is the case.
“Quote at least one scientific study that shows men can create sexual attraction in women’s heads with linguistic patterns!”
No, the linguistic patterns are secondary. Canned material and routines are built so that you never run out of fuel, never let the attention fade in a case where your lack of comfort would leave your mind blank. Words are actually downplayed when compared to delivery. The routines are like an instruction manual for bolting a box: it teaches how to position the parts, use the tools and helps with troubleshooting, but you still need your hands. Much like a musician who can read the score perfectly but still lacks technical proficiency to perform it.
“But tell me honestly, have you or any of your friends ever felt attracted to a woman only because of the things she said (imagine a female you consider physically very unattractive)?”
Yes, I have. I’m not saying it to disprove you; It happened recently and not only was she physically unattractive, but I and others rate my level of attractiveness well above hers. However, this is merely anedoctal, confusing me as to why you would want to know something you consider irrelevant and raising doubts about your objectivity.
“when a prostitute has sex with a customer and she is sexually aroused as a result of the mechanics of the sexual intercourse do you also think that she is sexually attracted to her customer? Sexual attraction between a prostitute and her customers is a rarity — it does happen but very rarely not as a matter of course. By your reasoning, all prostitutes should be sexually attracted to their customers.”
MM, RSD, DYD, not even SS which relies on NLP, advise alluding to sex as means to attract. Arousal comes later. You must first show qualities she is biologically bound to respond positively.
“And finally, how do you combine your linguistic theories on sex appeal with the studies cited in “Reality Check” that clearly show genes (not skills) are decisive in mate choice?”
Here:
“Since cultural rules and childhood experiences contribute a great deal to human mating behavior, it is logical to suggest that a range of higher-order cognitive processes and corresponding cortica structures also are involved in human attraction.”
“(…) factors that trigger mate preference, such as symmetry, the display of resources, the display of fertility, and/or other biological and behavioral factors that stimulate to whom one becomes attracted;(…)”
And this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199303/the-biology-attraction
All written by Helen Fisher, and I see no contradiction to the — let’s call it so — “seduction hypothesis”. She puts forward the idea of dominant behaviour, which are consistent with PUA techniques; she tells of female preference for socioeconomic traits above looks, again consistent with PUA community concepts.
Your turn. Make sure to quote Fisher.
Pietro,
You have conflated the distinct notions and mechanisms of sexual arousal versus sexual attraction. Yes, reading erotic literature can make you sexually aroused as can watching pornography. But that that is wholly distinct from sexual attraction. You can make someone sexually aroused but that does not entail that you can make them sexually attracted to you. Consider being a client of a prostitute. You can make the prostitute sexually aroused (and is their more “kino” than fucking a woman) but she will not become sexually attracted to you.
Sexual attraction — by virtue of thousands of years of evolution — has become a “hot button” under lock and key, and it must be that way. If the mechanism of sexual attraction could be readily subverted — in any species — that specied could would have long become extinct.
As you now read my post, you feel an urge to show value, an urge to prove your dominance over the outside of yourselves by talking me out of my nonsense
Get your hand off it. I’ve likely forgotten more about NLP than you’ll ever know. It’s all nonsense and yes I have (in my naive past) done NLP seminars so please don’t try that nonsense on me. I’ve even paid thousands for NLP persuasion courses by Kenrick Cleveland.
“you are also ignoring the milennia of storytelling, even in sole written form — which still evokes emotions despite no acting involved. ”
You are ignoring the millenia of human evolution the entire project of which is the perpetuation of genotypes.
Sexual attraction is NOT an emotion — it is a drive. Sexual attraction exists in animals that have no emotive neurology such as reptiles. To put it crudely the only thing that the primitive circuits of reptile, avian and mammalian neurology understand is eat it, fight it, kill it or fuck it. That is all. As comparatively sophisticated we humans are we share those neural circuits with reptiles and birds.
In broad schematic terms the human brain has three broad components (this is a gross simplification based on MacCleans triune brain model but it is good for didactic purposes):
(1) the paleocortex — the oldest part, sresponsible for the basic drives: feeding and fucking, this is shared by reptiles, birds and mammals;
(2) the limbic system, present only in birds and mammals, responsible for emotions and evolved after (1);
(3) the neocortex, present in birds and mammals but most developed in primates, responsible for cognition, abstraction, executive control, language etc. This is the newest and most sophisticated component of human neirology but it has not in any way taken over the functions of (1)
The paleocortex does not process emotions nor language,it is the simplest and oldest part of our neurology which is responsible for our most basic drives including the reproductive urge and sexual attraction. In terms of sexual attraction the paleocortex responds to signals of genetic fitness and capacity for resource acquisition. What is the evidence for this? The body of results that comprise the results from evolutionary psychology (see my other post for some introductory references and I can supply more if needed).
Pietro,
My apologies for the piecemeal responses.
You wrote:
“Are you prepared to deny all psychology? Are you prepared to deny causality?”
The problem for you is that the PUA and NLP stuff is not psychology. You can study the topic of persuasion in an advanced social psychology course at university and you won’t find PUA material nor NLP. Even where PUA gurus try and reference evolutionary psychology (eg. Mystery and DeAngelo) they cock it up, they don’t understand the subject. If you give me a specific (pseudo-)scientific claim from your favourite PUA guri I will rebutt it in detail and provide references for you.
Regarding causality that needs to be demonstrated rather than merely assumed.
Pietro,
When I asked for any studies showing men can CREATE sexual attraction, you answered:
“No, the linguistic patterns are secondary.”
OK, so you admit genes matter most? Well, this is contrary to what 99% of PUAs claim. They say:
1. it’s all about skills
2. looks don’t matter – but “looks” are determined by genes!
The main idea of seduction assumes you change someone’s state of mind, and now you admit that many things in human mating are beyond our control.
Helen Fisher’s research certainly denies the main concept of seduction. You want me to quote Dr Fisher? Here it goes:
Chemistry.com
Chemistry.com is based on the idea that there are 4 personality types. These types come down to genes. You are born with it, no PUA seduction pattern is going to change your genotype.
The following quote you typed contradicts seduction hypothesis:
“(…) factors that trigger mate preference, such as symmetry, the display of resources, the display of fertility, and/or other biological and behavioral factors that stimulate to whom one becomes attracted;(…)”
Again, “symmetry”, “display of fertility”, “other biological factors” etc – these things are beyond your control. You are born with it.
You mentioned you were attracted by an ugly woman because of what she said. Well, you never know whether you weren’t attracted by her facial features in the first place (like I explained many times here “genes” is not the same as “beauty”). I pointed out before when answering to other PUA fans:
how do you know what exactly accounted for your success? The only fair method of discovering it is measuring success rates. No speed dating experiment (or other fair method) has ever confirmed that men using PUA techniques have better results than other participants. One of my viewers commented that there was actually a speed dating experiment in which the guys from some British “seduction lair” had worse results than other participants…
Furthermore, if this was the general pattern, then men’s magazines would include stories loaded with sexual allusions and not hot naked chicks.
Pietro,
I forgot to answer to this:
“You assert attraction is the only thing words cannot influence. Of all emotions and drives, the only chemicals unable to respond to words are those related to attraction. I ask you now to explain, either logically or biologically, why this should be or is the case.”
1. because it has never ever been proved. The world we live in is VERY complicated, in particular such area as sexual attraction. There are just too many variables, hence you cannot assume anything. You have to prove it on a statistically relevant sample. Imagine how easy it would be to fairly prove it! C’mon man, I see you are not a con artist selling stuff online, you are genuinely interested in the subject. Haven’t you ever asked yourself the question why no one has ever run any such test, like the one I describe in “A Job For The MythBusters”?
2. If those linguistic theories were true, then Helen Fisher wouldn’t find any pattern relating to prenatal hormone levels, and Suzi Malin wouldn’t find any patterns regarding proportions of the human skull. The only pattern you could find would be:
the more skilled man (socially skilled, language skills), the more attractive woman.
Plus those most skilled should be able to get virtually ANY female!
Is this really the world we live in?
I understand you both. However, sex drive and attraction are not the same thing — let’s agree with Helen Fisher’s terminology for the sake of clarity. Lust is responsible for the best possible replication (choosing the genetically best mate); attraction and attachment increase the likelihood of offspring’s survival due to parental bonding and caring for the children. No PUA book I have read relies on sexual arousal, but on attraction.
“There are just too many variables, hence you cannot assume anything.”
If that is the case; neither can you. Stop debating then.
“Get your hand off it. I’ve likely forgotten more about NLP than you’ll ever know. It’s all nonsense and yes I have (in my naive past) done NLP seminars so please don’t try that nonsense on me. I’ve even paid thousands for NLP persuasion courses by Kenrick Cleveland.”
It was mere illustration, I wasn’t trying any NLP technique on you. I couldn’t, since I’ve never read a book on NLP, nor am I familiar with its application other than rough concepts presented in Neil Strauss’ book.
“OK, so you admit genes matter most? Well, this is contrary to what 99% of PUAs claim. They say:
1. it’s all about skills
2. looks don’t matter – but “looks” are determined by genes!”
Genes do matter. The most popular PUA, Mystery, insists that looks are important, however not decisive. As Fisher et al put it: “Men tend to be more attracted to a partner’s physical appearance — particularly signs of youth and beauty (Buss, 1989; Buss, 1994), while women are more inclined to be attracted to men with money, education, and/or position (Buss, 1994)”. This is also why setting standards for female preferences based on males doesn’t work.
“Again, ‘symmetry’, ‘display of fertility’, ‘other biological factors’ etc – these things are beyond your control. You are born with it.”
You ignored the behavioural factors. On these non-genetic aspects, such as wealth and earning potential, there are behavioural cues the female looks for in the male, in order to determine his ability to protect and supply her and their offspring. By displaying dominance and ambition, the male appeals to her need for protection and resources, for he will then be socially and mentally structured to keep them well-fed and safe.
Your contend is that sex drive isn’t controllable by other people. The term “sexual attraction” confuses the argumentation, as you employ it synonymically to “lust” (the sex drive). I’m not debating this, but rather attraction and its behavioural triggers to which a man can adapt — thus, learn.
Pietro, in response to my remark that you cannot assume anything since there are too many variables you replied:
“If that is the case; neither can you. Stop debating then.”
But contrary to you I am not assuming anything – all I claim (genes matter most) is confirmed by evidence obtained from research quoted on this website, so how can you say I am assuming anything?
While the theories you mentioned (men can create sexual attraction) have never ever been proven! Isn’t it a more important discovery than even Einstein’s theory – from the perspective of the common man? Think of the thousands of experiments conducted each year worldwide. There must be a way to establish whether a man can create attraction (as DeAngelo and other puas frequently repeat) in the head of a woman who previously was not attracted to him. Why after all those years there hasn’t been conducted not even one study confirming THIS particular notion?! This notion is what seduction is all about.
“Genes do matter. The most popular PUA, Mystery, insists that looks are important, however not decisive.”
Mystery is so wrong – genes are decisive. If not, Helen Fisher wouldn’t be able to find any pattern relating to hormones (not behavior!) – those 4 personality types I mentioned are a product of certain chemicals (like testosterone) that acted on the fetus during prenatal life. The same chemicals shape facial features.
Also Dr Alvarez (see “Her Type” section) couldn’t have been able to find any patterns whatsoever in the faces of married couples. In that section you can find many other studies showing facial similarities.
If you have any knowledge about facial features, human skulls, take a look at the PUAs and the faces of their confirmed girlfriends (not those fake pics from websites) – like Neil Strauss and Lise Leveridge.
I didn’t ignore behavioral factors. As I often mention on this website I simply think these factors are secondary.
And finally – I don’t know what Mystery meant by “looks”, but I hope you are aware that facial appearance described by for ex Dr Alvarez is not the same as beauty. PUAs usually concentrate on facial attractiveness when they discuss “looks”. That’s why they can’t comprehend that a hot babe can be attracted to the facial features of an average Joe.
Read this again:
“Men tend to be more attracted to a partner’s physical appearance — particularly signs of youth and beauty (Buss, 1989; Buss, 1994), while women are more inclined to be attracted to men with money, education, and/or position (Buss, 1994)”.
Are women’s brains adapted specifically to feel attraction for wealthy, educated and high-status men, even though these are, in evolutionary terms, recent parametres? What would they represent in a primitive society?
Oh boy! it still doesn’t prove seduction is possible!
It only says “while women are more inclined to be attracted to men with money, education, and/or position.”
By “more inclined” the author of course meant to say – more inclined than men! Read it in its context. I sure agree men value physical appearance more than women.
It is obvious for most people. But from this fact alone you cannot draw the conclusion, that men can “create sexual attraction”.
This concept doesn’t mean women completely disregard facial appearance.
It doesn’t contradict the results brought by all the studies that verified the Self Seeking Like Theory.
It doesn’t contradict Helen Fisher’s 4 personality types that boil down to genotypes.
It doesn’t contradict even Suzi Malin’s observations with regard to similarity of facial features.
All PUA fans keep committing the same basic mistake in logic:
“A implies B”, and you think it means “A also implies C”
“Are women’s brains adapted specifically to feel attraction for wealthy, educated and high-status men, even though these are, in evolutionary terms, recent parametres?”
Women’s brains are adapted principally to search for similar genes – you cannot question the studies that confirmed on statistically relevant samples the concept of the so called “Self Seeking Like Theory”.
All other factors are of secondary nature:
- In the dawn of humanity it was physical strength, connected of course with the ability to provide food, probably also beauty since it indicates “good genes” (so there is a higher probability that such male will be a good provider). It boils down to status, so I see no contradiction in your quote…
- today it will be financial status, but also beauty for the same reasons as above.
Well thank you for approving my comment. At the core of your argument I agree with you completely, attraction is something that happens naturally when two compatible people meet, and attraction can be created by showcasing high social value (Mystery method) or creating a connection and evoking those feelings through conversation and communication (ross jefires speed seduction). There are many “guru” pushing products or personal gain they may sully the good name of the whole of the community but to claim that seduction is entirely a myth and attraction is decided purely by fate is asinine.
Dude, you wrote you agree with me completely, but than you wrote:
“attraction can be created by showcasing high social value (Mystery method) or creating a connection and evoking those feelings through conversation and communication”
The point that I am proving on this website (see research quoted on “Reality Check” tab) is that all these factors like social value, character, personality, sense of humor etc. do matter only when a girl has to choose between various men who are all “her types”.
You and guys like Mystery believe the contrary. You think you can create attraction by “showcasing high social value”.
No you can’t.
If you claim you can – prove it. Like it is explained numerous times on this website, the sole fact that some girl fell for some pua still doesn’t prove his techniques are responsible for it. In other words, you can never be sure that she wouldn’t fall for him anyway even without all that seduction patterns.
Unless… you run a fair experiment covering lots of participants, and unless the results of this experiment prove that guys like Mystery have a higher success rate with the ladies than other guys of similar looks (read tab “Just Prove It!”).
Guess why such experiment has never been carried out?
I agree that you believe that. I’m not arguing against your beliefs. You have been indoctrinated to a way of thinking that has shaped your current beliefs. Disagreements arise when a person is presented with information that seems discordant with their experiences in life. I’d venture to say that what you believe to be fundamentally false about seduction is the implication that a persons reality and emotions can be elicited and manipulated. I’d venture to say you believe- at lest at some level- we as humans are at the whim of fate. Logical appeals rarely shift beliefs and often times debates conclude with the parties involved agreeing to disagree. I can never disagree with your model of the world and I feel at the core our arguments we are saying the same things; a women chooses her partner based on personal preference.
But I am showing on this website that it is not about what you believe in – it’s about reason and facts.
You wrote:
“I’d venture to say that what you believe to be fundamentally false about seduction is the implication that a persons reality and emotions can be elicited and manipulated”
Yes, briefly speaking that’s my main argument against seduction. Just remember that’s my point of view with regard to SEXUAL attraction – you probably can manipulate people let’s say in business…
Now, love life has it’s own rules that come down to genes -read all studies quoted in tab “Reality Check”.
How can you combine the discovery of (for example) Dr Helen Fisher who after analyzing thousands of couples found people have their types,
with
the beliefs (they didn’t run any studies!) of the PUAs who claim all that matters are skills?
Well this is the point when we agree to disagree. Seeing it from you’re perspective I can understand how you believe seduction is a myth. The implications that emotions that we ascribe such magical qualities to -such as love- can be elicited may at first seem unnerving. In your world view “nature” (genetics) plays a larger role in our lives as humans than “nurture” (experience), at least within the context of sexual attraction. This is the age old argument. This is where our realities clash. Suspend your scepticism briefly. I invite you to do some research into the related fields of seduction; NLP, hypnosis, persuasion and influence. Human is a complex and amazing specimen.
One more thing:
Above you made some philosophical digressions (it seems to me you follow the philosophy of relativism).
But the point of this website is to answer a simple question:
is there such a thing as seduction or it’s just a myth?
Imagine I ask you the same question about let’s say vampires. Would you also mention my life experiences, my model of the world, philosophy etc. ?
No, the answer, just as in case of seduction, would be simple:
Although there are plenty of references in our culture regarding vampires, such creatures do not exist, because there are no evidence that humans can somehow change into bloodsucking immortal beasts.
To answer your second comment:
I am familiar with NLP. And I do believe it works – but when you use it on yourself! (read the part when I comment the master of NLP Derren Brown and his alleged seduction powers).
It’s not my “world view” that genetics play the most important role in human mating (other factors do matter, but in later stages). This is a FACT not my opinion – unless you can prove the studies I rely on are bias…
You claim to have studied NLP you should be familiar the phrase “The map is not the territory”. All the so called “logical” conclusions that we come to in life are at lease at some level influenced by our prior beliefs & experiences. It is only when theses beliefs are limiting a person from achieving their true potential or, influencing decisions that hurt others that I believe these beliefs should be shifted. Even the study you cited by Helen Fisher is still at the end of the day is a “logical” conclusion based on relatively small amount of data (considering you said her sample was in the thousands and there are currently 7 billion people on earth) and no doubt influenced by her prior beliefs and experiences of life. This however does not make the studies findings false. That’s why use still use the word “theory” when describing scientific findings that are largely considered fact. We truly inhabit different worlds. We as humans do not possess omnipotence there for how can we know- beyond a shadow of a doubt- the truths of the universe. I invite you to study NLP further, that technology combined with your logical debate skills could make you a very effective persuader.
Also once you begin to realize that what women truly find attractive in a man (high social value, confidence, ambition, assertiveness) are largely based on experience and can be easily integrated or at the very least replicated you can begin to understand the doctrine of these “so called” seduction gurus.
To answer your question; if I was confronted by a person who truly believed that the undead existed I would -instead of throwing logical appeals at them- ask them what experiences they had in their life that lead them to believe in vampires and then try to shift their perception of that event (even just slightly before using logical appeals) . Attacking a persons beliefs only makes them defensive thus ingraining the belief deeper.
with response to
“instead of throwing logical appeals at them- ask them what experiences they had in their life that lead them to believe in vampires”
This could be a dead end, because a given person could indeed have experienced such things in life that would lead most of us to believe vampires exist (like incredible coincidences). So you could in fact reinforce their beliefs. Now, if you convince someone to accept logic, there is no way anyone can sustain absurd beliefs such as vampires, seduction or black magic…
Finally, if someone tells me that they don’t accept logic in any discussion, then frankly I don’t think there is any hope for that person, and I see no reason to continue the discussion.
Sorry, but you keep committing the same mistake, when you say
“Also once you begin to realize that what women truly find attractive in a man (high social value, confidence, ambition, assertiveness) are largely based on experience and can be easily integrated or at the very least replicated you can begin to understand the doctrine of these “so called” seduction gurus.”
Again, that’s only your ASSUMPTION that previous life experiences are more important than genes for women, and thus a man skilled enough can allegedly conquer any woman. Any evidence?
It’s like saying that
motivation is crucial in sports (true)
then
by solely mastering this aspect of the issue a given player can accomplish anything (false conclusion – if you are very short for instance you won’t ever play in the NBA, try a different sport)
Even though Dr Fisher’s studies (which btw are just an example, there are numerous others) as you pointed out examined “only” thousands of participants, these studies are statistically representative. Now, what the PUAs have? Nothing, only loose theories.
Excellent points, admin. Religious people use the *personal experience as a criterion of truth* line of reasoning all the time, and it is open to the same criticisms.
Sure, you experienced something, but how do you know what you experienced? You had a mystical experience of *union with a higher being*, but how do you know it wasnt the devil rather than god?
For the PUA, sure, you did a bunch of techniques, but how do you know those techniques were the thing responsible?
Its amazing to me how few people can really understand this point. It does not seem to me so subtle, yet I find (through experience
) that its really hard for lots of people to get.
I hesitate to say that guys who cant understand the point about game being non-scientific and the need to isolate factors are simply not very intelligent. Its a tempting thing to do – simply through up your hands and say, bah, anyone who does not get so simple a thing is just dumb.
But these people (religious ones too) often seem reasonably intelligent in general, and the point IS an exceedingly simple one…..
I think it is more that they are so emotionally invested in their belief system that they simply have blind spots when it comes to questioning their belief system.
Thanks for your comment Harry! I think logic should be obligatory in school
I have only one minor reservation relating to your analogy with religion. I have to say that it is not entirely accurate because religion by definition is not about reason, it is about faith.
Now, seduction can and must be analyzed only in the light of the laws of logic. After all some even call it “seduction science” (!)
Unless some PUA tells me seduction is his religion, patterns are his prayers, Mystery is his god, and “the Game” is his bible LOL
“At the core of your argument I agree with you completely, attraction is something that happens naturally when two compatible people meet, and attraction can be created by showcasing high social value (Mystery method) or creating a connection and evoking those feelings through conversation and communication (ross jefires speed seduction). ”
This (extraordinarily long) sentence is self-contradictory. The italicised “and” (mine) separates the two incompatible propositions in your sentence.
Firstly, attraction can’t be created. There is no evidence that attraction can be “created”, theoretical evidence that it can’t be created and much indirect empirical evidence from social psychology that it can’t be created. More on this later.
Secondly, mammalian ethology tells us that the basis of attraction — essentially the desire to mate — is genetic fitness, social status and resource access (these traits are strongly correlated with each other). This cuts across all mammals from mice to Homo sapiens. Humans add a heavy layer of culture which can obfuscate this but if you break it down we are driven by the same things as all other mammals. “[S]howcasing high social value” is a bullshit, non-scientific phrase that means nothing. If you mean social status then use that term which is widely used in sociology, anthropology, ethology, social psychology and evolutionary psychology. In which case you can’t display high social status unless you possess it or fake it in the manner of Frank Abignale in the book and movie Catch Me if You Can. Doing magic tricks, reading palms or handwriting, or evoking emotions by spinning yarns does not in anyway elevate your social status. In fact it actually reduces it because you are in effect casting yourself in the role of court jester, or entertainer. Do you think George Clooney does coin magic? Mystery gets laid because his physical appearance is above average — he looks good. Everything else he does is of secondary importance. He dresses in the manner of rock star and that appeals to the women he likes and he has the air of a greasy Las Vegas magician and that too appeals to the women he likes. But that is all secondary to his physical appearance. Don’t confuse the shtick for the (unfakeable) substance viz. his physical appearance. There is no evidence that Ross Jeffries has sex with women. I suspect that Neil Strauss pays his “girlfriends” a stipend so that he can maintain the sales of his book and seminars. Strauss is essentially in a business partnership with these women: he shares part of his earnings from book and seminar sales with them in exchange for them playing the role of his girlfriends which enable him to play the role of master of seduction. A business arrangement not unlike the well-known but closeted homosexual actor men of Hollywood that are in sham marriages to create and maintain the marketable illusion of heterosexuality. Need I name them?
Thirdly, if attraction could be generated, the physiological project of the selfish gene would have been subverted long ago and extensive and frequent non-assortative mating (i.e. ugly men pairing with the limited supply of beautiful women) would have eliminated the very beautiful from the gene pool. We would inhabit a world that consists entirely of the average. There would be no extraordinarily beautiful men or women. All of the Neil Strauss’s of the world would fuck the Angelina Jolie’s of the world producing average(-to-ugly) looking children. Over many generations, on the population level the combinations of genes that produce beauty would be eventually eliminated. But this hasn’t and doesn’t happen (except in rare and exceptional circumstances). The existence of beautiful men and women counts as empirical evidence that mating is largely assortative i.e. attractive women have children with attractive men and ugly men have children with ugly women and average men have children with average women. The prevalence of assortative mating counts as strong indirect evidence that the process of attraction is not something that can be consciously subverted.
Fourthly, NLP is a thorough sham. It doesn’t work. Bandit & Grifter are yet to provide even a shred of evidence for their claims. Furthermore, the burst of researching into NLP in the 1980s found against the efficacy of NLP. Lastly, the model of mind implicit in NLP is not consistent with results from contemporary neuroscience. A mundane example of the falsity of NLP is the notion that there are only five senses and memory is encoded in terms of these five senses. There are much more than five senses and memories are not encoded in terms of these senses. Emotion plays a larger role in the encoding of memory than do the (more than) five senses. This is just one example of the crap in NLP. I can provide many more as well as citation to papers.
There is only one point in which I can’t entirely agree with you Piotr:
“Mystery gets laid because his physical appearance is above average — he looks good. ”
I am not so sure about that. What means “good”? We men usually agree on feminine beauty. Women is another story. They often have very different tastes – we often hear girls that have very distant opinions on the attractiveness of a given man.
Some scientists even created computer programs that rate feminine facial features accurately – they are based on the “golden ratio”.
Such programs still cannot accurately rate masculine beauty. In case of men’s face there are probably other factors that affect female ratings – like facial masculinity. These factors probably depend on the genotype of the rater. This may also explain why women are in general more picky than men.
I assure you not all women find Mystery attractive. I personally know women who find Brad Pitt awful! Do you know any man who considers Angelina Jolie unattractive?
This is the tricky part that the PUAs use to confuse their clients (victims I should say). They show a guy like Neil Strauss with a girl like Lisa Leveridge (who is not gorgeous, but she is also not ugly) to prove seduction worked for Neil. Most guys cannot comprehend that for women the rating of men’s faces is not as simple as for us rating feminine faces. For this particular girl (Ms Leveridge) a guy like Neil Strauss can be really physically appealing because of similar genes that her brain subconsciously “detects”. Btw can you see the similar structure of their faces? They look almost like brother and sister!
Admin,
From my studies of facial anthropometry my understanding is that there is a high degree of cross-cultural consensus on what constitutes an attractive face for both men an women. The golden ratio idea has fallen out of favour in preference to a cluster of other traits (see below). The phi-mask that was used to construct the ideal male face has since been found to be invalid because it was based off of non-masculine prototypes. The attractive face is currently believed to be a function of the following:
– symmetry
– sexually dimorphism and protypicality
– averageness (in the sense of composite rather than “in-between”
[Refer: "Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536551 for a recent summary]
Now, many papers regarding what women find attractive in men have presented contradictory results. However, recent studies have somewhat clarified this confusion. The matter is by no means settled but it appears that where a woman is in relation to her ovulatory cycle will influence the type of masculine face she finds attractive. Some papers to consider:
“Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. ” [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17919806]
“Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences.”
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18193349]
“Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice.” [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16055126]
There is also some evidence that where a woman is in relation to her lifetime fertility also influences here preferences:
“Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are highest during reproductive age range and lower around puberty and post-menopause.” [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060226]
If there is any merit in this theory then assessing what women find attractive will be confounded by (a) their ovulatory status; and (b) their age.
We agree in essence about the causes of attraction, but when it comes to the subject of masculine facial attractiveness you are wrong.
This can’t be true:
“From my studies of facial anthropometry my understanding is that there is a high degree of cross-cultural consensus on what constitutes an attractive face for both men an women.”
If it was true then all men who are let’s colloquially say “9″ in terms of physical attractiveness would be considered attractive by all women who are “9″ or less. I think every handsome men will confirm that the world we live in is not that simple. Women’s opinion’s are often VERY different…
Furthermore, Suzi Malin’s observations show that what is attractive to women is principally the similarity of facial features (of course this is a subconscious process). If you are a visualizer you can’t deny the remarkable similarities in the facial features presented in “Love At First Sight”. Now, if you have never studied facial features, take a look at all the experiments quoted in section “Her Type”. Their results are unequivocal.
As for the studies you mentioned:
take a closer look at the methods used in all experiments analyzing symmetry, hormonal status, averageness etc. influence on judgments of facial attractiveness, and you will discover how limited answers were given to the women who took part in it!
In many cases they created a computer composite, in other cases they presented a couple of masculine faces to judge.
This is nothing compared to all the choice women have in real life!
You are going to say that yes, but unfortunately such experiments have its restrictions. Such type of analyzes yes, but notice that the studies quoted in section “Her Type” relied on REAL LIFE PARTNER choice. So women’s choices were practically unlimited if you consider the possibility of finding partners online that people have nowadays!
Oh, and one more think. You know Piotr why so many quite smart people believe in this PUA stuff?
Exactly because there is no consensus between women about masculine facial attractiveness.
That’s why these self-proclaimed casanovas are able to point at some average looking champ with a hot girl to prove it must have been seduction that worked for him, since this guy is not rich neither famous. So it must have been his social skills. Most men cannot comprehend that for a particular woman this ugly dude’s face may be physically appealing because of similar genotypes…
Last correction:)
I used the term “facial attractiveness”. This is not entirely accurate. To be precise I have to explain that:
– yes women agree on “beauty” of masculine faces
– but at the same time they often disagree on “sexual attractiveness” of these faces.
In other words, a woman can admit that the observed face belongs to a handsome man, and simultaneously she often claims this face is not “sexy”, it does not attract her. It happens because women value so much genetic similarity. Whereas, for us men what counts is only beauty.
Notice that the function you mentioned:
“The attractive face is currently believed to be a function of the following:
– symmetry
– sexually dimorphism and protypicality
– averageness (in the sense of composite rather than “in-between”
Is probably correlated with genetic similarity. So we are arguing on semantics here.
“At the core of your argument I agree with you completely, attraction is something that happens naturally when two compatible people meet”
“Naturally” and “compatible” are ambiguous and slippery terms in the absence of prior definition. What do you mean by “natural” and “compatibe”? Attraction is “natural” in the sense that it is a biological phenomenon that is independent of culture, i.e. it is not socially contructed. By claiming that attraction can be created and that skills can be acquired which enable a man to create attraction in a woman you are in effect proposing that attraction is NOT natural but instead a cultural artefact. I would contend that the proposition “compatible people are attracted to each other” is tautologous and devoid of any meaningful content; if two people are attracted to each other they are _ipso facto_ compatible with each other in some manner. Consider, “divorcees are incompatible with each other”. Does that stateent enlighten or explain?
“attraction can be created by showcasing high social value (Mystery method)”
There is NO evidence — and ample contrary evidence — that “attraction can be created”. Attraction (which IS sexual attraction) ultimately comes down to genetics and it is an interaction between members of the opposite sex (in the most common heterosexual context) of reptiles, birds and mammals; and reptiles have no notion of “showcasing high social value”. Further, the neurology that is responsible for attraction is possessed in common between reptiles, birds and mammals i.e. it is functionally identical and homologous.
“High social value” is a nonsense phrase coined by Markovic, it has no currency outside of Markovic’s seminars and books. “Social status” has been a subject of study in sociology, anthropology, sociobiology, social psychology and ethology for hundreds of years. If by “high social value” you mean social status then use that term which has a well-defined meaning. I won’t labour under Markovics neologism.
In the natural world, high social status is a consequence of superior genetics. It is typically established by victory in some form of skirmish, the demonstration of some metabolically expensive trait or the display of species important resources. In all cases — skirmish, extravagance or resouces– it is superior genetics that is being established i.e. the fight or the flourish serve as a proxy for the animals genotype. Is mating different with humans? Are humans — because of their superior intellect and extensive culture — fundamentally different from other animals in their courtship and mating behaviour? NO! Culture has indeed moderated and obscured much of our more primitive behaviour but it all remains intact, barely disguised. In humans, social status is demonstrated by (a) displays of material wealth; and/or (b) displays of superior genetics. Further, in most cases (a) is a consequence of (b) so we can simplify this discussion by confining our attention only to (b). Driving a prestige car, living in an expensive house, wearing expensive clothing, wearing jewelery, being tall, being muscular, being somatically and facially symmetrical, having certain sexually dimorphic traits etc. all serve to establish the value of a males genotype. If you don’t have high social status to begin with you have nothing to “showcase”.
“or creating a connection and evoking those feelings through conversation and communication (ross jefires speed seduction).”
Attraction has nothing to do with the parts of the brain that are related to “feelings” and “conversation”. Feelings i.e. affects originate in the limbic system. The limbic system is associated with pair bonding and attachment NOT sexual attraction. Attraction precedes and is not necessarily followed by pair bonding.
‘There are many “guru” pushing products or personal gain they may sully the good name of the whole of the community but to claim that seduction is entirely a myth and attraction is decided purely by fate is asinine.”
No, the claim that the neural circuits associated with attraction that have evolved over thousands of years — and evolved well before our neocortex — that have ensured that we exist as a species today can be readily subverted by those that have mediocre or inferior genotypes is what is asinine. Evolution by natural selection together with sexual selection, coupled with thousands of years worth of time have executed an exhaustive search of the design space for neural modules/circuits to drive sexual reproduction in primates in such a manner that genes that are most useful in the environment of original adaptation are preserved and propagated.
If there were ANY merit in the claims of the seduction gurus viz. that attraction can be created, then over the course of the 200,000 years or so of human history:
(a) these methods of subverting biology would have been discovered well-before the late 20th century;
(b) these communication of these methods of subversion would have been incorporated into the socialisation and enculturation process of young males across all cultures and societies; and
(c) genes for beauty, hyperfeminity and hypermasculinity (the actual triggers for attraction) would have become depleted from the human gene pool.
In addition to the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, phylogenetic and ethological evidence I have presented (admittedly in brief), that neither (a), (b) nor (c) has occurred counts as stong, independent and converging lines of evidence that ATTRACTION CAN NOT BE CREATED.
Has a story ever made you angry, happy or sad? Have you ever been aroused by the telling of a sexually descriptive story?
With all due respect to women – I am saying it just to prove my point about story telling – no ugly overweight woman will ever arouse me with the most sexually descriptive story.
So why Jeffries fans believe women will fall for that story telling routines??
“Has a story ever made you angry, happy or sad? Have you ever been aroused by the telling of a sexually descriptive story?”
This is obviously a rhetorical question but it is a non sequitur — it is entirely irrelevant and doesn’t in any way satisfy the evidentiary burden that weighs on your shoulders.
You are conflating the notions of sexual arousal and sexual attraction. It is entirely possible and common for men and woman to simultaneously experience sexual arousal but no sexual attraction to each other. On Fridays and Saturdays, bars and nightclubs are overflowing with sexually aroused men and women but the result is not an orgy. Similarly, if two strangers — a man and a woman — are seated adjacently in a cinema and a sex scene is projected we can safely assume that both are sexually aroused but it does not in anyway follow that the woman is sexually attracted to the man simply because she is in a sexually aroused state. I’ll advance this line of argument one step further: when a prostitute has sex with a customer and she is sexually aroused as a result of the mechanics of the sexual intercourse do you also think that she is sexually attracted to her customer? Sexual attraction between a prostitue and her customers is a rarity — it does happen but very rarely not as a matter of course. By your reasoning, all prostitutes should be sexually attracted to their customers.
Man, that was beatiful… Thanks for writing that. You made the most clever explanation of the difference possible in a witty, visual analogy.
Love it!
I Have a SUGGESTION you fucking little noisy bitches, the world if not so fucking complicated as u think, it’s fucking SIMPLE!
The world is simple only for simple people
To a four year old with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Nice one!
There is such thing as seduction…and its not a scam… it works…. why do you think girls say, he has game ,
by the way, david deangelo is the best to go with
or they say things like ” he is gorgeos.. but he just has no game… ”
you are just complaning because you do not know how to
do the seduction… im a good looking guy and i tell ya i used to miss the seduction part and now i have learnt it from the pick up artists i am so good with it
1. Why do you assume that I am complaining about smth? I wrote here that I am quite popular with the ladies, and I don’t use any pua bullshit.
But … even if I was not successful – what difference would it make??
Discuss the SUBJECT of this website (seduction), not me and my personal life.
2. “he is gorgeos.. but he just has no game… ” – this and similar lines do not prove anything.
Obviously you and such girls have no clue about stuff like the Self Seeking Like Theory (read tab “Reality Check”). So it’s not like women fall for every handsome guy – especially the attractive ones are very picky.
Also when an average looking guy approaches a beautiful girl, and he picks her up with some pua pattern, both he and the girl will think that it’s because of the “game”. They have no idea that looks is not the same think as beauty. To exclude looks you would have to prove that puas have a better SUCCESS RATE with the ladies than other guys of similar attractiveness rating.
Post a link to any such studies!
3. again, not all puas are scam artists. Some started to believe in their own lies
4. This time it’s the last one I approve a comment on issues that are explained in other sections of this website. Pua fans like you are just to lazy to read it.
You have no concept of evidence. If you think that because some girls say ‘he has game , or they say things like ” he is gorgeos.. but he just has no game…”’ that counts as irrefutable evidence that attraction can be created then you are as dim as your spelling and grammar suggest.
So all you are offering is a self-referential anecdote and a blunt assertion: “There is such thing as seduction…and its not a scam… it works….”
I then can just counter with: There no such thing as seduction. It is a scam. It doesn’t work.
Agree 100% .
When women use the term “game” they’re merely referring to social confidence, or being comfortable in your own skin.
They’re more reffering to a negative than a positive. In other words, when women say “he has no game” what they mean is that he lacks the social skills it takes to go from hello to a date without fumbling and mumbling.
They’re not referring to an ability to “create attraction”. In fact, women use that term for guys they’re ATTRACTED TO, often with dissapointment as in “I was attracted to that guy, but he didn’t do anything”… As in fumbled and didn’t take hints, didn’t make moves when it was time to make a move etc… etc…
Brent Smith also explains it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVnSsN0_8UI
Ok, this was a meant to be a reply to your article:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/looks-and-cash/money-only-changes-the-odds/
But it is better if you approve it on the homepage as well, to gather more views.
Trust me dude, there are many many points I can pickup off your posts, address individually to prove that it “isn’t as you think it is”.
You say: “The guy who came up with the most successful website in history is not smart enough to learn your techniques? “.
No, but because most businessmen and freaks work A LOT, they rarely have time to socialize and gather other necessary skills such as picking up women. It has nothing to do with how “clever” or “smart” a person is. If he didn’t strike a turning point in his life (aka had a huge crush on someone that led him to search this seduction thing up, or really wanted to spend time to change his dating game), then they will not change. People who have built and are still building (above normal) successful businesses, rarely have time to gather such skills because they are focused on other things that are much more important for them. Go ask them. Most will tell you they suck with girls. Most depend on their “money” to “buy” girls.
Now, not all business men or successful people are introverted freaks. Some have dominant characters that display power… eg. Donald Trump. He might come across as interesting and powerful to even young chicks, (better than the average biz man or computer freak), but he still is not a pua and lacks in other areas.
I get where you are coming from. Yes, there might not be many scientific studies PROVING WITHOUT DOUBT that these seduction techniques work, but that’s not the point. That doesn’t mean they don’t work. (I can actually recall a few psychologists whom were shown the Mystery Method for example and confirmed it makes sense. Quote “these are the exact emotional phases that lead someone to fall in love with another person”. Yes, it might not be a bullet proof study, but still.)
Likewise, I can claim the same about your theories. Just theories with no scientific study conducted to prove them. There is no scientific study proving acupuncture works, but it is still used to heal many people successfully. Far more deeper than merely them subconsciously healing themselves on their own because they “believe” acupuncture will help them.
You claim that a person can’t create attraction or seduce another person on his will when he wants. I can tell you that kino alone is more than enough to test for this theory.
There is no study that proves kino or touching is very crucial in making the other party fall in love with you. But we all know it. I and many others have been there many times. Oh wait! I was wrong. There are actually many studies that prove that. Here is one:
How A Touch on the Arm Can Increase Man’s Chances of Finding Love:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1028120/The-science-seduction-How-touch-arm-increase-mans-chances-finding-love.html
You claim there is no scientific study that proves NLP or Hypnosis works. Or maybe Subliminal Messages.
http://www.mindpowernews.com/ScienceOfSubliminals.htm
Yes, there are many variables that may affect whether or not a girl is attracted to you, but there are also things we should take into consideration and use:
Common sense and observation of your surrounding.
Forget the gurus who sell courses and seminars. If you ask all other successful pickup artists or naturals, most of them will tell you the same things that they believe are what makes them successful. (Good BL, Humorous, Hard to Get, Being Happy and Fun in general to name a few). Each trait amplified or lowered down depending on the type and beauty of the girl (yes, the more beautiful girls need more negs and hard time).
And yes, there are average looking guys who are very good at this and not because they do much more approaches than the average guy. You can clearly see that they rarely miss, so it is not a matter of “but how many girls did he approach? what is his success rate?”.
When you take a bootcamp, and after that you notice significant increase in your success rate… do you wanna say that it might have not been a result of anything in the bootcamp? Did the guy suddenly turn handsome or rich?? Or did he just approach more girls than he usually does? What about the guys that approached the same number approximately, but still noticed significant increase in success rate after the bootcamp?
Yes, there might not be a scientific study YET to prove it. There are many variables. Heck, it might have been that the girls he met after the bootcamp were ALL in a very very good mood and it was just luck! But come on man. CHANCES ARE that there are specific things he applied after the bootcamp, that worked for him.
The study you listed above proves an old very common phenomenon. Men seek replication value (beauty), while women choose survival value (in case of old rich men, it is money and power). In case of old and unattractive man, most of the time if his GF or wife is model quality, he was chosen to be the provider (unless he runs good RJ material. Not likely). Not necessarily because she is sexually attracted to him. Just because he can protect better than others.
Lastly, I really hope you aren’t creating this site just for the attention (or for pushing some other product later on)… merely because it represents another point of view that is entertaining to consider (at least for me… and no pun intended).
Thanks for the comment Salambi!
I will reply soon.
You mentioned many issues, and I want to answer you thoroughly.
The part about millionaires that you commented on the beginning was addressed rather to those guys who don’t believe in seduction, but believe in another myth: the myth that women are only after the cash. So I will answer you very briefly, cause I see you DO believe seduction works, and we have a lot to talk about with regard to the main subject of this website – PUA crap.
I just wanted to show that if it was just about the money than a guy like Zuckerberg should have like 20 phone numbers to hot actresses or models after like one night clubbing in any US major city. After like one night clubbing, so time is not a problem…
You seem to agree with me that money is not everything. So let’s go straight to the parts where you discuss my views on seduction:
“Likewise, I can claim the same about your theories. Just theories with no
scientific study conducted to prove them.”
No, you can’t. You obviously didn’t read the studies cited in tab “Reality Check” – contrary to PUA theories, these studies consist of experiments based on REAL LIFE partner choice. The research you mentioned is not about real couples, they don’t even analyze success rate, there is no competition at all:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1028120/The-science-seduction-How-touch-arm-increase-mans-chances-finding-love.html
For example it says that:
“A study found that two-thirds of women agreed to dance with a man who touched her on the arm for a second or two while making the request.”
I read hundreds of studies like that. Guess how did they conduct the study? (that’s why I rely on research concerning real life partner choice) Guess what would be the results if there were two volunteers and the one touching the women would be ugly, and his competition would be a handsome man? See where I am going with this? It’s like saying sense of humor and confidence is helpful in dating (DeAngelo’s “cocky and funny” is based on this premise). Of course it’s a good thing! But when some pua mindfreak tells me that these two qualities alone will work miracles, will make you attractive to all the hottest women of your choice. That’s nonsense because science reveals genes play a major role in the game of love. It means sense of humor and confidence will help you only when your target finds you “her type”, and she has to choose between you and other guys who are also “her type”.
When you ask for scientific studies, Mr DeAngelo is probably going to mention some research quoted in a tabloid according to which 9 out of 10 women like confident and funny guys. Sure they like. What did you expect? Does it prove, that by being cocky and funny you gonna get 9 out of those 10 women?
The same thing with the studies you quoted – “two-thirds of women agreed to dance.”
So what? If there was a stud in the test his result would be 9/10 and not two-thirds. Plus, they agreed to dance, not to go on a date together…
That’s why measuring SUCCESS RATES is essential to prove smth works. You need to have a point of reference. Otherwise it’s completely subjective. I guess you understand that because you admitted:
“Yes, there might not be a scientific study YET to prove it.”
Nice trick btw. I mean using the word “YET”. You made it sound like this PUA stuff was made out yesterday. Cmon man, you know very well seduction community exists for like 15 years. There are thousands of books and even more websites promoting it. Just take a look at section “Mainstream Media Bought It.” All the TV shows and even articles published in distinguished newspapers that indirectly assume this thing works (without any evidence of course). And I found it after like 2 hours of googling!
So puas had all the attention, time and money to run a fair research.
What more do you need?
I dare to say that the answer to the question whether this pua thing works is more relevant than for ex. global warming… at least for like 90% of straight single guys out there!
So let me ask again: why there is not even one fair experiment confirming it? How about the one I suggest in “A Job for the MythBusters”?
The answer is clear to me: the PUA yodas know very well they would loose. Now, if you find some less famous PUA the experiment won’t be relevant, cause all others are probably just gonna say: “He and his students lost cause his game is weak. But Mystery, Neil Strauss or DeAngelo would win this and any other test!”
So when you say:
“I get where you are coming from. Yes, there might not be many scientific
studies PROVING WITHOUT DOUBT that these seduction techniques work, but
that’s not the point. That doesn’t mean they don’t work.”
You are not being serious. I thought we are having a serious discussion here:)
It’s like saying there are no studies proving Harry Potter spells work, but that doesn’t mean they don’t work. You often repeat that many guys experienced some changes in their love life after pua training. Millions of people saw improvements in their lives after using magic spells some centuries ago! What makes you think people are more rational today? Cause we use computers? People believe in what they want to believe. Look at all the crap people buy online ….
You also noted:
“And yes, there are average looking guys who are very good at this and not
because they do much more approaches than the average guy. You can clearly
see that they rarely miss, so it is not a matter of “but how many girls
did he approach? what is his success rate?”
No, I don’t “clearly see” anything. That’s the difference between people like me and the PUA world. You guys just take too many things for granted. You are relying on your impression only – nothing more. If someone is interested in smth it is human tendency that this person probably engages in certain activity more often than others. That’s why success rate is important, that’s why an experiment is indispensable… and it will be fun : )
And than you continue:
“When you take a bootcamp, and after that you notice significant increase in your success rate…”
Again, it’s your impression only. I claim there is no increase in your success rate. Before the bootcamp you approached like 10 women and picked up 1. After the bootcamp you approached 100 women and picked up 10. Do you know any PUA students that tested it?? Did any of them run an experiment anyone can conduct by himself – the one I describe in section “Do Yourself a Favor”?
“do you wanna say that it might have not been a result
of anything in the bootcamp?”
Yes, it had only one thing to do with the bootcamp – the bootcamp, its atmosphere, the motivating speeches etc it all made this guy more confident, so he approached more women, so he picked up more women. That’s basic math. That’s not seduction.
“What about the guys that approached the same number approximately, but still noticed significant increase in success rate after the bootcamp?”
That’s what THEY HAVE noticed. Again, it’s someone’s personal impression. Let’s test it, shall we?
In the end you wrote that you hope I am not using this site to gather attention just to sell smth through it later. Yes, there is one thing I would like to “sell” thanks to this website:
the experiment suggested in “A Job for the MythBusters”
Although, I wrote above that it probably won’t happen cause the pua masters will be too afraid to take part in it, after a second thought, I think that if enough people sign up for it (maybe some crowdfunding or smth like that), it could work. The PUAs will have to accept the challenge.
I’m totally up for this. There’s more and more of us gathering, and we can totally do this one day… Open up a “put up or shut up” fund for gamers where we keep donating and advertising the fund everywhere.
It would go toward sponsoring a study and challenging gamers. It can easily go viral if we do it right.
Maybe open up a blog post where we can start fleshing out ideas on how to do it, how we would promote it, whom we would challenge and to what etc… etc…
Your speed-dating idea is probably best.
OK! I will open a new section where the most popular suggestions will be described.
The first think we should consider is: who would run such study?
We need someone impartial, so our test could not be questioned. Any suggestions?
Oh, but first – you mentioned such study has already been conducted (the london lair speed dating documentary). We need to find out more about this.
Nah, that was some reality show, it’s only useful for entertaiment value and it featured 3 guys. It wasn’t a real study.
I’m talking about a university study. I’m sure we can find some university where it can be done on the cheap with post-graduate students or some such. We can get commitment from some university and a price-quote… They can commit that if bring and fly the PUAs down to campus, they can do the study.
Done! section”the Experiment” waiting for your detailed suggestion
You typed much but its largely blather. Much of it just boils down (to quote Spinal Tap) “I know, for I told me so”:
You claim that a person can’t create attraction or seduce another person on his will when he wants. I can tell you that kino alone is more than enough to test for this theory.
This is pantomime debate.
More illumined prose:
I get where you are coming from. Yes, there might not be many scientific studies PROVING WITHOUT DOUBT that these seduction techniques work, but that’s not the point. That doesn’t mean they don’t work.
No-one is asking for certitude. The level of confidence that is provided in experimental psychology (p < .05) is sufficient. There is NO substantive evidence "that these seduction techniques work" — NONE. The evidence base for PUA is anecdote — the lowest form of evidence. Futhermore, the implicit theories of cognition and attraction embedded in these seduction techniques are inconsistent with credible experimental results in social psychology and neuroscience.
You literally have nothing other than anecdote and hearsay. Re-read your post — you have provided literally nothing of substance. I would rebutt you but there is simply nothing substantive to rebutt.
“No, but because most businessmen and freaks work A LOT, they rarely have time to socialize and gather other necessary skills such as picking up women. It has nothing to do with how “clever” or “smart” a person is.”
I’m old enough to remember when Ross Jeffries started saying this to his clients’ in seminars. It’s really nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself towards his (paying) clients.
Anyone that has worked in a corporate setting long enough will know that this is not true. What happens to the workaholic (that is otherwise able to attract women) is that the circle of work friends and acquaintances become _the_ social circle i.e. the people at work or even on other floors in the same building form his constellation of social interactions. The consequence of this is that these men fuck their way through the office (and even the building). That’s how it works. Obtaining sex becomes opportunistic and a matter of convenience. Refer “Attraction in Organisations: a model of workplace romance” [Pierce et al; 1996] [http://umdrive.memphis.edu/capierce/public/Pierce%20et%20al.%20JOB%201996.PDF]
There is no such skill as that of “picking up women” and it is absurd to suggest that there is. It is akin to suggesting that being hungry is a “skill”. Something as vital as finding a reproductive partner must — by necessity — be integral to the neurology of humans and all other animals. It must be resilient against cultural discontinuity and upheavel. Reproductive behaviour — if anything — must be genetically encoded and transmitted because it is vital to species survival: it is the act that propagates the genotype. Categorising sexual attraction as a “skill” suggests that it is a feature of culture. If it is then who — prior to Ross Jeffries — has been teaching it? Why isn’t the teaching of “seduction skills” a component of the socialisation and enculturation of young men? Since it isn’t and it is taught only to a small proportion of the world’s males in seminars (mainly in North America) then how has reproduction occurred? If — as you are suggesting — sexual attraction/seduction is an acquired skill then how can something so vital have been lost from the socialisation and enculturation process of young men? Why haven’t social anthropologists discovered that all cultures transmit seduction methods to their young men? In Donald Brown’s “Human Universals” there is no mention of “seduction” or “methods of creating sexual attraction” as a cross-cultural human universal. There is no anthropological evidence that there are any such things as “seduction skills”. There are courtship skills but these are not aimed at creating sexual attraction. If “picking up woman” was an acquired skills i.e. a cultural artefact then each and every culture would have means of transmitting this vital information from one generation to the next. Literate cultures would have been writing books on this from the outset and pre-literate soecieties would have stories and art to tramsit this essential information. Notice that other such vital information eg. medicine and food acquisition knowledge is encoded in all sort of cultural artefacts. But there is no such human universal artefact(s) in relation to seduction, creating sexual attraction and seduction. Any examples are rare in context of human history and the variety of human culture.
I’m an anti-gamer but I have to somewhat disagree with this, but it’s only to introduce a subtlety.
Yes, there is no skill where you can “create attraction”, so if one defines “picking up women” as a skill where you make women attracted – that doesn’t exist.
There is however a set of social skills that allow you to get the women who are already attracted to you. This is basic stuff like knowing how to recognize hints, how to not scare a woman off by being either too direct or too indirect (you can scare away a woman who IS attracted to you, and you can make her defensive by saying the wrong thing etc… )
So there is definitely a “skill” to it, but it’s the same skill as that of making friends or negotiating business deals… And the truth is, it’s all learned through experience, can’t be learned from a book or seminar.
But again, the main determinant whether you get with a woman is if she’s attracted to you, and the things that make a woman attracted are either genetic or long-term traits (being wealthy, being famous, being in shape, being her biological type). They’re things you are either born with, or cultivated through many years.
As someone else has said, “you just need to not screw up”. The only skill you can cultivate is to not screw up when an attracted woman shows up. That’s it.
So it’s more of a negative process. You can’t make a woman attracted. You can however repel a woman through your actions.
I have no problem with that distinction. I read “picking up women” as “making women attracted to you” but now I see it could be understood as basic courtship skills that are applicable to a woman that is already attracted to you.
So it’s more of a negative process. You can’t make a woman attracted. You can however repel a woman through your actions
Precisely, but this idea is very unpopular (not only among PUAs), cause it leaves most writers with nothing to write about
Haven’t you ever known a not so well put together ( in terms of money, looks, social class etc) individual consistently get attractive women? This suggests there is some underlying cause. whether you call it social aptitude, psychology, or pua is really just arguing semantics. ..”a rose by any other name”. Yes, logically speaking there could be other unkown factors, however this is always the case with INDUCTIVE arguments as opposed to DEDUCTIVE arguments. Which you seem to be in need of more courses on philosophy than your intro to western philo or whatever course you took your freshman year at random university. Any argument based on observation or “a posteriori” knowledge is in fact or based upon inductive arguments, (the premises can never be certain even if the logical form is valid) So please stop high jacking philosophy to state your case, because your not very good at it. “Scientifically”… since your into that. Your skepticism doesn’t follow the scientific rule of parsimony(Occam’s Razor) . The simplest answer , meaning with the fewest entities and causal processes is statistically the most likely. There could be a million and one factors that created the perfect storm that produced the super hb getting ugly poor nerd or that there is a perfect storm of events every time he approaches one. However, scientifically it’s more likely that that individual , consciously or unconsciously mind you, has a specific set of basic mannerisms that trigger a positive psychological response in the opposite sex.
First of all, you committed the most common mistake above:
“social aptitude, psychology, or pua is really just arguing semantics”
No, it is not ! “Seduction” has a very specific meaning – i.e. it is the belief that men can “create” attraction in women’s heads (see the definition of seduction cited on my website) . CREATE . That’s not only basic psychology. That’s a completely different claim.
If you think seduction is only about psychology, than please post a link to any psychological study that confirms a man is able to create sexual attraction in a woman who previously was not attracted to him. There is no such study. To the contrary, most studies point at genetic reasons (“Reality Check” tab).
Secondly, you asked about an individual who “consistently get attractive women.”
No I haven’t ever heard of such individual. Have you? Can you prove it? Or it’s just some guy bragging around? (guys bragging around I have heard
How do you define “consistently”? Cause I think consistently means that the success rate of such individual should be higher than the success rate of others. Success rate is the essential part. Of course puas get more women, simply because they approach more. It does not prove their techniques are effective.
That’s EXACTLY the point of this website.
The experiment I am suggesting in “Just Prove It!” tab. The experiment described there will prove once and for all that there is no such thing as seduction, cause the puas will not be able to prove that the SUCCESS RATE of their students is higher than the success rate of other dudes.
I can take any bet against the PUAs
You can call my views “high jacking philosophy”, but the phrase “high jacking research” fits better:
All research quoted in “Reality Check” tab clearly show that women have “their types”, and that they come down to genes, not skills. So as you see, no there is not “a million and one factors that created the perfect storm that produced the super hb getting ugly poor nerd”. The studies that I rely on show genes matter most.
In the second phase (where the woman has to choose between various men who all “match” her genetically) other factors come into play, such as: looks, money, sense of humor…
But still …. even in this second phase I can’t find a reason to believe a woman would fall for these PUA tricks (sense of humor, social skills I understand, but “mind control” stuff? the crazy NLP patterns advocated by Ross Jeffries for instance ?!).
PS: examples of totally twisted Ross Jeffries NLP seduction are under “BS Created So Far” section. As you can see, these concepts are far beyond advocating sense of humor or confidence… This guy actually thinks you can create sexual attraction by reeling of sentences with sexual or romantic allusions.
This is more than absurd ….
“Haven’t you ever known a not so well put together ( in terms of money, looks, social class etc) individual consistently get attractive women?”
This is a canard. These people are as rare as hens teeth and when I have encountered them a close scrutiny reveals that there is more than first meets the eye. Even street-level drug dealers — for example — never have problems pulling women. If you didn’t know that (hypothetical) Joe Shmoe sells ecstasy you would wonder why such an ugly prick pulls women.
You appear to have a conception of women as passive, self-disinterested automatons. Human female mate seeking behaviour is characterised as hypergamic. I can cite you many papers that demonstrate that female humans reproductive strategy is hypergamic. This is consistent with what we observe, viz. ugly men generally don’t mate with beautiful women and when they do they tend to have wealth (or the appearance of it if they are frauds).
If it were a general pattern that “losers” were consistently able to attract beautiful women then as a result of this non-assortative pairing there would be no beautiful men or women. There are beautiful women because there were beautiful parents. When uglies marry and have children they produce ugly children. Beautiful people don’t just appear magically — they are produced by beautiful couples. The existence of beautiful men and woman contradicts your idea that those “not so well put together ( in terms of money, looks, social class etc) individual consistently get attractive women”. When the basis of attraction is wealth and cultural capital and an ugly man manages to reproduce with a beauty you get children like Alexa Ray Joel (not hideous but nowhere near as pretty as her mother). Now if Alexa pairs with a man as unattractive as her father the result will be a child as unatrractive as Billy Joel (or more so). My point is that beautiful children generally result from the mating of beautiful parents and this assortative mating contradicts your central proposition.
Your understanding of philosophy of science, experiment design and epistemology is flawed:
(1) Your discussion of induction versus deduction is irrelevant. The issue at hand is causality and there is no implicit or explicit claim in the admins post which causality is anything but derived inductively. The entire project of experiment design and inferential statistics is to establish causality with a high degree of confidence. The whole edifice of social and biomedical science rests on experimental designs and statistical methods that establish causality with a predefined level of confidence. For this reason your statement regarding the impossibility of proof via inductive methods is irrelevant. No one is demanding proof. In experimental psychology p < .05 so the PUA industry is obliged to present evidence with the same level of confidence as that found in the results of experimental psychology.
(2) Occam's Razor is not a rule, it is a heuristic, a “rule of thumb”. It is not inviolable. All it suggests is that when faced with two competing explanations the safest choice is that which is most ontologically economical. There are some notable instances in the history of science which Occam’s Razor has failed to yield the truth. A recent example is the discovery that it is Helicobacter pylori and not hydrochloric acid that causes stomach ulcers. In any event, Occam’s Razor doesn’t help you because the competing explanation of attraction that you are positing is invalidated by criteria other than ontological economy. There is neuroscientific, social psychological and even sociological evidence that attraction is not something that can be created and that humans mate assortatively.
Naturally, you are correct claiming that the PUAs “have a conception of women as passive, self-disinterested automatons”. You are also right that in general “there are beautiful women because there were beautiful parents”. I just want to elaborate a bit this last general statement.
Billy Joel and his attractive wives are the best example of what I said numerous times here:
Similar genes DOES NOT mean similar physical attractiveness.
Of course there are guys who will respond mumbling that his wives were only after his money. Well, there is a lot of rich and famous men out there, and it’s not like they can have any woman they want sitting in their expensive cars…
Otherwise Suzi Malin couldn’t have described the remarkable facial similarities in her book “Love at First Sight”. And she is not any random author picked by me. She is one of the best British portrait painters, so she knows what she is talking about when it comes to proportions of the human skull. If money, fame or skills were decisive, Suzi Malin and many others wouldn’t find any correlations between facial features not only in celebrity couples (list of studies in section “Her Type”).
Admin,
I have encountered the “attraction as narcissism” theory and several papers which demonstrate it but I have no knowledge of Suzi Malin and her work. I don’t dispute that humans mate assortatively (that is a well-founded result and that result alone is sufficient to destroy all of the pontifications of the seduction gurus). However, I am uncertain of the status of the idea that the assortative pairing extends to facial similarity. Again, I am not disputing this theory but I am not sure where it sits in relation to the many facial anthropometric studies that empasize low fluctuating asymmtery and prototypical sexual dimorphism. You have inspired me to look deeper into the narcissism or “self-same” hypothesis.
I conjecture that there exists some higher-level integrative theory that incorporates both conceptions of the driver of attraction that is yet to be formulated and tested.
As you see I didn’t even mention Suzi Malin in “Reality Check” tab, cause her work cannot be considered as scientific evidence. There are no numbers, data etc. It’s more intuitive.
But if you are at least a little bit interested in facial features you will find her book really eye-opening!
Now Dr Alvarez work and all other quoted in that section sure comply with the requirements of a scientific study.
The reason I entered the piece about deductive v.s. inductive is because the admin previously gave an example of an invalid deductive argument as an allegory to observations about pua. His main aim being skepticism. …. Well , the thing about skepticism is it applies on some level to everything a posteriori. It applies to every science exempt mathematics. The rule of parsimony is synonym for Occam’s Razor …. Yes, i know “heuristic” …… lol … This is just straw man argumentation. I realize the rule of parsimony is fallible, otherwise I would have said it was a mathematical law. epistemology? Really? I would be….. shocked if you could give a definition of knowledge, to such detail that I couldn’t give a counter example. Please, don’t say knowledge is relative, that’s false, perception is , not knowledge, and don’t say J.T.B. … That’s just lame. I realize this is off topic… but you started it
OK, so I still haven’t addressed why parsimony and inductive arguments are relative. Well, the admin tried to used skepticism to argue against pua. The main point he was getting at was just because you see a guy get a hb under unfavorable conditions doesn’t prove pua. Yes, but your evidence (I’m still unclear what your thesis for attraction is, it’s really broad) can’t really be proven either. Parsimony rules everything. For all you know your in the matrix. However, statically it’s more likely your not.
Parsimony is relevant when discussing any scientific discussion and especially so when discussing behavioral trends. I personally have seen a trend, where I’v observed males competing in courtship. There are men with similar attraction ratings, and socioeconomic status that differ greatly in their respective success rates.
Now, I don’t doubt there is data that suggest that “types” etc… can contribute. I doubt how integral you claim they are to courtship. To me it seems less parsimonious with the large number of circulating people, two individuals with similar tangible qualities would have such different levels of success, were there not some other factor. I believe that other factor to be game.
yes, a person with such ideally inadequate features that still is able to attract women with a higher attractiveness rating than themselves is rare. I’v met a few though. “There is more than meets the eye.”… Well… yea that’s what i’m saying….Pick -up.
-Ok, I see what your getting at in the example with the drug dealer. What your saying is the girl might be around for another reason other than her being attracted to him.
I guess a lot of this just comes down to definitions, for me everything
As a philosopher I’m inclined to ask….. Can you define attraction with such a narrow definition as to to exclude examples that would not fit in with your thesis, while being broad enough to cover any function of the word within your argument?
To me it’s question of whether people are an intrinsic desire themselves, that is are people in themselves an end? I would say no. “all voluntary acts are only done further one’s own interest.” Even if a girl is interested in you for your looks it’s only at the prospect of self gratification and/ or reproduction.Attraction is simply the drive of another to mate with you, or become a companion of yours.
In this way I would say that the drug dealer who has obtained a hb indirectly through drugs has indeed created “attraction”.
-Oh, and in no way does “PUA” contradict hypergamy
“i.e. it is the belief that men can “create” attraction in women’s heads (see the definition of seduction cited on my website) .”
Really though, is this how you define seduction? what if a girl is sort of attracted to you and you raise that attraction level? would this not qualify? It is not as if people are just either attracted or not. You may look at a girl and say, “eh yea she’s hot , ….but that girl over there, damn.” The same argument could be made from a girls point of view.
“game” to be honest…. is really vague too. I would say that if you learned behaviors strictly to augment your already positive qualities in courtship, then you’ve performed pick-up. I would say anything learned, and not natural, that statistically increases your odds of reproducing is game.
oh and … yea Ross Jeffries NLP is lame lol I’ll give you that
sry if that wasn’t organized well i didnt exactly proofread it
Wow, the rationalization wheel is strong in this one!!!
You basically wrote an entire post coming from the “prove a negative” or “argument of absense” position.
Basically you’re challenging the challenger on whether they phrased or made the challenge correctly enough.
It’s like duuuuuuuude, YOU GUYS are the ones making a claim. YOU NEED TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM. YOU GUYS NEED TO PROVE THAT SEDUCTION/ATTRACTION-MAKING EXISTS.
You can into all these hamster-wheels running around trying to find faults with how the challenge was posed… but the point stands, NONE OF YOU HAS EVER PROVEN THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS “creating attraction” on a conscious, purposeful level.
Notice how all your arguments come from the perspective of “it could exist, and it makes sense to me that you should be able to ‘create’ and ‘pump’ attraction, because I want it to be true”.
Notice the conversation we had the other day with how most seduction-believers most likely confuse attraction-skills with SOCIAL-SKILLS.
Yes, there are things you can do to make it more likely that she says yes to your date request, makes it more likely she’ll sleep sooner with you, there are things that increase the likelihood of her making out with you or not.
But all of these are based on simply having the proficiency of knowing how to create the context where she can EXPRESS her attraction without fear, shame or guilt.
You’re not actually “creating” attraction. It’s more like, a negative process. You have to not screw-up, and not scare her away, or make her feel guilty or shy etc… But these are social skills…
Admin isn’t disputing those skills. He’s disputing the skill that you can make a woman MORE attracted than placebo… Do you get the difference?
You don’t actually mean _skepticism_ in the philosophical sense (which subdivides into axiological and epistemological, which deny the objective existence of value and knowledge respectively). You mean to say _fallibilism_, of which we can distinguish two types: radical and moderate. _Radical fallibilism_ is the idea that all knowledge may turn out to be false. _Moderate fallibilism_ combines fallibilism (all knowledge is open to revision) with the idea of _meliorism_ i.e. the notion that error can be detected and corrected. Radical fallibilism is self-refuting and has no place in science or even pre-scientific thought. Moderate fallibilism, on the other hand, is a key component of science and integral to its development. If you are stating that moderate fallibilism “applies on some level to everything as _a posteriori_” you are stating a truism.
It isn’t “straw man argumentation”, its correction of an egregious error. You invoked Occam’s Razor as if it represented some sort of wild card that you could present when all else failed. To quote the scientific realist philosopher Mario Bunge: “[Knowledge is t]he outcome of a cognitive process, such as perception, experiment, postulation, or deduction.”
Well no, that is a gross misprepresentation of the content of this site and a ridiculous reading of epistemology. The case against PUA is predicated on results derived from experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Something that Admin stated in passing does not comprise the argument and evidence against PUA. The central thesis of this website is that _sexual attraction can not be created_. There is no evidence that sexual attraction can be created and ample direct and indirect evidence that it can’t. Parsimony doesn’t even get a look in here, which was my original point and your initial error. We aren’t choosing between two bases of comparable evidence. Rather, we are choosing between a proposition which is well supported by evidence and argumentation and another which is supported only by anecdote.
There is no scientific discussion between PUAs and social psychologists, evolutionary psychologists and biological anthroplogists. PUA has no evidence base to speak of hence there can be no dialogue. PUA has no answers for the problems raised by the social sciences in relation to attraction and pair bonding. You are effectively trying to grant anecdote the same epistemic status as the results obtained from replicated experiment that has been subject to expert review. This is an absurd proposition.
So your personal observations deserve the same respect and regard as results that have been obtained by methodologically sound experiments that have been replicated and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals? How can this be so? In the absence of any high quality evidence I would take your obsevations more seriously but given that we have good evidence that suggests there is no such thing as “game” your personal observations are of no significance.
But you have no evidence that “pick-up” has occurred. You are begging the question: you are assuming to be true that which you need to demonstrate to be true.
Sexual attraction has a biological substrate. I am contending that in the case of the ugly drug dealer the biological substrate is missing hence there is no actual attraction. In schematic terms I am contending that those ancient neural structures that govern attraction in the woman’s head have not been activated.
By the way, I have a degree in philosophy.
No he hasn’t because he hasn’t activated the attraction module/circuit in the woman’s brain. She doesn’t want his genes she only wants his drugs. Your idea makes sense only if you totally disregard the fact that sexual attraction has a biological substrate. You are implicitly relying on the idea of sexual attraction as a social construction, which is entirely wrong. Sexual attraction in humans is no different than sexual attraction in other mammals which have no capacity for abstraction.
Yes it does because PUA implicitly conceives of women as self-disinterested, passive automata that can be programmed by PUA. That women are hypergamic means that they are actively (and often aggressively) pursuing their reproductive interest. Women determine who they have sex with based on their own selfish criteria. They can’t be caused to be attracted to anyone.
Attraction is a biological phenomenon that is entirely related to genotypes and their reproduction. There is no such thing as “sort of attracted to you”. Attraction is a binary value. As Alek has emphasised all you can do is not fuck things up. In the cases you describe what is happening is that the girl is attracted to you but she is also receiving one or more signals from you that you are dangerous or diseased and this is conflicting her. By making it clear that you don’t represent any form of threat you prevent the attraction “signal” from being attenuated. As Alek pointed out, social skills can assist you to lubricate the attraction that is already present. You may retort that this is “just semantics” and I would agree if attraction had no biological basis. But it all comes down to reproducing your genotype. Your (primitive) brain is trying to find partners that have the right genes and when it finds them it makes you attracted to that person. But at the same time (the primitive parts of) your brain also wants to protect you from danger so circuits that evolved to protect you from danger will activate if there is some perceived threat and this neural activation will be experienced as hesitation or fear and anything in between.
“Game” isn’t a scientific idea and I don’t use it. What you are describing is what Alek has already identified, viz. social skills. But our contention is that social skills will not create attraction they will only allow it to proceed unimpeded where it already exists. Do you appreciate the distinction?
I will keep it short Mikey, cause you obviously didn’t read other sections of my website. I on the other hand read hundreds of scientific papers but also PUA bullshit.
Yes, but your evidence (I’m still unclear what your thesis for attraction is, it’s really broad) can’t really be proven either.
Yes, it can, and it has been proven by multiple studies – genotypes are decisive (all sections in tab “Reality Check”).
If attraction was not strictly correlated with genes, none of those researches could have been able to find any patterns. It would all be random. The only pattern you could find would relate to social skills.
My thesis on attraction is that:
1/ genes are of primary importance – the Self-Seeking Like Theory, which is in fact not a theory anymore, cause it has been confirmed many times.
Note that this is to a substantial level also in line with the theories mentioned by Piotr and Alek.
2/ the second phase of the “game of love” is where all other secondary factors come into play (beauty, money, skills etc), which you commented with the sentence:
Really though, is this how you define seduction? what if a girl is sort of attracted to you and you raise that attraction level? would this not qualify?
I love that you repeat this point whenever a new PUA comes, because this truly is the KEY point.
If genetics wasn’t a big deal, then you wouldn’t have thousands of studies all finding consistent patterns.
If what PUAs say is even CLOSE to being true, then it would be completely random and there would no patterns at all in terms of types and genes, you would be unable to find patterns in which kinds of women hook up with which men and how often.
Persistence is the key
The “strategy” PUAs use is just changing subject, making various digressions, so the flaws of their reasoning are not so easily visible…
One more thing:
Now, I don’t doubt there is data that suggest that “types” etc… can contribute. I doubt how integral you claim they are to courtship. To me it seems less parsimonious with the large number of circulating people, two individuals with similar tangible qualities would have such different levels of success, were there not some other factor. I believe that other factor to be game.
It seems to me you have completely different definition of seduction than the one laid down on this website.
You call that other factor “game.” I call it secondary factors. It still doesn’t prove seduction = the ability to create attraction, simply because of the proven by science patterns relating to genotypes. One notion contradicts another.
This is another thing I often notice when debating PUA fans. In the beginning guys like you strongly advocate seduction, but after getting into details you agree with my arguments only you still sustain your claims cause you define seduction differently. Seduction is about creating attraction.
That is very common in debates with PUA-defenders… The more you rip them apart with facts, the more they have to keep shifting the definition of what it is that they’re defending.
Just want to contribute with my story:
I’m a very normal looking guy
1) I had no girls, what soever
2) Read about PUA
3) Went to a boot camp
4) Get laid every day (if I want to)
Don’t come here and tell me that the art of Pick Up doesn’t exist unless you can _prove_ it yourself
I’m happy for you but your story doesn’t prove anything. Read section “How Come I Saw Seduction Working”, and you will understand the what really happened in your life…
(I AM ASSUMING HERE YOU DID’T SIMPLY MAKE UP YOUR STORY)
Also at least once try to do what I described in section “Do Yourself a
Favor.”
If you are really getting laid every day than after dropping all the
seduction patterns I guarantee that you will have the same success rate – just approach the same number of girls, with the same enthusiasm and confidence.
All my friends and I did it, and the results were exactly the same.
So why waste time and money on pua philosophy? You could as well repeat
some Harry Potter spells before approaching chicks
Even if your story is true it presents no evidentiary value. It is an anecdote. Anything — even the most absurd of propositions — can be “proved” using anecdote.
Do you have a Youtube Channel?
yes, although I don’t have any videos of my own…
The very concept of seduction is flawed. Seduction is predicated on the idea that the female plays an entirely passive role in the process of pairing — which is ludicrous and contradicts the last 20 years discoveries in evolutionary psychology. If the human female mate-finding process were so subvertible as the PUA gurus would have us believe then Homo sapiens would have become extinct soon after they evolved. Human females — like males — have portions of their brains dedicated to identifying attractive (i.e. mateworthy) potential partners. These neurological features evolved over thousands of years and their evolution was vital to our species survival. Further, humans have also evolved neurological components that detect deception with regard to mateworthy chracteristics. These neurological modules are not unique to humans, they are found not only amongst other mammals but even amongst insects.
The consequence of this is that males CANNOT cause a woman to be attracted to them. Attraction is (a) not under conscious control; (b) has nothing to do with reasons that a woman can identify and enumerate; (c) ultimately based on fitness for reproduction and its indicators; and (d) the indicators implied by (c) cannot be readily faked.
If you have any comprehension of mammalian reproduction and evolution it cannot be any other way. Reproduction is far too important to be left to conscious executive control. Furthermore the process of mammalian sexual reproduction evolutionarily predates the evolution of the characteristically oversized human frontal lobe. That is to say, sexual reproduction (and all that it demands and constrains if a species is to survive and flourish) was occurring in (non-human) primates before Homo sapiens evolved. It is because humans have evolved a capacity for abstraction and meta-cognition (the capacity to think about their own thoughts) that we mistakenly believe that we can identify and enumerate reasons for being attracted to someone. It is, however, entirely illusory. The reasons we provide for being attracted to someone are entirely synthetic and formed ex post facto i.e. after our neurology has made us attracted to someone. In this sense our intelligence fools us.
So what can the notorious AFC do? Not much. The only real options are (a) become wealthy; (b) improve your physical attractivess with surgery, exercise and Anabolic-Androgenic steroids; or (c) become a con-artist and fake your wealth and/or status. Open your eyes and look around you. Is the world you see consistent with the (unsubstantiated) theories expounded by Neil Strauss, Eben Pagan et al or is it consistent with the explanation I have provided (which can be obtained from any comprehensive introductory text on evolutionary psychology)?
The entire PUA industry — and it is an industry — created by “Ross Jeffries” and expanded by his students is nothing more than a money-making scam without a scintilla of evidence in its favour. The evidence base for PUA methods consists entirely of anecdotes. Anecdote is the weakest form of evidence that can be supplied. You can use anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that smoking will enable you to live beyond 100 years of age.
The PUA industry is exploiting the social dislocation and alienation that many average men in the English-speaking world are experiencing. The more that culture in relation to mate-pairing is disolved the more naked biology takes over with the consequence — that is characteristic of many non-human mammals — that only a minority of males find partners. It is this reversion to pre-cultural courtship that Neil Strauss and his cohorts are exploiting.
I bet the alpha-lames are going to reply to your post explaining with a deadly serious tone of voice that:
There is a group of “chosen” males who somehow managed to trick evolution. Through centuries they have practiced the secret art of seduction continuing the legacy of Giacomo Casanova.
[ this should be read with the "Thunder Throat" voice – the one from movie trailers LOL]
In a world governed by evolution these remarkable men defied nature…
and now…
for the first time in history
for only 99,95 $ the common man
can finally discover these amazing “secret” techniques.
This means soon every man will be able to conquer any woman. Which means our civilization is coming to its end.
Which brings us to the statement from the beginning of your post – “Homo sapiens would have become extinct”.
Now, let’s wake up and get back to the real world
“The consequence of this is that males CANNOT cause a woman to be attracted to them. Attraction is (a) not under conscious control; (b) has nothing to do with reasons that a woman can identify and enumerate; (c) ultimately based on fitness for reproduction and its indicators; and (d) the indicators implied by (c) cannot be readily faked.”
a) David DeAngelo always says “attraction is not an option” — and is echoed throughout the whole PUA community. Thus the Seduction Hypothesis does not contradict this assertion; it builds on its very inevitability.
b) “Attraction is not an option” also means the girl is unaware of what is going on in her head; she’s not consciously measuring, rather her emotions mark the score in spite of her will. We agree again.
c) “Survival and Replication Value” (“S & R Value”), as Mystery would put it. We only disagree at ‘d’, which I ask you to prove.
Sexual reproduction appeared long before our cognition. Same for stars, rocks, birds and teeth; even so have we developed astronomy, geology, ornithology and odontology to great success.
You extracted attraction from reality. You have made it your God. Get rid of the mysticism.
“Sexual reproduction appeared long before our cognition. Same for stars, rocks, birds and teeth; even so have we developed astronomy, geology, ornithology and odontology to great success.
You extracted attraction from reality. You have made it your God. Get rid of the mysticism.”
This is a non sequitur and you are flagellating a strawman.
The only reason we have been able to develop the sciences you listed is because of our oversized neocortex. But the neocortex plays no substantive role in sexual attraction. There are creatures with no neocortex — such as reptiles — that experience sexual attraction. Further, the neuroanatomy of reptiles that is responsible for sexual attraction is almost the same as our own.
It is you that has removed attraction from its context. Sexual attraction characterises not only all mammals but also birds and reptiles. It is a primitive drive that has ensured the survival of Homo sapiens. It is beyond the scope of this forum for me to give you an intrductory course in evolutionary biology and psychology (which is in effect what you are asking for) but I will give you some pointers:
– regarding what women look for in long-term partners I refer you to Buss’ cross cultural studies [ref. http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/SexDifferencesinHuman.PDF and
"Attractive Women Want it All: Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting Proclivities, and Emotional Commitment" [http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP06134146.pdf]
– regrding short-term mate preferences I refer you to:
“Different cognitive processes underlie human mate
choices and mate preferences” [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/15011]
“Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness
enhance mating success?” [Rhodes et al; Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (2005) 186–201]
These references should start you off. I also recommend that you get hold of an introductory book on evolutionary psychology such as Buss’ http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/020569439X Any introductory book that covers mate selection will rebutt your claim that attraction can be created.
The last 20 or so years of discovery in neuroscience, social psychology and evolutionary psychology contradict what you are claiming.
Pietro,
you replied to Piotr that
“David DeAngelo always says “attraction is not an option”
But this guy keeps repeating men can “create attraction”! In reality “attraction is not an option” precisely because it is depends on genes!
Yes, that is a piece of _doublethink_ on Eben Pagan’s part. He repeatedly contradicts himself and has been doing so since his first publication “Double Your Dating”.
I conjecture that in his trawling of numerous popular evolutionary psycholology and biology texts (that he refers his clients to) it was apparent that attraction was ultimately dependant on ones genotype and phenotype. You can’t read any of the books he mentions without arriving at a different conclusion. I suspect that he realised — at some level — that this conclusion leaves him nowhere to go, with nothing more to say. He could have rejected all of the popular works he cites but that would have denied him a veneer of scientific credence. So instead — in a heroic act of doublethink — he embraced the unavoidable conclusions in the evo. books he refers to AND the idea — which his brand depends upon — that attraction can in fact be created. This is a major self-contradiction but none of his clients notice it because I conjecture that most don’t read the books he refers to.
“Attraction is not an option” means the individual cannot choose to whom he becomes attracted, as much as you sometimes cannot avoid crying.
‘“Attraction is not an option” means the individual cannot choose to whom he becomes attracted, as much as you sometimes cannot avoid crying.’
The consequence of the truth of this proposition is that PUA methods are ineffectual. You are in effect arguing that attraction can not be created, in which case this concession undermines the entire PUA industry.
Notice that DeAngelo is saying women cannot choose to become attracted, but men can choose to “create attraction.” So the female is completely passive?? Only the males actions are decisive?
I sure would like to live in a world like that LOL But that’s against everything you typed concerning evolution, biology etc.
Furthermore, DeAngelo failed to present a shred of evidence confirming you can create sexual attraction!
That’s why eduction is just classic pseudoscience. It mentions science only in very general terms, like quoting research women appreciate sense of humor (we all do!). But when you ask for evidence proving the main idea of seduction = a man can create sexual attraction in a woman who previously hasn’t been attracted to him, all you hear is silence…
“We only disagree at ‘d’, which I ask you to prove.” Where (d) is “the indicators implied by (c) cannot be readily faked.”
The only way you can fake a physique or face with low fluctuating asymmetry is to undergo surgery.
Narrow, feminised shoulders (like Neil Strauss’) can’t be remedied in a convincing manner even with surgery and implants.
A feminised voice (like Neil Stratss’) can only be remedied with androgen administration during puberty.
A narrow and/or recessed mandible can only be fixed with surgery.
A physque with a very small non-fat mass can only be corrected with rigorous and discliplined diet and weight training and optionally some use of AAS (Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids).
etc etc.
Wealth can be faked but it requires much effort and certain personality traits that not everyone possesses.
Therefore, none of the traits that trigger attraction can be readily faked. This make perfect evolutionary sense: our paleocortex looks for markers, indicators of sets of genes, that an organism can not readily fake so that those genes that are valued in the original environement of evolutionary adaptedness are not lost.
In the evolutionary history of humans women likely did evolve mate selection neural modules/circuits that were suscpetible to subversion by fakery but the genes for these neural structures would have been lost because they would have produced offspring with inferior men (that won the women using fakery) that themselves would have been inferior.
Evolution by natural selection and sexual selection are self-correcting. Mate selection neurology that led to inferior genotypes being reproduced would have been replaced by more reliable mate selection neurology. This is yet another reason why attraction can’t be created.
Again, I agree with you Piotr in like 99%.
“Narrow, feminised shoulders (like Neil Strauss’) can’t be remedied in a convincing manner even with surgery and implants.”
Facial appearance is much more important than body build, since as for example Helen Fisher explains the same chemicals that act on your brain during prenatal life also shape your facial features. So I would rather say Neil Strauss can’t remedy the lack of a large jaw for instance. Not even with an implant, because it is not about on or two elements of the face, the thickness of the bones is also important…
I agree that in terms of weighting face is more important than body but body does have some significance. In general terms, the androgens that masculinise a brain will also masculinise the face and the body. That notwithstanding, there are instances where sexual dimorphism is not global eg. hypermasculine body but feminised face or vice versa, and this can be due to genetic polymorphisms that alter androgen receptor density (over different tissue) or where there is a localised higher density of a converting enzyme (eg. aromatase) over different tissue. Refer http://www.femininebeauty.info/masculinization-feminization-in-men
This topic gets very complicated very quickly and we may quibble over the minutiae but we appear to be in agreement 100% regarding the fundamentals.
The studies on muscularity and attraction also find that it’s a curve. Beyond a certain point, adding on more muscle makes you less attractive, so having too much muscle is as unattractive as having none.
Oddly enough, if you plot the ideal muscle levels of women, most of them fall around about the level that’s the natural peak. In other words, the ideal amount of muscle happens to be roughly the amount of muscle that’s possible naturally (without steroids).
Should have read “different women’s stated ideal muscularity on men”.
Indeed. But AAS can help you reach that natural peak quicker than you otherwise would. Also, some males for one reason or another (eg. low androgen receptor density in muscle tissue, excess aromatase production) have an exceedingly difficult time growing their muscles to even a “normal natural” build; I am thinking of those tall very thin men with little body fat and little muscle mass. As a way of overcoming their genetic determinism I wouldn’t discourage them from using AAS in a judicious fashion.
AAS gains are temporary though. The moment of cessation, you deflate like a balloon.
AAS users pretty much deflate back to pre-AAS size within months of cessation (depending on final size and pre-AAS size).
So while it sounds nice in theory – you can’t really use them as a “quickstart”.
And you also can’t use them as a temporary crutch. You can’t use them to get to a certain level faster, and then maintain it without them.
Even if you only use them to get to natural-level-sizes, you still lose all of the gains upon cessation.
I don’t want to become an AAS advocate on this forum, but the idea of “deflating like a balloon” is a myth. I can provide you papers that show that androgen receptors upregulate in response to repeated exposure to large amounts of androgens. Also, I know that after two years of use consisting of four cycles of 2-3 months duration your body’s “set-point” for the amount of muscle it normally carries — in the absence of any exercise or AAS will shift upwards i.e. you will experience permanent metabolic changes. Certainly you will atrophy but so long as you continue to consume sufficient calories and protein you will not revert to your pre-AAS physique — even if you stop weight training.
You can also see this phenomenon in retired bodybuilders that no longer use AAS and in some cases don’t even train but they still maintain comparatively large amounts of lean body mass.
I also don’t want to turn this into a confessional. If you want to discuss this matter in private I am willing to do so. I won’t be commenting further on this matter but I am giving admin permission to release my email address to you should you want it.
Actually, the myth is the other way. Most people believe that you can keep AAS gains naturally or that you can maintain them or that AAS can be used as a quickstarter.
You do realize what that sentence means right? Read it again. It just says that if you use steroids, your body gets used to using steroids… LOL. Nothing in that sentence says anything about keeping steroid gains.
There is no such thing as muscular-set-point. I challenge you to show me 20 papers about a “muscular set-point” and moving one using AAS. It doesn’t exist. It’s broscience or gymrat-science.
Notice that you’re now using anecdote. And my anecdote is probably larger than yours. I’ve been bodybuilding for 10 years, involved with hundreds of builders, and interviewed them all… They will all admit you this privately – they all come back to the exact natural peak after cessation no matter how hard they work.
Most newbie trainers don’t want to accept this truth. Most of them will angrily fight with you and be like “nooo, nooo it can’t like that, I can use AAS as a booster, I can’t lose it, noooooo” Most of them are trying to rationalize away their AAS use (or future planned AAS use), and don’t want to accept they invested in something that’s useless long-term.
Scientifically Neither you or I are qualified. Let’s be honest. You can read all the androgen receptor papers you want, and neither I nor you are qualifies to even know how to read those papers. There are guys who are qualified though. Those are the adonisindex guys who are both scientifically trained in this, and interpret studies on their forum for us mere mortals (they’ve been involved with, or doing university research themselves on everything from exercise nutrition to steroids, to muscle building, to anabolism, metabolism and catabolism).
They will also tell you this, what I’m telling you.
Actually,most retired bodybuilders go from using massive amounts of AAS+HGH+IGF1, to going back down to just using smaller doses of AAS (most likely HRT). They don’t go natural, lol
!
The ones who do go natural, if they are somewhat big, that’s the size they were before they started using AAS. Again, after AAS cessation you go back down to your natural peak.
@Piotr – we can continue this convo on the adonisindex.com forums, where the people are more qualified, and some of the researchers can also jump in the fray.
You’ve drawn me back in.
I agree that there is no evidence for a “set point” and that is why I presented the phrase in inverted double quotes. I was drawing an analogy from the concept of fat mass set-point. You are correct that I am relying on anecdote and I’m not sure if your anecdote is bigger than mine because I was a “steroid guru” on a forum which I won’t name. Regarding the AR, _downregulation_ would correspond to your body getting used to the androgen exposure. Upregulation corresponds to sensitisation. But in the final analysis you are correct, there is very little hard evidence about any of this (especially in vivo human data) because it just doesn’t get funding and if it got funding it wouldn’t get passed bioethics committees.
My view — which I can only substantiate with reference to anecdote and some theory — is that skinny guys can benefit from several cycles of AAS and that all will not be lost upon cessation. Maybe my sample of bros was not representative of the population. I don’t know
Because I believe that AAS can be used safely I am willing to advocate their use in the absence of absolute certainty about the extent of atrophy post-cycle. Perhaps your reluctance to advocate AAS use is based on a different premise, viz. that AAS are intrinsically harmful.
My motive in mentioning AAS is to provide options for men that may be really unhappy with their physiques and that are experiencing an inordinate degree of difficulty increasing their LBM. I try to offer advice that the younger version of me could have benefitted from. Escaping your genetic destiny — if only as it relates to your genotypic physique — is empowering. I suppose that is the bait that the PUA guru dangles i.e. the capacity to escape your genetic destiny as it relates to your mates, but that is entirely illusory wheras the hypertrophic effects of AAS are real. Also, you are better off biting the bullet and using AAS than most of the bullshit supplements advertised in bodybuilding magazines. I hope this gives you an idea of where I am coming from with this.
In essence, you admit all your evidence is of the same level as the PUAs we bash?
In other words, you do admit that all your evidence that AAS can be used as a quick-start or set-point shifter are about the same level of scientific rigor as the average PUA’s beliefs?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. What I am saying, is that it’s objectively true that you have no better evidence for your AAS beliefs than PUAs have for their seduction-beliefs.
By the way, if you know anything about fat and muscle, you would know that fat and muscle are soooooooooooo different as to make it completely useless to compare them. Even if there was such a thing as a “fat setpoint”, the logical jump to “oh, well it then makes sense there would be a muscle setpoint” is quite huge. That’s EVEN IF “fat setpoint” was true.
But in truth, the set-point theory is very new and very controversial. A lot of respectable folks say its completely psychological (not physiological) and some claim it doesn’t even exist. The set-point issue won’t even be settle for at least 20 years.
All in all, I think recommending AAS, especially in countries where it’s illegal is irresponsible. And I’m NOT anti-AAS. I wish it were legal. If it were and I could get them from a doctor and could use while being controlled and monitored, I’d use them, seriously.
But in real life, AAS is the lazy man’s option. If you think about it, taking 4 years to reach your maximum natural peak is not that much. Especially since you will look pretty decent in about 2 years.
I also don’t believe there are supposed guys who can’t gain muscle naturally… There is no scientific proof that such a thing exists. All those guys are just making excuses. I have proven it every time I’ve met one of those guys.
I asked them “can you show me your log book from the past 2 years when you trained” – AND THEY NEVER CAN. They’re actually making excuses and actually training like 3 months of the year, while telling you how they’re supposed hard-gainers,… they manage to blank out all the laziness.
Or on the other hand, you have the non-eaters. You have guys who claim they can’t gain weight no matter what, but every study has shown these people lie. They will tell you about the one day they ate “5000 calories”, but they don’t tell you that on most days they skip meals like crazy.
In other words, most of the difference between natural hardgainers and normal-gainers is psychology and self-honesty.
Am I saying there is no biological difference? Obviously there is, but it’s not that huge. All else equal, the worst hard-gainer will take 4 years to build the muscle, and the genetically talented will maybe take 3 years. But it’s not like there’s guys who eat enough and train consistently and can’t get a good body in 2-3 years. No such guys exist.
Btw, don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those anti-AAS freaks who believes you can’t use AAS healthily and responsibly.
What I am saying is that in real world terms, for you to accomplish this on your own, it requires a ton of time and effort.
You literally have to become a mini-steroid-guru. You literally have to almost spend as much time keeping on the latest AAS education and news on sources and usage and who’s who, and worrying about quality, and the law and sources —-> too much dude.
Running an AAS life is about the equivalent investment of time and effort as running a small business or becoming good at some hobby.
Is all that energy and effort and extra stress in your life worth it to speed things up by a year or so? With AAS you get a decent body in 6 months and ideal in 2 years.
Naturally you get a decent body in 2 years and ideal in 4… Time flies…
Much better to be natural and use the extra time not spent worrying about AAS and use to invest in other areas of life.
No, that is somewhat overstating the case. There is ample evidence that AAS do assist you to grow muscle — that is not in dispute. What we are quibbling about is the magnitude of the muscle atrophy upon cessation of use of AAS. In regard to the matter of magnitude of loss my evidence is largely anecdotal. However, that “problem space” has such a small surface — and in light of the fact that AAS can be used safely — it is both a prudent and safe conjecture. Its not like I’m saying something like “Take AAS and you will grow as big as Ronnie Coleman”. Put the issue under consideration into its context. Also appreciate that you are countering with anecdotal evidence. But again the issue is so small and well-defined that neither of us are committing a (epistemic) mortal sin.
I have a friend in the UK — where AAS are legal — and he completes at least two 3-month cycles a year. His inter-cycle atrophy is negligible. Yes this is an anecdote but it happens to be consistent with my experience and the experience of others that I know. Perhaps the low atrophy is due to the regimen of aromatase inhibitor and SERM adminsitartion that I follow and recommend. I don’t know, I obviously haven’t performed a controlled study. All I can say is that my anecdotage is inconsistent with your anecdotage. I don’t know any ‘roid users that have shrivelled down to their original state upon ceasing their cycle.
In any event this is only an issue if you want to stop. If you are managing your estrogen levels, prolactin levels, blood pressure, cholesterol, liver enzymes and triglycerides then why stop? Why not do at least two cycles a year until you are fed up with the routine and the discipline? Become as big as you can become so that you have no regrets in your dotage. If it does all go away when you stop — which I don’t believe it will — then so what? By the time of senesence it won’t matter anyway.
Regarding legality, people vary with regard to their risk aversion and they will base their decision to use AAS on that trait. We are speaking with reference to adults who on the basis of their degree of risk aversion decide for or against using recreational drugs (which are also illegal in many locales). Use of (illegal) recreational drugs is far more widespread than use of AAS. There appears to be something of a double-standard in this regard. Many who are not averse to dropping e’s every weekend frown on AAS users.
Anyway, I think I have said enough about this peripheral topic.
So why mention it if no one is disputing it. You do admit all the evidence that exists is about a subject nobody ever disputed. So why even mention it?
No, I am talking about (further clarification) the LONG-term muscle-loss upon PERMANENT AAS-cessation (think 1-2 years after taking nothing, including NO ancillaries).
I’m not talking about the period between cycles. That was my whole point of why AAS is fuked up. You literally have to use it for life.
So if you start using AAS before reaching your natural peak, you’re actually left worse off than having never used, because you’ll go back to less muscular than you would be if you just trained natural.
There is a reason why the old guys all tell you to NOT TOUCH aas before you’ve reached your natural maximum, it’s not just a cute saying with no reason
Which I agreed with. In theory it can be used safely.
But in order for you to use it safely in practice, you literally have to become an EXPERT on the subject. It’s not like you just buy it in the store and you’re automatically using it in a safe manner.
And most people live in countries where it’s illegal and you have to buy it from someone making it in their bath-tub or some shady underground lab.
Most of the readers here are american, and an american literally has to spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in research every year just to make their source is clean and not made in someone’s bath-tub.
So he’s literally never gone longer than 30-60 days without a chemical in his body (if you count PCT).
Again, I was talking about permanent, long-term cessation. Long term, a year post-cessation everyone reports going back to their exact weight before they ever touched a steroid, no matter how hard they trained.
*-I define cessation as the moment everything has cleared your body, including PCT.
Which was my point the whole time. You have to follow these super-complex patterns and PCT regimens, it’s like a freaking side-part-time job EVEN IF you live in a country where it’s legal.
If you’re in a country where it’s illegal, the amount of effort you have to invest gets bumped up a whole new notch where you have to make it a second dayjob just to make sure you’re buying from the right places, measurements, ancilliaries.
You might be making all sorts of rationalizations about how it’s “not a big deal” but I assure you if you measured the hours and stress you invest in it – it’s literally the same time and effort investment as starting a small business.
That was my whole point dude. It DOES become an issue if you want to stop. Here are the OBJECTIVE scientific facts:
1) Naturally the ideal muscular body CORRESPONDS to the natural maximum
- The natural maximum can be accomplished in just 4 years, a decent sexy body can be accomplished in just two
2) With roids, the ideal muscular body can be accomplished in just 2 years, a decent sexy body can be accomplished in just six months
If you accomplish it naturally
- it’s literally 100% STRESS-FREE, THINKING-FREE and WORRY-FREE, AND FINANCIALLY FREE AND NON-BINDING
With AAS you :
- You get to save 1 year on getting a decent body
- but gain like 6 additional worries, tasks and obligations on a short-term basis and you have to keep doing cycles FOREVER! You can’t go a single year without doing at least 2 cycles.
Dude, I’m not against AAS on principle.
If it were legal and doctor-prescribed and planned, I’d use it in a nano-second if someone else did all the planning and worrying.
If I could have someone do all the mental work and the nurses did the injections and planning out the PCT and all that stuff – hey, I’d be first in line to use.
So my objection is ONLY on a practical basis, not any “moral” or “philosophical” one. Just practical one. I do not frown on AAS users if they want supra-physiological levels of muscle. But for natural levels, it’s just stupid and shows that one has too much free time on their hands.
BECAUSE YOU WANT A LIFE AND/OR NO LONGER WANT TO RISK GOING IN JAIL!?!?!???
If you had a business you would appreciate this. Why have an additional dayjob if you don’t have to?
The reason you’d want to stop AAS is because you want to free up mental resources for other things. It’s one additional process you’re going through. It’s literally a side-job.
That’s coz we’re talking two different subjects.
I am talking about long-term permanent cessation.
You are talking about cycling and the period between cycles.
Ask anyone who has stopped all AAS and ancillaries for longer than a year. You won’t find a single one who won’t confirm what I’m saying. Long-term you lose it ALL! Literally.
Thank you for enlightening me. Your simply a genius.
Thanks Michael, I have just put together research that have been known for years, and compared it to the seduction theories so popular in the media!
Don’t forget to tell your friends about the website.
Piotr, I just finished approving all your comments! Now, I gotta read them
After a brief look, I have to admit that you presented your arguments against seduction in many cases better than me.
Thanks a lot for the effort !!!
No problem and thank-you. I have been studying this topic for many years and was originally a student of Jeffries, DeAngelo, Richard Bandler and Kenrick Cleveland — I was one a true believer in PUAry, Ericksonian hyponsis and NLP (and spent literally thousands of dollars on books and seminars). It was only after I began studying neuroscience, social psychology and evolutionary psychology that I realised I was being misled.
Just a small note:
Your RSS feed is broken
http://www.seductionmyth.com/feed/ -> Page not Found
Appreciate the concern! We are working on it… Will be ready soon!
Who’s “We”?
the underground anti-seduction movement
(it looks like this when I read the bullshit mainstream media publishes)
RSS fixed!
If seduction doesn’t exist, then how do you explain the existence of Don Juan, Casanova, and other naturals? Didn’t they achieve their fame by seducing women by the hundreds?
This is strike one for you pal
This time is really the last one I approve a comment about smth that has been expressly explained in other sections of this website.
Read the section about Casanova, and you will understand how he manged to “seduce” all those women. Note, that I am not debating that someone was successful with women on this website. I am debating what lead him to this success. What was responsible for it? All research show genes (not skills) play the most important role.
And what do you mean by “naturals”? I guess you meant that they were born this way? Isn’t that connected with genes? Why do you assume without any empiric evidence that their this ease they were born with related to social skills, how do you know it wasn’t smth in their facial appearance? (I am not talking about beauty here)
Don Juan didn’t exist.
I found your Casanova piece and read it. It makes sense. Like many others, I’d built up the myth of Casanova. Thanks for answering the question.
Hey man, you might notice that half the comments are in italic. Some commenter must have used the “em” tag, but forgot to close it, I think it’s comment-235 by Piotr.
Thanks, I ve noticed Piotr’s comment that begins with “You have conflated the distinct notions and mechanisms” is all in italic. I ve tried to edit it, to undo the italic. Don’t know how, I’m new to wordpress…
<blockquote>This is a text to be quoted.</blockquote>
<em>This is a text to indicate emphasis.</em>
This is a text to indicate emphasis.
So piotr used the initial <em> in his comment, but he forgot to also put in a </em>
So just edit his comment and either remove the initial <em> or add an </em> after whatever you think he wanted to be in italic.
Btw, you have to find the initial post where Piotr screwed up the formatting.
Because right now ALL comments on this page are italic after a certain point. So you have to find the comment where he did it. It’s the first comment that’s all italic.
From what I can see it seems to be this one:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/#comment-235
Alek/Admin,
I haven’t use the em tag. The only tag I have used is …, i.e. the italics tag.
Oops
I only used the i tag not th eem tag.
@Piotr
Both do the same thing yes.
In that case admin needs to find the <i> and delete it, or add an </i> at the end of your comment, so it stops italicizing everything on this page.
On wordpress blogs, when you want to italicize you use <em> but some wordpress installations also understand <i>
On this blog you can italicize using either comment.
Pietro,
You wrote:
“I understand you both. However, sex drive and attraction are not the same thing — let’s agree with Helen Fisher’s terminology for the sake of clarity. Lust is responsible for the best possible replication (choosing the genetically best mate); attraction and attachment increase the likelihood of offspring’s survival due to parental bonding and caring for the children. No PUA book I have read relies on sexual arousal, but on attraction.”
I don’t think I either stated nor implied that “sex drive” and “attraction” are the same thing. I think we should all employ the terminology that is used in biology rather than the sloppily defined terms employed by PUA gurus.
“Sex drive” is libido, the sexual appetitie, an undirected urge for sexual intercourse, it is analogous to hunger. “Attraction” is a relational concept, a relation that obtains (in the case of heterosexuality) between a man and a woman the nature of which is a desire to have sexual intercourse with the relatum (which may not be mutual). This is distinct again from “pair bonding”. Pair bonding is affective, i.e. it is an emotion and it is that which “increase the likelihood of offspring’s survival due to parental bonding and caring for the children”. You appear to be confused about the nature of pair bonding and attraction. Attraction _is_ sexual attraction and pair bonding is distinct from attraction. Consider:
(1) Pair bonding and attachment characterise mammalian (and to a lesser extent avian) reproduction;
(2) Pair bonding, attachment and nurturing are (or are driven by) emotions (aka affects);
(3) Attraction _is_ sexual attraction and it is not an affect it is a basic drive like hunger;
(4) Emotions (aka affects) originate in the limbic system;
(5) Reptiles do not have a limbic system;
(6) Reptiles do not exhibit pair bonding or nurturing behaviour (once the clutch of eggs hatches there ends parental investment);
(7) Reptiles do exhibit sexual attraction; and
(8) Sexual attraction originates from the most primitive neural components which reptiles birds and mammals have in common.
The limbic circuits related to pair bonding do not activate early in a reationship as this would severely disadvantage the female partner in that she would become emotionally attached to a male that could abandon her soon after sex. Thousands of years of evolution have tuned the limbic system such that the female will generally only form an attachment if the male has displayed some form of parental investment, some commitment to parenthood. Even in those cases where there is no intention or even capacity for reproduction care for a partner is interpreted by the limbic system as potential care for offspring and partner. Certainly, deception of the female is possible but it does entail that the male overcome the impulses from his own limbic system. It makes no evolutionary sense for pair bonding to occur until after attraction has occurred.
Pair bonding is relevant only in long-term (mammalian and avian) relationships. In the specific case of humans no pair bonding or attachment occurs in short-term relationships eg. one night stands, “friend with benefits”, casual relationships. In short-term human reltionships there is sexual attraction but there is no pair bonding. The attraction that such couples expeience is not pair bonding or attachment (that would make no evolutionary sense).
In a pre-cultural context this is how human reproduction would proceed (this is how it happens in non-human primates):
Attraction –> Sex –> Gestation –> Pair Bonding –> Birth –> Maternal Bonding (to child) /Paternal Bonding (to child) –> Breastfeeding –> Increased maternal bonding (to child)
Cultural norms and mores obscure this sequence but this is the essence of mammalian reproduction and offspring rearing. The neuropeptides vasopressin and oxytocin are believed to be involved in pair bonding [ “Oxytocin, vasopressin and pair bonding: implications for autism.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17118932 ; “The role of vasopressin in the genetic and neural regulation of monogamy” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15089970; “Neuroimaging of love: fMRI meta-analysis evidence toward new perspectives in sexual medicine” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20807326 but these hormones play no substantive role in attraction (where the androgens and estrogens dominate). You are very wrong to equate attraction to pair bonding — these behaviours are unrelated phylogenetically, neuroanatomically, neurochemically, and ethologically.
Could a primitive woman know whether a given sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy or not? Did the female brain have time to adapt to condoms and pills? Does your reasoning explain their selectivity?
“Trivers’ theory proposes that the sex investing more in offspring (typically the female) will be selected to exert stronger preferences about mating partners. This greater choosiness by the more heavily investing sex exists because greater reproductive costs are associated with indiscrimante mating and greater benefits are associated with exerting a choice. The costs of less discriminating mating will be lower for the sex investing less and the benefits will be greater” (Buss, 1989)
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/SexDifferencesinHuman.PDF (link you provided)
Is it beneficial for the female to risk pregnancy while ignoring the male’s ability and willingness to support her and their possible offspring?
I’m aware a woman may cheat in order to get better genes for her children, having increased sex drive and desire for masculine physique during ovulation. In this scenario, however, she is already secure — there’s less need for “pair-bonding potential”.
“The limbic circuits related to pair bonding do not activate early in a reationship as this would severely disadvantage the female partner in that she would become emotionally attached to a male that could abandon her soon after sex.”
The abstract of this study, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/15011, reads:
“In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen’s self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. (…) Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.”
She would be in severe disadvantage if these circuits didn’t trigger. A baby is much a heavier burden than some weeks of emotional distress.
“Is it beneficial for the female to risk pregnancy while ignoring the male’s ability and willingness to support her and their possible offspring?”
Do you really think nature would allow men to somehow trick women’s brains with “linguistic patterns” faking status?
So to answer your question, no it is not beneficial, and therefore genotypes play such an important role. Not skills.
Indeed. The idea is _prima facie_ absurd if you consider the vast expanse of time over which human reproductive behaviour evolved as a consequence of natural and sexual selection in a very hostile enviroment in which infant mortality was very high and lifespan was very short. In the EEA the right genes were literally a matter of life or death.
But we need to confine our critique to _prima facie_ absurdity. We can point to multiple, independent lines of converging evidence that vindicate our claim of _prima facie_ absurdity.
Correction: But we need not…
The premise of this question is flawed. Human mating behaviour has very little to do with consciously knowing anything. Females — of all species — are biologically driven to have sex either only when they are fertile or to have more sex when they are fertile. In the specific case of humans females will have more sex when they are most fertile. ["Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?"; Miller et al; 2007; http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/cycle_effects_on_tips.pdf ]
Using contraceptive pills subverts this mechanism because it is governed by estrogens. Regarding condoms, both heterosexual ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2410083/ ) and homosexual men ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21380496 ) report greater pleasure in sexual intercourse without condoms. This again is the work of the selfish gene. Male pleasure circuits have evolved such the we experience greatest pleasure when all of the indicators of penetration are present. This graphically illustrates just how much sexual attraction has to do with the propagation of genes.
The Buss quote you provided actually argues against what you are trying to demonstrate. It is because gestation and child rearing are so metabolically and materially expensive to women that they have evolved mechanisms in mate selection to prevent deception. Women will only incur the high price of reproduction if they going to reproduce “good” genes.
Yes, if the males genotype is assessed (by her mate selection circuits) as being highly valued. There is contemporary evidence of this mating strategy in the form of single motherhood in the English-speaking world. Women — like men — having evolved multiple reproductive strategies. The single mother that is unable or unwilling to provide for her child will seek a male to help in the rearing of the child. This is a form of cuckoldry. If the single mother succeeds in finding another man to rear the child the biological father and the mother win in that neither will expend any material resources towards the propagation of their genes.
Firstly, the quote you supplied doesn’t in any way support the point you are trying to make, it in fact supports the position of myself and Admin.
Secondly, your statement is plainly illogical. Whether the female commences pair bonding has no bearing on the behaviour of the male that is committed to a reproductive strategy of cuckoldry. It won’t in anyway help her rear the child and would actually hurt her because instead of finding the cuckold she is experiencing situational depression.
Thirdly, both the male and the female can pursue a reproductive strategy of cuckoldry by tacit agreement in which case the initiation of the neurology and neurochemistry of pair bonding would only hurt the female.
Oops, please correct this admin. My apologies (again).
no problem
Pietro, you wrote:
Good question but this has been addressed by evolutionary psychologists. In a nutsehell, you are confusing form with content. The items you mention are nothing more than culture and time specific representation of _social status_ and _resource access_. Certainly, social status and the types of valued resources will vary from time to time and culture to culture but the desiderata in all these apparently varied cases are _social status_ and _resource access_.
If you are asking what would a well-balanced investment portfolio mean to a Saharan goat herder 2000 years ago then clearly the answer would be “not much” but that is a fatuous question. Wealth to the goat herder is size of his herd. The women in this goat herding society value the same things as women today: social status and resource access . Primitive tribal societies are stratified and those at the top get the pick of women and more food as well as service from those lower in the social hierarchy. Certainly, a prestige European car will not mean much for a Kalahari bush woman but proficiency of a male with a bow and arrow will signify much (namely, the ability to defend the family and obtain meat). The distinction is one of content not structure. The desiderata may assume a different content based on time and culture but the form is essentially the same and based on its function (i.e. enhanced capacity to rear children).
Also, Buss’ cross-cultural study was concerned with long-term partner slection and it relied on self-report. Studies of short-term mate selection that are based on observation (rather than self-report) find that women look for (a) good looks; and (b) wealth and that they are willing to trade off one for the other.
If an unskilled native American started to train archery and hunting with his more adept fellows, wouldn’t he improve? Wouldn’t he grow in confidence in his ability to nurture a family? Wouldn’t he then become more attractive to the women of his tribe?
PUA techniques are shortcuts. It means to act as if you had high-status and resources, to behave as men who do possess them — simply put, to deceive. After all, a woman in a night club cannot instantly know your actual social rank nor see the inside of your wallet. How does she choose then? By your behaviour, by how you carry yourself amongst other men. Height, symmetry, broad shoulders and muscular build do matter, but a genetically unfavoured man who holds authority over his better-built folks still gets more attention from potential mates, by demonstrating social power, “ambition and industriousness”, as Buss might put it. He may be cheated on later for better genes anyway, as studied by Gangestad and Haselton.
“Also, Buss’ cross-cultural study was concerned with long-term partner slection and it relied on self-report. Studies of short-term mate selection that are based on observation (rather than self-report) find that women look for (a) good looks; and (b) wealth and that they are willing to trade off one for the other.”
You ignored the link you provided. Here again:
“In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen’s self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. (…) Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.”
The observed (not self-reported) result, as you must have read, is that women respond to traits desired in a long-term partner, even in presumably ephemeral relationships.
“Do you really think nature would allow men to somehow trick women’s brains with “linguistic patterns” faking status?”
Yes, and that’s why one learns something: to control nature. However, I’m not saying high-status can be readily faked; that’s why one must practise over and over. PUA techniques rely on observation of high-status men’s behaviour and the attempt to emulate it consistently. When neither bow nor bank balance are available for demonstration, behaviour will be used to assess suitability for mating. Of course, persistence is required to learn anything, and here’s a trait not everyone possess — hence not everyone may become a PUA, as much as not everyone may become a good dancer.
It still doesn’t prove seduction! – I could comment every sentence you posted with this phrase:)
We could continue these contemplations for days, but you have to agree with me that in every science the burden of proof lies on the creator of the theory.
So prove the particular claim that men are able to create sexual attraction in the head of a woman who hasn’t been attracted previously. In the 21st century we sure can manage to arrange such test! All those PUA companies selling their stuff sure can afford running such experiment.
That’s the MAIN POINT of seduction = “creating sexual attraction”, now you keep posting research showing that women value this or that – no one is denying it! That is how PUA trickery works, those gurus rely only on research proving VERY GENERAL concepts like “women pursue men of high status” (we all do! If you have two identical twin sisters, with the same personality, education etc. wouldn’t you choose to enter in a relationship with the rich one??). They have never ever been able to prove you can “create attraction”.
Do you really think that in accordance with the laws of logic this quote you posted proves seduction works?
“In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen’s self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. (…) Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.”
If Lisa Leveridge is attracted by the facial features of a guy like Neil Strauss, of course she notices his social skills, self-confidence etc. And if she had to choose between two Strauss looking-like guys she would choose the one with self-confidence. But this a factor of secondary importance, because Neil Strauss can’t pick up a girl like Jessica Alba, although she also notices his skills etc.
As a matter of fact there is a video on YouTube titled “Neil Strauss picks up Jessica Alba” – some PUA addict came to this conclusion because she was acting nice when she appeared in some TV show where Styles demonstrated his techniques on her. Of course no one sane believed he really did “seduce” her. That was her #5 smile she gives to every journalist.
But you say:
“Yes, and that’s why one learns something: to control nature. However, I’m not saying high-status can be readily faked; that’s why one must practise over and over.”
Doesn’t Strauss practice this stuff “over and over”??
“Of course, persistence is required to learn anything, and here’s a trait not everyone possess —hence not everyone may become a PUA, as much as not everyone may become a good dancer.”
In human mating just as in sports, not only persistence in practicing smth matters. You can be persistent as hell, train 24/7 and you will never play in the NBA if you were born very short. Try a different sport.
Also, an important distinction to make here is that studies on short-term hooking-up and long-term pairing find VERY different results.
Pietro uses this logic (which does seem valid on the surface):
—> Women are attracted to wealth and high status
—> Therefore it only makes sense that if you go to a club all that she has to go on to decide whether to bang you that night is your BEHAVIOUR – hence, if you act like wealthy men do, you’ll get laid
ONE PROBLEM
The studies which show that women value wealth, are studies about long-term bonding, not hookups. In other words, women only value wealth & status for relationships . Women do not value wealth when seeking a one-night stand in a club.
In studies on hookups (short-term) women are found to mostly base their choices on looks. In fact, it’s reversed. For one-night stands, being handsome and athletic is the biggest factor.
Indeed.
That makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms. The short-term relationship corresposnds to the provision of genes without any parental investment, without any commitment or intention of contributing to the rearing of the progeny, so resource access is irrelevant.
Contrast long-term relationships which correspond to the provision of genes AND a commitment to rearing the progeny. In this case the resource access of the father certainly matter.
Women — like men — have evolved multiple reproductive strategies and again this make perfect sense in evolutionary terms.
Pietro uses this logic (which does seem valid on the surface):
—> Women are attracted to wealth and high status
—> Therefore it only makes sense that if you go to a club all that she has to go on to decide whether to bang you that night is your BEHAVIOUR – hence, if you act like wealthy men do, you’ll get laid
I agree in general Alek, but I wouldn’t say it makes sense – not even on the surface!
Studies do not show that “women are attracted to wealth and high status” per se. They have only reveled that women place MORE IMPORTANCE THAN MEN on “wealth and high status.” The only women who are attracted to wealth and status alone are called prostitutes.
So from the fact that women place more importance THAN MEN on cues indicating wealth and status, you cannot draw the conclusion that only your behavior will be something a women will consider.
Hey, I didn’t say it makes sense, only that it “seems to” if you’re a casual glancer. In other words, even though the logic is stupid, I “see” how someone can make that association in their head if they’re not a critical thinker.
-> If one believes that wealth and high social status makes you more attractive to women (point blank)
-> And that person doesn’t realize that this only applies as merely factor (booster) when a woman is picking a long-term provider(he generalizes to think wealth and social status is attractive in general for all purposes in all ways to all women)
-> And if that person knows that women today are often found hooking up with random guys in clubs after knowing the guy for a mere few hours
THEN PRESTO -> Then that person can say “oh oh oh, so that means that if I go to a club, and I make a woman believe I am high status for a few hours, she’ll sleep with me YAY!!!! She can’t know I’m not of high-status within that club and those few hours, yayyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
See how they made that story work in their head? They made a few assumptions wrong, made a few logical jumps, and presto, all of a sudden the idea seems entirely “logical” to them.
He’s missing quite a few things. He’s missing the following two distinctions most of all
a) That women who hook up within hours do so based on the guys’ looks primarily. There’s even studies that show a direct link between a guy’s physique and how many one-night-stands he’s had. Those are the real world studies. The theoretical studies confirm the same. Women tend to favor more muscular, athletic and handsome men for short-term flings, whereas they are more likely to pick men displaying markers of status when picking a long-term partner.
b) That social status and wealth even when they are a decent factor (in long-term choosing), they are merely a “booster”. In other words, general women choose from a pool of men who are their type. Yes, between two men of her type, she will pick the one with higher status, but unless she’s a gold-digger, him being her type will be the first criteria.
P.S.
I don’t want to minimize social status and wealth though. Admin, I get a sense you almost want to go the other way of PUAs and overstate it’s “non-importance”. It is however still second in line after being her type (physically and psychologically her type). That means wealth/status is still a pretty darn big factor after you account for type.
In other words, social status and wealth ARE important when choosing a long-term mate. Let’s not go too far in downplaying. It’s just that it’s secondary or tertiary, not primary. But it’s still pretty important in choosing a long-term mate for women.
Yes, to a limited extent. There is an upper bound on the extent to which athletic ability and eye-hand coordination can be improved via practice and exercise and this maxima is defined by the individuals genotype. Athletic ability is largely determined by genes.
You are ignoring the well-established result that high status and resource access count most in the context of long-term relationships. Furthermore, high social status and resource access are proxy measures for genetic fitness. I agree that you can deceive women into believing you have wealth that you don’t have but that isn’t what the PUA gurus teach. They contend that you can demonstrate high social status and superior access to resouces by performing coin magic, reading palms and handwriting and telling emotionally evocative stories.
Actually, your hypothetical woman has all the information she needs from your appearance:
– degree of fluctuating asymmetry
– sexually dimorphic typical traits
– height
– shoulder-waist ratio
– muscularity
– facial similarity
– orthognathism
– broad mandible
– clothing quality
– jewelery
She has already decided whether you are mateworthy before you have uttered your first linguistic pattern.
I agree entirely that the man that has won his mate purely on the grounds of wealth may be made a cuckold and this contradicts your preceding statements. Where there is cuckoldry there is no genuine attraction, it is a feigned attraction intended to gain access to the cuckolds resources in order to rear the child of another man with a superior genotype. Even where cuckoldry does not take place — due to religious mores for example — that strategy is ticking over in the deepest recesses of the female brain. Cuckoldry works and it appears that females have evolved a cukcoldry circuit/module. This is why it is best to let nature takes its course and just mate assortatively i.e. seek partners that are about the same physical attractiveness as you and (as Admin would likely stress) that look similar to you. It appears that asymmetry in a relationship triggers the woman’s cuckoldry circuitry.
Also, none of the advice offered by PUA gurus would demonstrate “ambition and industriousness”.
Buss’ monumental cross-cultural study was concerned with desirable traits in a long-term partner. That woman use the same criteria in choosing a short-term and long-term partner is not a well-replicated finding and it makes no evolutionary sense. If the father is not going to play any role in the rearing of the child then his access to resources is entirely irrelevant. There are other studies based on speed dating (which I will locate later) that show that women that are seeking short-term relationships are concerned only with males’ physical appearance.
In the environment of original adaptation — which our brains still think we are operating under — high social status is linked to somatic and facial traits because it ultimately comes down to physically dominating other men. The modern-day attractivess of hypermasculine men (heavily muscled, deep voiced, square jawed) is a reference to our distant past where these men would physically prevail over lesser men and in the process gain superior access to resources. It is literally impossible for someone like Neil Strauss to fake high social status: everything about him telegraphs submission. Strauss is short, has narrow shoulders, a feminised voice, mandibular retrognathism and low muscularity. There is nothing Strauss can do to overcome the messages that he is sending to a woman’s paleocortex. Nothing. He is a nebbish. You will likely retort: But he seduced Lisa Leveridge and the bathing suit girl (whatever her name is). I’m cynical and sceptical about Strauss. I believe he pays these woman to pretend to be his girlfriends to maintain the sales of his book (which he stated on Howard Stern’s show is his main source of income and that he is unable to earn a living writing article for Rolling Stone). I conjecture that Strauss forms sham relationship and shares the earnings from his book sales with these woman. This is akin to the well-known homosexuals in Hollywood that play heterosexual male leads that are in sham marriages.
How can you fake high status if you earn minimum wage and look like Neil Strauss? What exactly will you be practicing that will cause the woman to disregard brutal reality?
No, appearance (which is a proxy for genotype) is used to assess suitability for mating and is the key determinant of attraction. Appearance is reliable (it is hard to fake) and female humans — like humans of many species — have evolved means of avoiding deception in the context of mate selection. Behavior is too easy to fake and if it were the determinant of attraction men would have evolved elaborate means of deception (not unlike the many insects that pretent to be another, more dangerous insect). Natural and sexual selection over thousands of years effect an exhaustive brute force search of the design space for effective solutions to problems that threaten the propagation of desirable genes. Behaviour, that is to say fakery as you are arguing, would have been discarded very early in the evolution of humans because it would have produced inferior offspring.
Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. You don’t appear to appreciate the concept and process of sexual selection and its effect on the gene gool. Sexual selection would have produced a huge population of these fakers and their ability to fake would be highly developed.
If you consider the scenario you are proposing on the population level its falsity becomes clear. I will use the Yiddish term “nebbish” as a shorthand to describe the male with the inferior genotype, the male that in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) i.e. the start of the Pleistocene, would be of the lowest status. Picture Neil Strauss in the EEA. Consider
(1) Females seek mates with genetic traits T1
(2) Nebbish1 lacks T1 but instead has undesirable traits T1′
(1) Nebbish1 is unable to find a mate because woman seek T1
(2) Nebbish1 discovers that desirable traits T1 can be faked
(3) Nebbish1 possesses psychological traits that enable proficiency in fakery, call these T2
(4) Using T2 nebbish1 is able to reproduce with women that are seeking T1 but are fooled by nebbish1′s use of T2
(5) Nebbish1′s partners bear children that lack T1 but have T1′ and T2: they are Nebbish2
(6) Nebbish2′s have T1′ and T2 and although not as ugly as Nebbish1 they are not as physically attractive as their mothers
(7) Using T2 Nebbish2 repeat Nebbish1′s mating strategy produing Nebbish3 which are a little more attractive than Nebbish2
.
.
.
(1000) Using T2 Nebbish1000 repeats Nebbish999s mating strategy producing Nebbish1000 which by this stage are almost as unattractive as Nebbish1 because all of the beautiful women’s genotypes have been diluted and lost over thousands of years of falling victim to the nebbish T2 mating strategy
(1001) A large population of super nebbish is created with a highly developed T2 but still with T1′ (or something resembling it)
(1002) Men with T1 are crowded out by the super nebbish and their genotypes are eliminated from the gene pool leaving only super nebbish generation 1000
This is what would happen if attraction inducing traits could be readily faked. So where then are all these super nebbish that have elvolved a proficient mating strategy based on fakery. Sexual selection would have produced a large population of these super nebbish that wield T2. Further, T2 would have been subject to “runaway evolution” like the giraffes neck and the peacocks feathers hence my phrase “super nebbish”. The global gene pool is not characterised by average looking women and super nebbish. The global gene pool looks exactly how it looks if humans mated assortatively.
Furthermore, Pietro failed to notice that there was a time in the dawn of humanity when there was no society, no hierarchy, no wealth…
Status was strictly correlated with physical fitness, which is connected with genes. Or should I say, in that primitive society it was more connected with genes than ever after. Sex drive is essentially about genotypes.
“Studies of short-term mate selection that are based on observation (rather than self-report) find that women look for (a) good looks; and (b) wealth and that they are willing to trade off one for the other.”
But we have to be careful not to oversimplify the subject. It’s not like every woman finds the same type of genes attractive. Otherwise, a good looking millionaire could have virtually every woman he desires. If we consider the choices of beautiful women (who don’t need to compromise), it is clear it doesn’t work like that.
The key premise of evolutionary psychology and biology is that humans are fitted to the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) and this is believed to be the the early Pleistocene i.e. 1.8 million years ago. There was society in the EEA but this would have resembled non-human primate society and the dominance that was possible through physical strength would have produced a hierarchy (just like non-human primate social structure) and there also would have been “wealth” in the form of access to food and to females for mating (again just like non-human primate social structure).
This is a mind-bending idea but the central contention of evolutionary psychology is that parts of our neurology — figuratively speaking — “think” they are in the EEA. Key parts of our neurology evolved to suit the EEA and we still have this neurology — unchanged. This puts a sharp point on the contention that sex drive and attraction are fundamentally, essentially and inescapably about genes and their propagation. Our EEA shaped neurology does not “care” about language or anything that can be readily faked, it evolved — via natural and sexual selection — to be sensitive to phenotypical markers that accurately and honestly portray the genotype and survival of our species is largely the result of the soundness of this mechanism.
Whether womens’ attraction neurology is activated by facial similarity or the other traits I listed (or both) is moot and doesn’t in anyway alter the conclusion — for which there is already piles of evidence and the pile is growing on a monthly basis — that
(1) the basis of attraction is genotypical;
(2) attraction can not be created; and
(3) there are no such things as “attraction skills” or “seduction skills”.
Dude, what’s the point of this site? Do you really have to troll the PUA’s to be happy with yourself? They obviously have a method that they stick to, that works, I would know because I was relatively good with girls; then I found this method through a friend, and I got MORE girls. Don’t believe in it? COOL! But did you need to be such a neurotic dork about it? What’s the point? Either way, have fun behind your computer ripping on people who don’t really care, while I’m out getting laid
.
Ryan I could ask you more or less the same question: what is the point of your post if you didn’t even read this blog! If you are not interested in the subject – if you were you would type smth concerning THE SUBJECT, instead of calling me a dork.
They obviously have a method that they stick to, that works, I would know because I was relatively good with girls; then I found this method through a friend, and I got MORE girls.
Read section “How Come I Saw Seduction Working” and you will understand how wrong you are.
Don’t believe in it? COOL!
If you haven’t noticed this blog is not about what I BELIEVE IN. It’s about facts and reason.
But did you need to be such a neurotic dork about it? What’s the point?
Yeah right, I am the “neurotic dork” but the guys who are taking advantage of men who are not successful with ladies are your heroes? They are taking advantage cause at least some of them (those who mention the theoretical background) know very well seduction contradicts everything evolutionary psychology has revealed so far (read the posts by Piotr if you want more details). And they still charge big bucks for it!
How would you call such behavior?
Btw – this blog is nothing personal! Although, I called PUAs many times con artists, I know part of them honestly believe in those absurd ideas. So that part are not con men. And I am just trying to convince them, to show them the real process behind attraction between men and women.
If you are not interested leave the website, go read some PUA website testimonials.
have fun behind your computer ripping on people who don’t really care, while I’m out getting laid
They DO CARE. Guys like you after realizing how much time and money they wasted in their lives thank me!
Just read the comments.
Ryan,
That is a silly post. The point of this site is to educate and inform men so that they don’t waste their time and money on unsubstantiated PUA bullshit. Further, aside from the educative function there is merit in knowing the truth. Implicit in all human pursuits is the idea that it is generally better to know that to not know. To this extent the purpose of this site is intrinsically good and valuable.
If you look at what Admin has done (and I and others have tried to contribute towards) it is the bearing down of scientific results obtained in social psychology, biological anthropology and evolutionary psychology upon the claims of the PUA industry. There is a vast body of well-replicated results from these disciplines that address the topics of sexual attraction and mate selection but no one (AFAIK other than Admin) is testing the claims of the PUA industry against these high quality findings. After reading piles of papers on this topic I considered starting a website just like this to present what I had found but since Admin beat me to it and did a good job I have decided instead to post here and help develope a critical mass of information that thoroughly destroys the premises upon which the PUA industry is based. If this seems pointless ot “dorky” to you then the problem is yours in that you have no interest in testing your deeply held beliefs against reality, you are uncritical and that is not a virtue.
If you are getting laid then good for you. This site isn’t about discouraging men from getting laid and you have no reason to believe that Admin or any of the content contributors are against getting laid or don’t get laid themselves. Further, that you get laid in and of itself has no evidentiary value in relation to the central premise of the PUA industry that attraction can be created.
I urge you to read the content on this site to gain an understanding of why you are getting laid.
He’s not actually getting laid. Having met and known thousands of PUAs I even know the language-patterns of how different PUAs talk like.
This Ryan guy seems like a newbie who still has AA and is sitting at home trying to gather courage and “belief” so he can finally leave the house and start practicing the PUA crap he believes in.
Here’s the dead give-away, he ended the post with “while I’m out getting laid .” The few PUAs who do get laid (there’s very few) don’t actually talk like this or need to volunteer “oh oh, but I actually get laid! No really, I am, believe me!!!”
I have a fun link for y’all
This is a neat docummentary from a neat series called “brainwashing”. In this episode he tackles sex, and goes talk to some leading evolutionary psychologists.
Here they explain more about the differences in what women look for in one-night-stands, and then in boyfriends, and how it’s massivelly different.
One night-stands => handsome, hot, athletic
Boyfriends => personality, social status etc…
http://vimeo.com/19921928
The password is: hjernevask
Cool video. It’s a good popular primer on evolutionary psychology as it relates to sex, mating and reproduction. He should have also spoken to a neuroscientist who would have explained to him that braina are so sexually dimorphic that they have a sex.
It still surprises and disappints me when I encounter supposedly educated people that believe that human sexuality is a social construction and that gender differences in sexuality are social constructs. The self-procalimed scientist that says there is no biological basis to the identified behavioral differences in men and woman should enter “brain sexual dimorphism” in Pubmed.
Sometimes I do wish I was gay and yes I would be a huge slut if I was homosexual
Here is my PUA related funny (apologies if you already know the site):
http://puacomic.com/category/comic/
My favourite is this one: http://puacomic.com/comic/make-the-hoe-say-no/
– Yes he did shoot a methamphematine-addicted prostitute in the face (he moves amongst high circles, alpha male and all that
)
– Yes he is so “alpha” that he couldn’t overpower a sickly looking girl with a knife and he shot in the face in self-defence, didn’t succeed in killing her (even though that was his intent)
– Yes he does sell a seduction course (“Gunwitch Method”)
– Yes he does look like he lives under a bridge
– Yes he features in Neil Strauss’ book “The Game”
I am stubborn on this one, but I think again it is in line with the self-seeking like theories. I mean the video is about Scandinavian societies.
It is a fact that women in Scandinavia are VERY open-minded. But even in such societies it’s not like a physically attractive male (let’s add high status to it) can have a one night stand with like every single girl who just wants to have some fun. Although some nerds think it works like that when you are a rich stud.
The question remains: why?
Psychologists will point at the feminine tendency of valuing personality, character etc… That can’t explain everything! Someone really believes women actually rate all those things in a club after a 5 min chit chat, also being slightly drunk very often?
Admin,
I have been pondering this over the last few days but am yet to sit down with the papers and read them. However, I remembered Rob Lowes’ interview on the Graham Norton Show which he did to promote his autobiography Stories I Only Tell My Friends: An Autobiography. According to Lowe, at the height of his career and handsomeness — back in the 80s — he knew the producers of MTV and when he saw a girl in a US music video that he liked he would ring up the producers and ask them for the phone number of the girl in the video he took a liking to. In the case of the story he told in the interview it was a dancer in the video. Anyway, the producers would give him the requested phone number after some research and Lowe would just cold-call and ask if they’d like to go out. He says he always got an affirmative answer from the girls and he implied also that he always scored. IIRC he descrbed MTV as his smorgasboard or buffet or some such analogy. I will try and track down the interview, or better, the actual autobiography. I suppose it is possible that he was choosing girls that had some facial features in common with him but my reading of his story was that he was doing this frequently and for an extended period of time i.e. years, so that would seem to make self-seeking like not impossible but less likely.
I am also wondering whether there are sufficient quantities of women that resemeble any one person such that it would be possible for a handsome and/or high social status man to have hundreds or thousands of sexual conquests in his lifetime. I appreciate that such men are few and far between but they do exist. The members of Kiss and Motley Crue — for example — come to mind (with the exception of Tommy Lee these men are about average in appearance but commanded lots of cultural capital and thereby had a high social status). Are groupies actually attracted to these band members or do they just want to be able to say “I fucked X from band Y”? I don’t know much about the psychology of groupies.
I have no strong commitment on this matter either way but am just thinking out loud in the hope that my ruminations stimulate others’ thinking on this.
We all appear to agree that humans mate assortatively and the evidence for assortative mating is quite good. But I am unsure on the precise nature of the assortativity criteria. It appears that humans mate assortatively with respect to adiposity and this has been offered as a partial explanation of the obesity epidemic in the First World ["Assortative mating for obesity"; Speakman et al; 2007; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684200 ]. However, the P(Obesity & Facial Similarity) < P(Obesity) or P(Facial Similarity), i.e. if you are obese then you will be looking for someone else that is obese but that also looks like you. As more like-self criteria are added the smaller the cardinality of the resultant set, rendering a pairing less likely. Could it be that the obese tend to marry other obese people because they have little choice? But even in this case it would mean that facial similarity was not a factor at least in the case of obese individuals.
What do you guys think?
I suppose it is possible that he was choosing girls that had some facial features in common with him but my reading of his story was that he was doing this frequently and for an extended period of time i.e. years, so that would seem to make self-seeking like not impossible but less likely.
That is exactly how I explain it to myself. You continued with this remark:
I am also wondering whether there are sufficient quantities of women that resemeble any one person such that it would be possible for a handsome and/or high social status man to have hundreds or thousands of sexual conquests in his lifetime.
I am very confident it is possible. Facial similarity doesn’t have to be striking. That’s why often people would say those two faces have nothing in common – because they have very different shapes of certain elements. Only when you compare their facial proportions it becomes clear that they “match.”
We should also bear in mind that “matching” genotypes alone do not guarantee success, in particular with choosy attractive young women. Only when you are the “whole package” such Rob Lowe success story is possible.
To address your doubt relating to sufficient quantities of women resembling a given male:
I am not 100% sure, but it seem to me that the SSLT can be linked to the averageness hypothesis described in some papers concerning male facial attractiveness.
I guess not all males have the same amount of possible matches. The more average your face is the more potential matches are there. Rob Lowe has the looks of a classic comic book superhero.
I ve just watched this documentary again:
http://vimeo.com/19921928
The password is: hjernevask
There is a scene where the journalist interviewing the British researcher Anne Campbell concludes their observations about the kind of man women crave for a short-term relationships “that’s a sexy man, that’s a handsome man”, and Campbell finishes the sentence “that’s Brad Pitt.”
If so, my question is: “Why Angelina Jolie chose Brad Pitt for a long-time partner?” (I explain this doubt below)
So they put in one box: beauty and sex appeal. She mentions the “best possible genes for that offspring” in case of casual relationships. My point is that there are no “universal” best possible genes (“Her Type” section).
Otherwise all girls who are considering casual sex would accept offers from the same type of guys. I suppose me and you agree that’s not the way it is. That’s the way media portrays social life. In movies they often show a stud that can have any girl he wants. That’s a myth.
The film says women have one-night stands with facially masculine types as Brad Pitt, but for boyfriends choose males with less manlike facial features (here they pointed at the face of the Norwegian journalist) that are cues of parental investment.
That’s a HUGE simplification. The authors of the documentary confused masculinity with beauty. So on average a Brad Pitt looking like guy would get more one-night stands than the Norwegian journalist, but that’s because of the fineness of facial features not their masculinity.
It’s easy to notice that if that was a general tendency among women, all popular beautiful women would be married to men with rather effeminate faces. Why Angelina Jolie chose Brad Pitt for long-time partner? No effeminate man wanted her??
Lastly, I am not arguing against the main conclusion of the video: yes, women are far less likely to engage in casual sex than men, even today with all the sexual content spread by the media. But the journalists barely scratched the surface. The reality is that women in case of casual relationships are not only more selective than feminists think, they are even more selective than the mainstream evolutionary psychologists think!
The evo-psycher’s explanation is “settling”.
Average women know they can’t have a hyper-attractive man as a long-term partner. They know they can only get one-night-stands with him. This is all subconcious though… There was a BBC docummentary on it, but basically a woman’s desires automatically calibrate to her status within a society or group. They even had some fun experiments to demonstrate it. Women’s taste actually changes as they get fatter/skinnier, and even as they move countires. (by taste I mean how attractive the guy is on the rankings from all the guys within her type, her basic type stays the same).
If she’s medium-rank in terms of “hotness” in that society, she will not be attracted to super-hot guys as a partner. She will desire to bang them for one-night-stands though.
**–> Of course, all these conversations pre-assume the guy is even with her type. We’re only discussing what happens after a guy is within her type, which ones does she choose for a long-short term partner.
Of course, all these conversations pre-assume the guy is even with her type.
That’s my problem with these theories, I have the impression that some researchers don’t consider types at all. They just generalize everything basing their claims on interviews.
I heard the theory that effeminate faces for long-term relationships are preferred only by those less attractive women who are not so sure about their mate value, and therefore don’t want to risk engaging in a relationship with a man whose face lack paternal cues. But my response to this is:
What about the attractive women who chose effeminate men for long-term relationships, we can find such as well….
But doesnt that video lend at least some support for Game?
One of the girls responds not with *its looks* but rather tha a bad boy attitude is what she wants with one night stands, and the narrator says women have always liked the bad boys.
So what gives? This lends some credence to the idea that it is attitude and not just physical appearance that is attractive, and attitude can of course be learned to at least some extent, and by at least some people.
Like I mentioned in some section here, from the feminine perspective facial features are not a very good reason to feel attracted to someone.
It’s almost inappropriate in female world
Women want deeper reasons. Women are reluctant to admit they fell for the guy’s looks, and sometimes they don’t even notice the first visual attraction trigger, cause the guy was on a motorbike for instance, so she also noticed his “bad boy” look right away. Only her subconscious mind told her “these facial features have that something special.” She was only aware of the “bad boy” look she noticed.
Even those shallow ones that only value “looks” , of course they want to say something more significant in an interview than just “I thought his face was cute.”
Also I am not denying attitude’s influence AT ALL. It does matter when you already “connect.”
Unfortunately there is a gap between what people say and what they actually do and this has lead to numerous major marketing disasters. This was realised some time ago by social scientists and evolutionary psychologists and it influenced a shift towards observation based studies in preference to questionnaire driven studies.
All of the observation based studies (which often observe speed dating gatherings) find that looks matter the most in relation to short-term relationships and that social status as well as looks matters in long-term relationships.
It is considered shallow and a sign of lack of character to unemphatically state that you only care about a guys looks. It will also conflict with an idealised self-concept to do so. If you like to think of yourself as sophisticated and well-socialised rather than shallow and superficial you will tend to answer questions with the aid of your idealised ego so you will say stuff like you like a sense of humour, a bad boy, an easy going go and all the usual shit that I’m sure you’ve heard a million times. But when it comes time to actually act that all goes out the window and the choice is largely — if not entirely — based on physical appearance. Then to cope with the cognitive dissonance some ex post facto justification or “intellectual alibi” (to quote Clotaie Rapaille) is formulated: “he was a really nice guy”, “I felt I had a deep connection with him”, “he is such a mysterious character” and all the usual shit which I’m sure you are familiar with. It’s just a charade don’t be fooled by it.
correction: emphatically
(It’s very late here and I am drinking.
)
Errol, you’re mixing and matching realities.
I linked to the video for what the SCIENTISTS say, not what random girls in the video say lol
I don’t think I’ve seen the phrase “badboy” in any research, lol.
@ Alek, Piotr, and admin.
I see what you guys are saying. Its like when gamers say never listen to what a girl says about what she is attracted to. People rarely understand themselves well enough to give clear and correct explanations for why they do things, and are rarely honest enough to do so. I agree with this completely, and thanks for the clarification!
One question to admin – you say attitude DOES matter when a girl is selecting from several male candidates who all match the look she wants. Does this not allow that game might have some degree of utility? For instance, if there are 10 guys in a given club that all have the looks a particular girl wants, she will choose the guy with the best game.
So granted no amount of game will make a girl attracted to you if you dont match her looks preference, but game might give you an edge over other guys who ALSO have a look she likes.
Is that an accurate reading of your position?
When I say game I just mean attitudes that can be developed and maintained. I actually dont think attempts at psycho-social dominance (game) are attractive. I think they make men look insecure and weak. But I do think genuine internal confidence in yourself is attractive, which has nothing to do with dominating others, and is not game. But I just want to establish the key principle that a mans attitude can have SOME role in female mate selection, once her looks criteria are met. Perhaps even a MAJOR role. Which would suggest that SOME kind of *game* (acquired attitude) has utility.
No?
if there are 10 guys in a given club that all have the looks a particular girl wants, she will choose the guy with the best game.
It’s very unlikely 10 girls in a club will match any guy, all the more if you are hitting on the pretty ones. But I see where you are going with this.
What do you call “game”? Correct me if I misunderstood your post, but I see that you define game as: social skills + confidence + sense of humor?
In my opinion the verb “seduce” implies something more than that. I think it’s more about the NLP bullshit Ross Jeffries teaches…
What I am wondering is if attitude and behavior play a role in sexual attraction. In other words if a woman is sexually attracted to a man with particular looks, will confident behavior enhance her purely sexual attraction to him.
OR – is it simply that once a woman is sexually attracted to a man based on looks, she will indulge her other, non-sexual preferences for human company (we probably all enjoy the company of confident, secure people more than insecure ones)
I think you have successfully destroyed the idea that attraction can be created where none existed, but that still leaves open the possibility that attraction can be enhanced through developing and maintaining a specific attitude, or that personality factors play a purely non-sexual role in female mating preferences but nevertheless a major role.
Yes, but in the reverse. It’s not that confidence makes her more attracted.
It’s that insecurity repels her.
It’s like when you meet a hot chick, you want to bang her from the moment you lay your eyes on her, but then you talk to her, and she’s a complete and utter bitch and unbearable company… So that turns you off.
If she’s nice and smiles and is communicative does that make you want to bang her more? No, it just doesn’t repel you.
Works the same with women. Most guys repel women through insecurity or neediness.
Thanks for the response, Alek. So you cannot create attraction, but you can kill it. And the way not to kill it is simply to have normal social skills and normal confidence, not through some super special set of skills or learning how to be dominating or act like an alpha or whatnot. All that psycho-sexual dominance crap is just crap, it does not do one bit to create attraction.
All you need is normal self-esteem and social skills and then you approach girls and you get what you get based on genotype.
Very interesting. Liberating in a way.
The message of this website in a nutshell
It is liberating. You can stop blaming yourself when women are not interested or take it personally. Game says “if you don’t get exactly what you want from every woman you talk to, ITS YOUR fault, you need to ‘get more game’ ” -> but this is nothing more than fear-based marketing.
They say that to keep you addicted to always having to study more and more and more and buy more and more products – not realizing that you probably ALREADY are close to your peak success rate.
If guys knew how small a percentage of women you can get, they wouldn’t stick in the community past the first 2-3 months, coz most guys get pretty close to 10% within months of starting to approach like mad.
It’s easy to get to your peak, just approach a bunch of women, and BAM you have achieved the same success rate as the best in the world.
But, it’s the opposite. Due to their fear-mongering marketing and saying crap like “YOU MUST master traits abcdfgh and xyz OR ELSE you are doomed” -> they scare you into sitting at home and wanting to learn every little detail before you leave the house:
http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-not-always-your-fault.html
Btw, admin, have you checked out lifestylejourney yet? It’s an amazing anti-game site.
This is all very interesting.
I keep on having these experiences where women show heavy interest in me in clubs and bars. They smile at me and sometimes even wave me over. I come over and we have a good interaction for the first few minutes, but somehow I fuck it up. The women were clearly attracted to me from the get-go but it was just as obvious that something I DID , an ACTION of mine, killed that attraction (or at least made her uninterested in ACTING on that attraction, which I am now seeing is the better way of looking at it).
This has been a recurring experience of mine.
The only interactions that go well for me are those where I approach girls on the dance floor and things get sexual real quick, where there is almost no talking or extended social interaction on my part. I also have no problem meeting girls in social circle or through male friends, but it always really bugged me that I am killing it with girls that are obviously attracted to me in bars and clubs – WHAT was I doing? What ACTION was I taking that was messing things up?
I used to think that somehow I messed things up because I had no game, but I am beginning to think I messed things up precisely because I believed in game! In other words, when I approached these obviously interested women I bought into the belief that I could not just be myself, but had to display bad-boy behavior, or be aloof or something, and probably came off as incongruent and weird and made those girls freaked out and unwilling to act on an attraction they obviously felt for me.
I am actually a reasonably confident guy but I always bought into this idea that I had to do something *special* to get women. Being simple and confident was not enough.
But this is an entirely new perspective from which to view and interpret my experiences – and it is hugely liberating!
Thanks guys!
Oh yes very liberating!
but I am beginning to think I messed things up precisely because I believed in game!
All the more if someone tries to use Ross Jeffries style NLP or even “common” neg hits that are recommended by the vast majority of those self proclaimed casanovas. The girl is just gonna be like “what’s wrong with this guy? He is “my type”, but kinda weird…”
EXACTLY!
And women can tell when you’re trying something, that’s what turns them off.
They call it “trying too hard”… Not to go far too deep in why it happens, but in general, if you’re “trying” to make women attracted, it has the counter-effect of making you incoungruent, off and weird.
Liberating and for the want of a better phrase “character building” also. Since attraction is a largely deterministic occurrence it becomes very difficult to take rejection or failure personally. That is to say, there is nothing wrong with you or with her so there is no impetus for misogynistic thought or self-loathing.
It also better focusses your attention and energy and makes more efficient use of it. Rather than wasting time on long courtships or with becoming fixated on a girl you accept that if there is no attraction at time T1 there will still be no attraction at time Tn — regardless of what you do.
Lastly, your agenda for self-improvement becomes smaller, more realistic and more simple. You are focussed on simply not killing attraction.
Errol, I think your intuition about trying too hard is accurate. Any incongruity, discontinuity in conversational flow or affectation has the potential to make the girl think you are up to something no good, that you have some ulterior motive, that you are somehow a threat and this will kill any attraction that is there.
Not killing the attraction can be conceived of as a series of communications. You are trying to communicate the following messages implicitly:
– I am not a threat to your safety or well-being
– You will not regret increasing the level of intimacy (and ultimately having sex) with me
– I will not make you feel guilty or ashamed
– I won’t make you feel worse about yourself
– I will not embarass you in front of your peers and significant others
– Our relationship will end when you want it to end
– My interest in you is motivated by my attraction to you (i.e. I have no ulterior motive)
There may be more messages but that is the core of it I think. I don’t think any of the gimmicks (eg. coin magic, graphology, palmistry) advised by PUA achieve anything towards the communication of these messages. All they say is “I know some party tricks”. This is basic stuff I know, perhaps even obvious but the PUA gurus have complicated and obfuscated what humans have been doing for millenia that the obvious now has to stated.
Lastly forget the Jeffries SS idea of “making” the woman feel good. If she is attracted to you she is already feeling good, she is in a state of heightened physiological arousal and anticipation. Again, all you have to do is simply not kill that.
Good luck and let us know how you go.
admin:
The commenter made an assertion of fact that there were no studies that found a hypnotic state. I proved that fact wrong. This may or may not have implications that, yes indeed, it is possible to use hypnotism to conduct seduction (no skin off my bones, I swore off NLP when I first heard of it as being “darkside” even if it worked). Regardless, your site seems to have an appropriately skeptical and scientific bent and thus one would think that factual argumentation and things that added to that would be welcome.
You’ll note I haven’t expressed an opinion about the claims on this site. I will say that I tend to lean towards your overall viewpoint, however.
See my response above for a more detail.
That is one study, one study from mid-2011 based on one person in the long history of mesmerism and hypnotism. Read the actual paper http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026374. Even the authors conclusion is highly tentative:
There is no substantive body of evidence that indicates that there is such a thing as a hypnotic state. Kallio et al (2011) is the one and only paper than presents anything resembling objective evidence for a hypnotic state. The quorom of evidence suggests there is no such state.
It has absolutely no implicaions on the matter of seduction:
(1) It first has to be demonstrated that a hypnotic state exists.
(2) Next it has to be demonstrated that this state can be elicited in a conversational context.
(3) Then it has to be demonstrated that the hypnotic induction caused the subhject to perform actions that (s)he would otherwise have not done were it not for the suggestions provided by the hypnotist.
Neither (1), (2) nor (3) have been discharged. Kallio et al (2011) represents a modest attempt towards (1) and the authors themselves concede that their results are vestigial whereas you are trying to present them as conclusive.
No, I made no claims of conclusiveness other than to point out that you got your facts wrong by claiming there were no studies that showed the possible existence of a hypnotic state.
I left the conclusion of whether this state was real or not tentative, but if, in the future it was proven yes, it might have implications … note the word “might”.
But the fact is there is now such a study and you can no longer make your very strong claims.
Hey admin, I think you need a “alternative to pickup/game” page.
There’s very good common sense and scientifically backed advice out there.
This is really good:
http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html
(also click advanced flirting guide on top right when done reading, to read part 2)…
Thanks I will take a look at this.
My terminology would be rather: “Pickup Guide”, pickup advisers – guys like Doc Love, Paul Janka (the initial honest version of his stuff)
I wouldn’t use the word “game”
This flirting guide can be helpful as it is a fact that lots of men have problems with reading body language, and in general women have better social skills.
But I believe what most men are looking for is an answer to the question which strategy to adopt? We all non-gamers agree that “dating is a numbers game.” So the key question is where to meet women.?
- Nightlife approaching women spree, clubbing?
- Walking around downtown throwing quick openers Janka style?
- If so, online dating seems a better idea, but it also has its drawbacks we are all aware of.
Well, if you used the flirting guide, you would do all areas, because the principles are the same.
Scientifically backed pickup says (this report says), basically the following:
-> You walk up, you make casual conversation
->>> If the woman is not enthusiastic back away a bit give space, if she becomes (looks) uncomfortable, EJECT
-> If the woman is engaged in the conversation & interaction, you move in a little closer
->>>(if she still excited)…. later you move in even closer…
->>>(if she shows no signs of discomfort) go the next step, brush her arm
->>> if no signs of discomfort, brush again to test waters, if still no signs of discomfort, move in for the kiss.
Simple. Applies roughly the same to all escalation. You can even do this with the same structure as “caveman same-night escalate till you fuck game”, but you won’t be a creep because of the respectful way it’s done. Women don’t mind speed and escalating really fast, they mind not responding to signs of discomfort. Testing every stage before moving up, is perfect and scientifically validated advice, and the report explains how to test and how to escalate.
About locations:
It explains a “locations flirtability score” which is based on whether the location involves socializing, alcohol, common shared interest. The more it has of the 3, the higher the score and more you just go and flirt. The less it has of the 3 element, the lower the score.
The thing it says about locations is simply that certain locations have a higher flirting score (parties, dance class, clubs) and some have a lower score (street, supermarket, etc).
They don’t give a specific advice other than shoot for a higher score though and feel free to just go straight up and flirt in those higher-score locations. See a cute chick, go apply the method I summarized on top.
I do have a better advice for low-score locations – this is what I do personally. In low-score locations I don’t approach unless its a natural approach, simply greet.
Like if I pass a cute chick by the supermarket, I say “hey, how’s it going” and I keep walking. Often, the chick will (if she likes me), go and try to find me later and come to my aisle and stand next to me to get me to re-open her
Then it’s ok, then you just go into flirting.
In these low score locations I think it’s also ok to flirt if you two are in a natural sociable proximity. Like you’re both waiting for the bus (you didn’t specifically go to the bus stop just to talk to her lol). Or if you notice a chick keeps hovering around you.
About 90% of the women I meet today I meet in the store or elevator or university halls or malls, but I never “approach”. I never go walk in the direction of a woman with the intention of “opening her”.
I only open chicks who hover around me. A lot of guys don’t know this, but women are “opening” guys all the time, they just don’t do it verbally. They will follow you from aisle to aisle in the market pretending to coincidentally be looking at the same products you are and always ending up 5 feet to your right, or stuff like that. They will generally do everything possible to give you an excuse to say something to them.
I must say I don’t even have the time to try „day game” as our PUA friends
would say.
But I have the same observations regarding women “opening” guys:
They will follow you from aisle to aisle in the market pretending to coincidentally be looking at the same products you are and always ending up 5 feet to your right, or stuff like that. They will generally do everything possible to give you an excuse to say something to them.
This is an option, but most often everyone is busy. Plus you have to be constantly paying attention to the girls around you. I tend to be thinking about various things during day. So nightlife makes more sense for me. Have you tried online dating?
I don’t. I guess I’m simply at a level of experience/calibration where to me its super apparent. It’s almost like they’re shouting it off a roof-top.
I did a lot of things to make it like this, bu I have no objective evidence which did the trick. I followed a lot of Brent Smith where you spend a lot of time visualizing and affirming stuff like “Everywhere I go, women are hitting on me”… Stuff like that… Visualizing women doing that etc…
Now the general concept IS scientifically validated and part of a Social Psychology textbook. When you get people to a believe certain thing, they automatically perceive a lot more of it. Like your brain literally gets re-tuned to perceive those things.
So the more you believe there’s women everywhere passively opening you, the more you will notice them WITHOUT conscious effort. Just by having that belief (the stronger it is), the more you will automatically and naturally end up noticing all those cases.
This is very interesting and has some merit, but for my personal use I would have to tweak it a bit. Simply because I am uncomfortable adopting a belief as true when it might just as well not be true.
Maybe if I modified it to everywhere I go there could be women hitting on me, or just simply learning to pay attention – I dont know. Something to think about though!
Jake, unless you’re an ugly guy THERE ARE women passively giving you “talk to me” and “approach me” signs everywhere you go. That is a scientific fact.
Obviously “everywhere you go” is a general statement. A general “Everywhere”. Don’t limit your potential by using semantics to kill off potential.
Now that is an interesting point. I suppose I could begin by learning to notice if women really are giving me passive attention in lots of different places and then adopt that as a belief if it turns out to be the case (and point taken about *everywhere* being just a generalization).
But what if I AM an ugly guy?
For such a guy adopting that belief might not reflect reality.
Perhaps we all have to go through the first stage of learning to notice before adopting it as a belief.
Jake you do have a good point, and in fact you reminded me that I left out a huge part. It was gradual. Even Brent Smith recommends you start out with what’s semi-believable.
At first you go with adopting the belief that there are SOME chicks somewhere who are doing this… Then you start noticing these… Start with whichever locations you find it easiest to believe such women exist.
Then when you notice these, then you are ready to start believing it happens more often and install the more frequest belief “most places I go, there’s a woman checking me out of the corner of her eye”… Then you start confirming that in the real world etc… etc…
I like it. I am going to give this a shot
Also, how do people not get jaded doing a ton of approaches and getting rejected? It seems to me there is only so much psychological and emotional fuel a man has, and once that is used up a person can just get demoralized. There are studies that show that a man only so much courage in combat before he needs to be taken out of the front line, and I am sure this applies to every psychologically stressful situation. We only have so much emotional fuel.
Now from what I am getting no man really beats a 3% success rate, which means that out of every 100 random chics only 3 will bite! I dont see how a man will be able to tolerate 97 rejections without getting exhausted and dejected! Now of course a guy can get lucky and find a girl on the 10th or even 1st try, but he can also be unlucky and have to go through 200 rejections before he finds his one. Statistics only means it balances out over the long term.
So there HAS to be some way to take the randomness out of the process – not to eliminate it, but reduce it to the point where a guy will be unlikely to run through his emotional fuel before finding the girl that is into him.
Is it venue selection?
Is it only approaching girls which give heavy indications of interest? I used to do this for a while. I would stand next to some girl I liked in a bar or a club and make attempts to catch her eye – if she repeatedly refused to lock eyes with me I would not approach. This way I had an extremely high success rate after I would approach, but many nights I would go home alone because no girl gave me any indication of interest. Sometimes I would wonder if I should have simply approached even without signs of clear interest and that maybe I was being too passive. So this strategy led to some serious self-doubt – I always felt that maybe I could have gotten all sorts of girls had I approached, but then I think if I got zero signs of interest after making obvious efforts to establish some connection I would be a fool to approach. Adding to the confusion is that I sometimes got some real great girls with random cold approaches, giving me just enough ammunition to believe that it might be a viable strategy. But maybe thats the wrong conclusion to draw.
So maybe a viable strategy is –
1) Careful venue selection, where you get lots of eye contact.
2) Mostly approach only those girls who show clear interest through eye contact and body positioning.
3) Random cold approach only occasionally, and dont rack up too many rejections. After a few rejections from random cold approach, for a while only approach after heavy indications of interest.
What do you guys think????
I have the same question you do Jake
I have some half-answers (i.e. attempts at answering it), but I don’t have an answer myself yet. I wish I knew how some of those “caveman PUA” guys do it… The ones who readily get told to f-off by 120 women and keep pushing on 
My answer (for my personal life) right now is applying the SIRC guide, where you don’t even ever risk embarrassment or direct rejection. You never ever actually escalate without testing.
My summary of the SIRC method:
-> You walk up, you make casual conversation
->>> If the woman is not enthusiastic back away and give her some space
->>> If she becomes (looks) uncomfortable, EJECT and move on
-> If the woman is engaged in the conversation & interaction, you move in a little closer
->>>(if she still excited)…. later you move in even closer…
->>>(if she shows no signs of discomfort) go the next step, brush her arm
->>> if no signs of discomfort, brush again to test waters, if still no signs of discomfort, move in for the kiss.
So you never have to face any “actual” rejection. The most you ever face is “decrease of enthusiasm” when you test if she’s open to an escalation. That’s it. And that’s very bearable and takes absolutely no toll on you mentally, I know, coz I can do this a 100 times a night, whereas I’d feel like crap if I got rejected in a PUA way even 2-3 times.
I wish I knew how some of those “caveman PUA” guys do it… The ones who readily get told to f-off by 120 women and keep pushing on
Easy, just get rid of your rational thinking abilities, and go with the PUA flow
They are totally possessed by PUA ideology. It’s like someone who is in some cult, they interpret everything in accordance with their beliefs. The girl can even go like “F@ck off you creep”, and all he can hear is the word “f@ck”, so she is giving him signs! LOL
It’s three things:
1) Pre-approach
2) Testing
3) Venue
Venue
All else equal, in a salsa class, approaching the exact same type of women the exact same way, you can get as much as 3-4-5 times better success rate than in a night-club coz the “stranger-danger” factor is removed.
Same goes with social circles
Testing
If you test and don’t make moves unless chicks are enthusiastic, and you pre-test before making any move, your odds of rejection go way down, because you only make moves on women who have shown
-> Try to get Random Cold Chick -> 97% rejection rate
-> Try to get random cold chick whom you’ve tested is ok with you leaning-in when you talk and she doesn’t seem to mind -> 50% rejection rate
-> Try to get random cold chick whom you’ve tested is ok with you brushing her arm two three times -> 30% rejection rate
etc… You can never get to zero, but you can make rejection such a low possibility that it never makes you jaded and you have a huge backlog of positive experiences.
Basically, you only talk to women and do things with women about which they’re enthusiastic. Lean-in (she get’s a bit uncomfortable?) lean out, chat a bit more friendly chat, politely eject.
BAM you didn’t get rejected, all you got was a nice friendly conversation in (and a small leaning in test). Seriously, I have no idea why the mind works that way, but non-verbal test-given rejection doesn’t seem to make one jaded, like at all. That’s been my experience at least.
This is testing things before you even approach. This is generally only required for non-social environments like a bus-stop or a supermarket.
You don’t go in ALL IN and walk next to her and start talking, lol, no. You just ask a casual question to the side. Like you don’t even face her or anything. Like standing on the bus-stop and make a comment like “heh, buses sure are light today”.
You don’t eve face her. Just say it casually. That’s a “pre-approach”. If she only responds in one sentence without too much enthusiasm, she’s either shy or she’s not interested.
Point is, you didn’t get rejected, and you didn’t have to approach.
Same in other venues. Just smile and say hi to women. That’s like a pre-approach, coz you don’t even stop. You just let them know you’re a friendly guy. If SHE ups the ante and comes close to you, or is enthusiastic about your hi’s that’s awesome.
Like the gym is a perfect place. Coz in the gym if you just go hit on a chick, it runs the risk of being real-hardcore-rejection, the kinds that make you jaded.
If you however just say hi and move on any time you guys cross paths – if SHE is interested, she’ll track you down, like picking the bike next to you, or stuff like that. She’ll create the situation for natural flirting.
Alek, that is a fantastic system, and thanks for breaking it down into such detail! Its interesting how it is almost the opposite of PUA *dominance* crap and involves respectfully and intelligently interacting with the girl and responding to her signals, rather than trying to dominate the interaction like a true alpha male lol
The irony is that even the few PUAs who do get results apply this method subconsciously.
Like online they talk a big macho game, but in real life, they actually are closer to this thing. I.E they test subconsciously and subconsciously know when to eject.
They however have an additional layer of conscious rationalizations to mask it.
I have always thought that the few people who dont get damaged by game are those who unconsciously filter out most of its message and fail to act it out in reality even while paying lip service to it. These people are firmly convinced they are doing game and defend it in principle – but if you observe their actual behavior, they are just normal people.
I think there are some people who have an instinctive knack for filtering out things that dont work while their conscious minds are convinced they are really doing something completely different.
I wonder how many ardent game-defenders who swear it works fall into this category. I suspect more than a few.
The guys who get fucked up – but also who eventually see through game – are those who take it literally at its word. In other words they really practice what game preaches. If you do that, you cant help but see that game is bullshit.
The problem is that for those who guys who believe in game but instinctively dont practice it to then run around promoting game means that the honest guys who will really do game will get seriously messed up.
The guys who get fucked up – but also who eventually see through game – are those who take it literally at its word. In other words they really practice what game preaches. If you do that, you cant help but see that game is bullshit.
I have to confess that years ago I really did give game a try. Like you noticed, that’s why I realized very soon how insane this idea is. Of course reading books and studies also opened by my eyes…
I think we all did admin
Thats why we are uniquely well positioned to see that it is bullshit.
The same respect for science and facts that most of us on this site have is probably what made us take game literally and actually put it into practice, which made us see that it is bullshit.
But guys with fuzzy thinking who dont demand great clarity in what they think and believe – I can see these kinds of guys going for years believing game is real without really doing it in any meaningful way. It is the honest guys who need clarity that get hurt
YES!! It’s an irony, as a few of you pointed out, but it’s those of us who applied it the hardest who are the most against it.
Hey Alek,
Your step by step non-gamer opening guide is something this site lacks. So, can I create a separate section with it? If yes, what would you like me to include in it apart from your name?
Well, it’s not actually mine so please don’t credit me, that would be a false statement, as if I invented social psychology or evo-psych
All I did was retell what they say in every scientifically based flirting guide I’ve ever seen. You can write your own trying to summarize the stuff in the SIRC guide, or maybe a book like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Sex-Signals-Pickup-Guide/dp/0806527935/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324314155&sr=8-1
I suspected that you are not the first one to come up with this
But I liked the way you briefly summarized it… so I am going to steal it lol
I just got on kindle “the flirting bible” by fran green. About 1/3 through it (it’s and easy, bite-sized, picture filled bullet-pointed read).
I’m impressed so far. It’s a good flirting guide. In fact, it’s amazing. Sigh, if we had read this kinda crap back when we were 17 or something instead of game crap lol
One of the things that brought me closer to understand just how crappy most game crap is – was when an older ex-gamer said something like “the truth is, mainstream 7$ books on self-help or dating are far superior than any community course”.
And boy was he right. The community guys aren’t just wrong, the’re fucking amateurs as well.
I agree, I think Alek did an exceptionally fine job at extracting the essential points of the SIRC guide and made it more intelligible and easy to digest.
I read the SIRC guide but I got more from Aleks rendering, which shaves away a lot of the excess, and I think lots of guys who wont really be motivated to wade through the SIRC guide will benefit from Aleks version.
Admin, maybe you can create a new section and credit both Alek AND the SIRC guide! As in *Aleks guide BASED ON the SIRC guide* or something like that.
Good idea Jake. New section for 2012
>So there HAS to be some way to take the randomness out of the process – not >to eliminate it, but reduce it to the point where a guy will be unlikely to run >through his emotional fuel before finding the girl that is into him.
I believe the phenomenon you are describing is demoralization [Clarke & Kissane; "Demoralization: its phenomenology and importance"; 2002; PMID 12406115][Wellen; 2010; "Differentiation between demoralization, grief, and anhedonic depression"; PMID 20425285]. Demoralization has a much more pathological counterpart, viz. Demoralization Syndrome and this often occurs in the context of palliative care but I (generally) don’t think it is relevant to finding sexual partners, though I do vaguely recall the case relayed in Strauss’ book The Game where one guy that was living in the house committed suicide as an apparent consequence of repeated failures.
It appears that men have their own threshold for when demoralization occurs that’s why some can keep getting rejections and just keep going. My only recommendation for avoiding demoralization is to only pursue those girls that exhibit at least some interest. One of the best methods of gauging initial interest is gazes from the girl.
I am basically using your 3 step formula in clubs. When there are no girls around giving clear signs of interest I approach casually just to exchange a few words (your point 3). In most cases without a clear sign of interest you will not close. But at least you won’t spend the night sweeping drinks alone or with your buddies only…
So there HAS to be some way to take the randomness out of the process – not to eliminate it, but reduce it to the point where a guy will be unlikely to run through his emotional fuel before finding the girl that is into him.
I was thinking about it one day, and came to the conclusion that someday people will solve this problem. Imagine combining online dating with “day game”, like a match app in a cell phone that automatically detects other cell phones with this app around
I heard they are working on a similar project – “blue dating”
What you guys think about the idea?
Eye contact, if a woman holds eye contact there is a sign of interest.
Smile: When you smile at her and she smiles back in that brief moment when you make eye contact, it is another sign of interest.
Eyebrow Flashing: When you flash your eyebrows (raise them quickly as a sign of recognition), and you get a response, whether broader smile, a returning flash, then she is open to you.
Her eyes: If she looks you up and down see her searching for other things she finds attractive about you.
These four signs occur in a matter of seconds and if you get all four, you can be pretty certain that you’ve fulfilled unconscious needs that she finds attractive.
This is based on pure psychology.
When communicating with her, if she points her feet in your direction, it’s a sign of attraction. Where the feet point the heart is?
If pupils dilate it shows a sign of want.
Touching, if she becomes physically playful, it is a sign of attraction.
This being said, you still have to have the ability to seduce the woman. Attraction and seduction are two different things. Whether the PUA’s sell a lie that you can create attraction in any female, most men have a hard time noticing the signs of attraction and the only thing we really know about attraction is that nobody knows who they’re attracted to until they are attracted to that person, which is to say. If you don’t know you’re her type or not, you ought to try and approach her in a welcoming and friendly way that will not offend or turn her off. The most sociable people will have their pick of women because he is in the presence of the women they feel comfortable with him and those who have a modicum of attraction to him
If you don’t know you’re her type or not, you ought to try and approach her in a welcoming and friendly way that will not offend or turn her off.
Yes, I agree but why do you call it “seduction”?? Furthermore, if you think seduction is possible: prove it. I am repeating this like a million times and I will keep repeating it, you cannot just assume smth exists.
Also look at the ending of my answer to OG, cause I guess both of you share more or less the same philosophy.
My definition of seduction can be proven. My definition of seduction is “the enticement through persuasion to act in a way that may or may not be in a person’s best interest.” This is a dictionary definition. Your definition of attraction is impossible, “the creation of attraction through actions.” Now, you claim that PUA’s teach that you can create attraction, and they do teach that. However, they do not by and large call that seduction. The Mystery Method model had attraction and seduction in two different areas. Attraction was the opening game, seduction was the close. Speed Seduction had the lower guard and captitvate attention phase (it can be pretty certain a woman who gives you her full attention when you’ve stopped her randomly and started talking has some interest in you), and then begin to create a reality for her where you and her could be together, and then increase the arousal state to seduce her into bed (again seduction is the end game, attraction the beginning). David X Rules state that you go up to a woman and state your attentions clearly, if she likes you, she likes you, if she doesn’t she doesn’t (fat women, beautiful women, ugly women, skinny women) treate them all the same (his is a numbers game where women decide if they like you by your presence and your seduction is that you’re no nonsense approach to wanting what you want–the belief this will lead them to conclude that you can give them pleasure). Zan Perrion talks about the Hover effect, within the first few minutes of meeting a man a woman will either have the hover effect the thought that she could have you on top of her, or she won’t (in his belief women will either be attracted to you or not). But talk to all women, because a man who loves women will be loved by women, and if one is not attracted to you, but likes you, she’ll introduce you to her friends, for whom could be attracted to you.
Though many PUA’s teach the concept of building attraction, they do it seperately from seduction. Seduction for them is what occurs once attraction is confirmed.
So you’re right, all the techniques used to build attraction are bullshit, she could’ve been attracted to him before–however the skills they use to get one night stands are likely legit (they’re not what I do and I haven’t tried them, but I’ve read through a lot of them and I think they’re accurate). Just because she’s attracted to me doesn’t mean she’ll want to sleep with me on the first night we meet, seduction can get her to override her resistance to a one night stand, to a first date lay, or any of these things. Seduction is the process of enticement to act, to creating arousal of the senses (now arousal can be created and it can be created completely subconsciously). Seduction is about finding those buttons to push that would suspend her critical factors and have her act on her most base desires because she’ll anticipate a great deal of pleasure. Psychology Today reported a finding by psychologist Terri Connoly that men and women both enjoy the physical pleasure of sex, men anticipate casual sex to be pleasurable, while many women do not. Women are likely to engage in casual sex when they have a high anticipation of pleasure from the experience.
Thus, for sexual seduction, the goal would be to take a woman who is attracted to you and get her to conclude that she would have a great deal of pleasure by having sex with you.
This is no different than getting a customer to conclude that he would find more pleasure in buying the 10K car then he would in the 5K car. No more different than a con man who plays on a woman’s sympathy to give him money for a sick or dying relative without ever asking for the money (having her conclude that he needs it and thus offers it up to make her feel pleasure at being a good person). These in my opinion and by dictionary definition would be seduction. Everyone needs to eat, but one grocery store advertises a special to seduce people away from other stores to the store where they feel like they can get more. No different than the man who talks a married women into an affair with the belief that he can give her more pleasure and connection.
In the end, we could go back and forth, however, I think we both see that what we’re arguing about is definition. You’re attacking the false advertising of PUA’s, and I’m focused on the literal definition of Seduction, which has always been the end game.
I am happy that you at least disagree with the broad understanding of seduction – the crap PUAs teach about building attraction.
let me reply in short:
But since you posted this essay about seduction
My definition of seduction can be proven.
All the more! Have you ever wondered why no one tried to verify the concept of seduction in the strict sense (after dropping all the PUA bullshit).
Just take to groups of similar guys, and compare their success rates!
Thus, for sexual seduction, the goal would be to take a woman who is attracted to you and get her to conclude that she would have a great deal of pleasure by having sex with you.
Great, again that’s just a theory.
This is no different than getting a customer to conclude that he would find more pleasure in buying the 10K car then he would in the 5K car.
Again, why do you need analogies? You began your post by saying “it can be proven”! Have you heard the saying the if it does not exist in the Internet, it does not exist at all? Not even one study confirming the effectiveness of persuasion techniques against regular pick up strategies, why??
I want to bring a recent paper to the attention of the forum that corroborates one of the central messages of this site: Ha et al (2011) “Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women” [Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21979410; Paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0q0p2p74r61u134/fulltext.html
The study commenced with a self-report of partner preference ratings. Then the study measured "dating desire" (it didn't specify interest as a short- or long-term partner, it left that matter open) using hypothetical vignettes and photographs (that were pre-rated for degree of attractiveness). I quote:
"The experimental results extended the self-reports by showing that the role of sexual orientation was relatively small compared to the effects of attractiveness on dating desire. In addition, status played a significant but small role in dating desire for all four groups [heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, homosexual women]. These results were in line with the findings of previous studies that have shown that attractiveness of a potential partner is pivotal for both homosexual and heterosexual men and women (Child et al., 1996; Gonzales & Meyer, 1993; Heffernan, 1999; Smith & Stillman, 2002)…Moreover, gender-specific explanations for the importance of attractiveness are less plausible. For example, the preference for attractive mates is not merely a result of the mass medias’ emphasis on female beauty as attractiveness of a potential partner is not only valued by heterosexual men and lesbians but also by homosexual men and heterosexual women (Bailey et al., 1994). The present findings support the universal importance of attractiveness for partner preferences (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Ha et al., 2010; Khallad, 2009; Shackelford et al., 2005; Van Straaten et al., 2008) and provide evidence for the constructive features of attractiveness, that is, that attractive partners are favored over less attractive partners. ”
So here we have yet another paper which demonstrates the primary importance of physical attractiveness, specicifally facial atrractiveness, in mate selection. Furthermore, it demonstrates a consistency across both sexes and both sexual orientations.
In order to make your efforts more productive, you can do several things. The first would be to assess the location’s openness to approaching or meeting random people. Just as an example.
-> Streets, parks, malls – have a low approachability rating
-> Clubs, bookstores, pubs – have a medium approachability rating
-> Social circles, private parties, hobby groups – have a high approachability rating
*-Note, clubs and pubs themselves differ. Some clubs & pubs have a high-approachability ratio, like rock, goth, happy hour places where they literally have an atmosphere like a private party and anyone can talk to anyone. Some ultra fancy clubs have a very tense atmosphere where nobody approaches anyone to just chat, so they are the equivalent of approaching on the street.
Note: Never ever, ever, ever, ever hit on a woman on approach, in any venue, no matter what you’re guessing
In other words, you should only approach to socialize, no matter what the approachability rating. That is the same in all contexts. On the “opener” your only goal is “being social”, no matter how approachable the venue is. So I’m actually distinguishing approaching from “hitting on” women.
The thing that the approachability rating of the place tells you is only how quickly and directly to approach
-> If it’s a high-approachability venue, don’t even think. Just go approach everyone and anyone and introduce yourself to all people. Just be social.
-> If it’s a medium approachability context, like say an average club… there’s multiple strategies, I’ll name a, b, c and d
-a–> First try to steal a few glances from the woman you’re eye-ing. Don’t stare, just throw a glance every few minutes. If it seems she might be glancing back, increase the duration and frequency of the glances to make sure it’s not coincidental. If it seems it might be for you, then go ahead put on a huge shit-eating-grin and make a full on approach. NOT “go hit on her”. Just make a full approach as in go straight toward her and introduce yourself. The returned glancing doesn’t mean she’s interested. It just means you have a high-chance you won’t be outright rejected. It means a social approach is fine.
-b–> If you are with friends, and she is with friends, approaching as a group of guys, approaching a group of girls is fine. In this case you don’t even need to do pre-testing, because no one woman feels she is being targeted by any one guy. As a group of guys, you can approach them in a sort of “just being social and meeting people” frame. Not one of you targets any one woman, you as a group are greeting the other group
-c–> If she’s already within hearing distance, you can “pre-approach”. For example, let’s say she’s in the group standing next to your group. You can casually lean over and make a remark, and immediatelly lean back to your group and face your friends again. Don’t even wait for a response. You just throw a quick witty response about something, and that’s it. It has to be completely non-committal, with no expectations of anything. You’re just making a remark out-loud, don’t even wait for a response and turn back towards your group. What will happen is that if she has any interest to be approached, she now knows about you. If there’s ANY chance, she will now try to make it known that it’s ok for you to do a full-approach. She will smile and stare, or she will keep glancing back hoping that you re-engage her (etc. etc)… Bam, it’s ok to approach.
-d–> If she’s not within hearing distance of you, and you never managed to get back any glances from afar, this doesn’t have to mean no interest, she might have simply not noticed you existing yet. In that case, if you’re REALLY, REALLY, REALLY interested to make sure, then it’s fine to “pre-approach” or “semi-approach” as a way of testing if a full-approach would be ok.
–d1—> For example walking towards the bathroom, pass by her, look at her and throw out a remark or “hey hi, how’s it going” or comment something like “nice earrings” or whatever. YOU DO NOT STOP. You don’t even wait to see what her reaction is. That would be a semi-approach. If there’s ANY interest from her, you will notice her trying to find you later on and scanning the room for you and glancing back at you. You can now do a full approach.
–d2—> Or you can do what chicks do. Go and hover near her group and glance from time to time. Chicks have been doing this for centuries, and yes, dude, it’s ok for men to do it. So if you need a distinction to not feel like a chick, the difference is you’re assessing approachability, not trying to get an approach out of her.
-> If it’s a low approachability context, like a street or a mall, never do full approaches, only pre-approach or semi-approach or do glance-stealing.
(example) If it’s a bus-stop, don’t go fully walk up to her and face her, just throw a remark off to the side, over your shoulder. If she gives a one-word answer, she might be non-interested, she might be shy, who the fuck cares, she doesn’t get or deserve anything more. You did your test. If she responds enthusiastically however, you can turn it into a full-blown conversation (approach).
(example) If you’re walking through a market or a mall OPEN YOUR EYES, women are always hovering around guys they’re interested in. If some chick always seems to end up looking at the same shelves you are, there’s a high-probability she’s hovering to be opened. So just throw a contextual remark to the side. If she responds well, turn into full conversation, if not move on.
(example) [in a store/mall/park] If you’re both moving, when you pass by her just go “hey, what’s up” and keep moving, and DONT STOP. If there’s anything there, she’ll track you down and try to hover around you later or keep trying to catch your glance. This means it’s ok to do a full on approach (as in social approach and introduction, not hitting on her).
(example) [in a store/mall/park] You keep glancing in her direction, if the glances are returned, smile and wave. If it tests ok, proceed.
What about after the approach?
Remember, all the instructions until now say to only approach from a very social frame, almost as if you’re at a neighborhood party and you’re introducing yourself to the new neighbors. It has to have exactly 0% sexual tension on the opening. So how do you then go from the social, socializing approach all the way to sex? You test, test, escalate, test, test, escalate.
The trick here is that from my personal experimentation, women don’t mind speed if you test. Seriously, you can attempt to makeout or even further in minutes with most women, as long as all the pre-requisite tests have been done, it’s fine. I used to (and a lot of guys still do) think that women hate guys going too fast. It’s not the speed per-se, it’s the moving on without a signal. You can test and do it pretty fast though. Specifically, the entire roadmap would look like this
-1> You walk up, you make casual conversation
->>> If the woman is not super enthusiastic about you introducing yourself, back away a bit physically and give some space, because it might just be shyness. If she becomes (or looks) uncomfortable, EJECT! Immediately. Don’t even give her a chance to reject.
-2> If the woman is engaged in the conversation & interaction, you lean in a little closer and decrease the physical distance
–>++> (if she still excited and enthusiastic about the conversation despite decreasing distance)…. later you move in even closer…
–>—-> (if she seems to get uncomfortable on you getting closer)… back off to previous distance and see if you can regain enthusiastic mode you had before test. If you can have enthusiastic conversation for a few minutes, it’s ok to try another leaning in test again. If she never regains enthusiasm after the test and is actually uncomfortable even despite backing-off, eject completely, and politely
-3> (keep doing distance decreasing tests until you’re within girlfriend-boyfriend space) if she’s still excited past several distance changes, go the next step, brush her arm fleetingly
-4> if no signs of discomfort, brush arm again to test waters, if still no signs of discomfort, move in for the kiss.
The way this strategy works at maximizing productivity and reducing rejection is that…
…you look for signs of discomfort. You never even make a move if any discomfort is present. Just to make sure, you test everything 2-3 times (2-3 fleeting arm touches without discomfort etc…)
In order to give the shy chicks a chance, you don’t eject immediately on slight signs of discomfort. Remember, we don’t even test unless the chick is enthusiastic. So when I say “slight discomfort” I only mean that a super-enthusiastic conversationalist got a little less comfortable when you brushed their arm. I’m not talking about someone being cold from the moment you said hello. You don’t even test those further. You only test for the next stage when they’re fully enthusiastic about the current stage.
So, if they reacted uncomfortable to a test like leaning in a bit, or brushing their arm, you first just back-off for a bit, and then test a second time a bit later. The first failure might have her been shy and not ready the first time around.
So with all the things I listed as pre-requisites to approaching… and then the road-map to escalation, you massively decrease the odds of rejection.
p.s.
I take no credit for this guide. I simply retold the SIRC guide and other mainstream books I’ve seen on flirting that are based on studies about what works in natural pickup and hookups.I simply made it less academese, and plain-language. I don’t have a single original idea in here. A great book on this is The Flirting Bible: Your Ultimate Photo Guide to Reading Body Language, Getting Noticed, and Meeting More People Than You Ever Thought Possible
p.p.s.
You can eventually reach a point where you can just approach anyone and everyone in a medium-approachability context the same way you do at high-approachability venues. However, unless you’re at Brent Smith’s level, this will most likely result in a lot of brush offs and rejections. So until you’re at that point, it’s a good idea to get a lot of experience and calibration using the strategies I recommend in the “medium approachability” section above. When you’re ready to treat it just like a high-approachability venue, the transition will come naturally and spontaneously. Eventually you’ll be able to just approach everyone and anyone in both medium and high-approachability situations with no rejection. That is eventually you’ll have the exact same responses at clubs that you have approaching at a private party… but that moment of evolution will come naturally. Until then for “medium approachability” venues, use the tactics in the appropriate section.
This long comment above was me reworking the summary of SIRC-type guides into a more complete and thorough guide.
Thanks!
New section “Approach Guide” under tab “Reality Check” is ready. How do you like it?
Thanks a lot for that Alek, I have already been experimenting a bit with these techniques and seeing good results over the past weekend!
Some thoughts…..
It is an amazing paradigm shift from needing to *create attraction* to simply learning to become socially calibrated. Its a completely different way of being *effective* than the way PUAs think of the term *effective*. You become effective at something completely different – managing your time wisely and learning to invest only in girls that are likely to yield results. In other words you become effective at working with the reality you are presented with, over which you have no control, rather than become *effective* at creating something that did not already exist.
In a way it is a far less ambitious goal about which no grandiose claims of personal power and super-human skills can be made, so it lacks appeal to emotionally underdeveloped men who still live on dreams of grandeur and glory, but if you are willing to accept the realism involved here you can become powerfully effective in a very realistic way.
I expect I will get even more calibrated and calm as I continue along this path! Once again, thanks!
But its even more, really. You become effective at navigating the signals women send you instead of seeking to create those signals in the first place.
I just think this is an amazing paradigm shift and one that can be so crucial for men to understand and adopt!
By the way, I also think this bit from Piotr is pretty good and might merit inclusion in any guide. I find the consistent emphasis on removing any sense of threat or shame a particularly useful corrective to the game idea that you have to be “tough” and “dangerous” and “haughty/mocking/arrogant”.
The past few days I have been going out thinking”be social, don’t be an asshole or mean”and I am getting much more positive attention from girls – I suppose I am putting out a much more relaxed, non-threatening, and fun-loving vibe. It is amazing how well girls respond to simple sociability and friendliness, like normal human beings!
Boy, really interesting stuff here. Some really well-thought out ideas and intriguing debates. I’m not a social scientist myself but it occurs to me that I’ve often found myself honestly attracted to a woman I might not otherwise have found attractive (or even noticed) merely because she smiled at me. Is that ‘creating’ attraction in a way?
George, the mind sometimes tricks us. You may have not noticed the initial spark of attraction. Scientific studies are unequivocal on this one (for instance “Her Type” section).
Hey guys, wanna see something funny? Gamers are now saying that I’m really running thousands of fake identities. Adming, I’m probably you, and you don’t even know it
http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/im-no-longer-the-roissysphere-gamers-devil/
It’s pathetic the lengths to which gamers have to go preserve belief in their cult. They have to believe there can’t possibly be ex-gamers who don’t believe in game, so they keep coming up with these delusional theories to convince themselves that their cult can’t possibly have massive opposition of ex-gamers
lol
Sure we are one person …. I even once said here that you read my mind LOL
Sure, I feel the same way whenever new anti-gamers pop-up, I read their comments and I’m like “I could have written that”. It has to do with the fact that most of us woke up the same way. From my more-than-a-decade of experience with this crap, I know the pattern. About 99% of guys follow the same pattern from entering the cult, to how they leave it. Heck, I could draw a chart-map.
You know, I can get how gamers can rationalize away you, me, piotr, jake (etc) by saying we’re some random lunatic pretending to be 5 people coz he’s pissed off that his dog girlfriend got snatched by a PUA (or whatever).
How do they rationalize away the SEVEN THOUSAND AND A HALF people over at puahate.com? lol And I read the comments over there and I’m like “crap, that’s me writing that”… Well not everything, but most ex-gamers tend to end up coming to the same conclusions, because while there are 3243 game schools, there’s just one truth.
@Admin- First things first, you have not offered one shred of evidence that seduction does not exist. Does a person need a recipe to bake cookies? Of course not, but how many times will it take for the cookies to taste right? Seduction def-To induce to engage in sex. 2.To win over; attract. If you cannot see this in everyday life then you sir, have a vision problem. Call it what you want, people are hooking up. The seduction community teaches men, how to become better men, in order to ATTRACT women more easily. What is your problem with that? If you are saying there is no recipe for attraction, then I suggest you get out and talk with more people. The seduction community is about improved grooming, speech, confidence, self esteem, personality, and overall lifestyle. The things that create attraction!! But you know this because you were a big part of the community. Hate the word seduction if you want. Hate the word attraction if you want. People can become more attractive to better attract!!! Simple as that.
Oh God, I don’t even know where to begin with… but here it goes:
1. First things first, you have not offered one shred of evidence that seduction does not exist.
Why should I ?? Don’t you think that it is the person who came up with some theory who should PROVE IT? I repeat it like a million times on this website that I cannot be called to prove the negative, put that in your head dear Ryan!
And although it is not my job, I DID prove it. How on earth can you combine the results of studies quoted in section “Her Type” or “Genes and Personality Types” with the absurd claims of the PUAS??
2. Call it what you want, people are hooking up.
That’s exactly the problem you seem not to understand or ignore on purpose – yes, people are hooking up, but YOU CANNOT RATIONALLY CALL IT SEDUCTION. It’s just human mating at work. Something that is about genotypes not social skills (social skills matter only after you find a “compatible female”). Not to mention that “seduction” is in theory much more than social skills. Read any studies about human mating, you know usually PDF files, instead of reading PUA website testimonials or watching YouTube fake street pick-ups or similar PSEUDO-scientific bullshit.
3- The seduction community teaches men, how to become better men, in order to ATTRACT women more easily. What is your problem with that?
My problem is that it IS A BIG F@CKING LIE. The seduction community is taking advantage of men, not teaching them anything! How the hell can you tell that they teach “men to become better men”?? How did you verify that? Because they say so on their websites? How about some evidence genius? How about at least one scientific test that I describe under section “A Job For the MythBusters”?? Is it really so hard to run such study on a representative sample?
Use the tiny peanut that you have in the place of your brain and ask yourself the question, why after all these years and all the money involved in this seduction thing no one managed to prove it??
4. The seduction community is about improved grooming, speech, confidence, self esteem, personality, and overall lifestyle.
You just copy-pasted this slogan from some PUA website didn’t you?
5. Hate the word seduction if you want. Hate the word attraction if you want.
STRAW MAN! section “Logical fallacies”
6. Lastly, I have the impression that (as most PUA fans who visit this website) you didn’t read even one entire section of this website.
Lol, you’re starting to sound more and more like me admin. But it’s expected. The more one deals with these fruitcakes, the more one loses his patience.
It’s like arguing physics with 5 year old retarded children. You just want to grab them by the throat and be like “LOOK YOU FUCK 2+2 = 4, which part do you not get!?!?!?”.
The more you try to rationally untangle the mess they’re in, the more frustrated you become with realizing just how much of a cult they are… Logic, reason and evidence is just well “banned” in their midst.
Another evidence that we are the same person LOL
When I started this website I tried to be nice… now I am just fed up with repeating over and over the same basic stuff.
psy·chol·o·gy
1.the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2.the science of human and animal behavior.
3.the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity: the psychology of a soldier;
4.mental ploys or strategy: He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance.
I’m not a PUA. I don’t subscribe to that label because it doesn’t fit me and the ways
I go about meeting and sleeping with women.
With that being said, how does PUA philosophy not fall under one of these definitions
of psychology? As a hypnotherapist, I’ve talked in depth with how language can affect
our moods and thought patterns. I never got into the “seduction” aspect of it, but these
things do work. Subliminal communication is very real. I’m not talking about flashing a
picture of a box of popcorn every 100th frame in a movie to get you to go to the snack bar
(although you may begin to think about popcorn) or putting a whisper track on an audio
recording to “brain wash” someone.
Our subconscious is able to pick up on things that we aren’t able to consciously, or don’t
consciously recognize right away (ie dilated pupils, reddening of her cheeks, engorged lips).
Body language is a form of subliminal communication. So are metaphors.
I’ve gone at length when talking with women using very deep metaphorical stories.
Next thing I know she’s leaning forward in her seat, blushing slightly, and has her legs
pressed tightly together. It’s the female version of hiding a boner.
And then you notice her respiration rate has increased slightly.
She is becoming turned on because, subconsciously, she is understanding what I’m talking
about. Sex.
I’m an average guy. I’m overweight, balding, and live in a suburban apartment with a
room mate. My car isn’t flashy, my income is a little over the poverty line, and I don’t wear
the latest trends in clothing. But my sex life is just fine.
Why? Just like a pickup artist, I employ certain psychological tactics to get women sexually
aroused. Unlike most pickup artists, however, I am getting laid while they’re getting phone
numbers and trying to finagle a double espresso out of her. While a PUA is trying to get her
to agree to a “day 3″, I’m introducing her into the world of sexual ecstasy and creating a
profound connection with her emotionally and physically.
What you’re failing to recognize, though, is that attraction and sexual arousal are two
completely different aspects to this game we play. And that game is called life.
A woman does not need to find a man attractive in order to have sex with him. She just
needs to find him sexually arousing. There’s a difference.
But for men, however, we need to be attracted to a woman in order to be sexually aroused
by her.
A woman can become attracted to a man after she’s slept with him.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who matter who put the work in.
It’s all manipulation to one degree or another unless your approach is “hey, wanna fuck?”
OG
Correction to the above post.
As a hypnotherapist, I’ve talked at length with psychiatrists and psychologists about how words and language patterns can affect our moods and thought patterns.
OG
I can’t agree more OG, finally someone makes the point that attraction is not always necessary for sex. Sometimes plain ole arousal will do the job just fine. We are creatures of pleasure. A recent article in Psychology Today suggested that women will participate in casual sex when they anticipate pleasure.
Actually it is.
Any evidence that a woman will have sex where 000000000000000000% attraction exists? All you did was give examples where women had sex with a man they had less attraction then they would ussually need.
There’s no evidence that attraction is ZERO. Fuck, one of the examples was
I’ve analyzed and debated that study with several people on a completely different subject btw…
It was only explaining why women DONT have sex. The point of those authors was to explain why women have less sex even IF they are attracted. It talks about how a woman will not anticipate pleasure EVEN IF she’s physically attracted to a guy if she believes it’s not-pleasurable… Which in short is nothing but a technique nature evolved to prevent women from having sex with men too soon (before they’ve tested them).
Nowhere in the study does it say or even imply or even start implying that a woman could possibly anticipate pleasure toward a man who she feels NO physical attraction to whatsover.
A man’s voice is a trigger of attraction for a woman (scientifically proven, the lower the voice, more attraction). A man’s smell is a trigger of attraction for a woman. Height is something women are attracted to. There are hundreds of criteria that women can link attraction to. Muscles are something women are genetically predisposed to be attracted to. What if she has 1% attraction? The question then is, if attraction can be killed, which we’re all in agreement in can be, correct–a guy can blow it with a woman–can he increase the level of attraction she feels to him. All of psychology says yes. Exposure effect. Touch. Similarities. Humor. Attention. All of these things increase a woman’s attraction to a man.
Everyone agrees that there are a vast amount of different women, and that different things attract them. Some women like fat guys, some women like skinny guys, some women exclusively date black guys, some women exclusively date white guys, Asians, Hispanics, others like men that have scars, others like burly men, others like hairless men, women like all different types. It can’t really be just the face, I wouldn’t be born, my mother’s a white Italian raised up north, my father is a Black American raised down south. Different races. Different bone structure. You can tell a black man from his skull. If it was completely the genotyping of the face, my parents wouldn’t get together, or be together still. Lyle Lovett and Julia Roberts wouldn’t have been together.
There are hundreds of variables, saying that a woman’s mood cannot be changed, or that by making her sexually aroused, she won’t look for a single thing of attraction to say, hey, for the night, pleasure is pleasure. People act out and do far worse on whims.
Different races. Different bone structure.
BULLSHIT!
Read section “Her Type” first! before commenting you wise ass. I stated expressly why different races CAN have similar bone structure!
In section “Her Type” there is even as an example the photo of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Can’t you see the striking similarity of their bone structure???
This is confirmed by SCIENCE. Our bone structure depends to a significant extend on sex hormones. So for instance a white guy affected in the womb by a massive amount of testosterone will have a face more similar to a black guy also affected by a great dose of testosterone than to another white guy with low testosterone. Of course comparing men to women is more complicated, cause in this case a very masculine face will in general look similar to a very feminine face – example: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or Seal and Heidi Klum if you want interracial couples (although this last couple is not as feminine/masculine as Brad and Angelina)
The above are just similarities relating to masculinity/femininity. But there are others like: proportions or shapes of particular elements of the face. Again Heidi Klum and Seal serve as a great example.
Dude, if you’re gonna fucking write an essay, at LEAST have the fucking respect to read the previous discussions and texts on the site. What you’re bringing up has ALREADY been covered and answered. You’re fucking making me fucking pull my hair out.
It would have taken you less time to read the previous answers then it did to write out that essay you just did… The funny thing is you probably think you’re clever and making original excuses, but other zombies have blurted out identical crap and have already been answered.
So I don’t fucking type out the same shit for 50th time for another identical zombie-robot, I’ll give you a quick summary. WE ARE ONLY DISCUSSING SEXUAL ATTRACTION.
Every one of the things you bring up fall under PERSONAL or ROMANTIC attraction.
YES YOU CAN INCREASE ROMANTIC attraction by touch, humour and personality YES YES YES YES YES FUCKING YES!!!! There are studies proving it YES YES YES YES YES GO FUCKING READ PREVIOUS FUCKING DISCUSSIONS.
Yes you can make a woman like you more through behaviour (personal attraction) YES YES YES YES YES FUCKING YES GO FUCKING READ THIS SHIT.
WHAT YOU CAN NOT do however, is boost SEXUAL (physiological) attraction. Absolutely no evidence anywhere that it’s do-able. Go fucking read every discussion on this site (will only take you 20-30 mins) and you will have everything answered. But don’t go fucking post word-for-word what previous zombies have posted and has been answered.
Dude, you can go on with these explanations for hours, but it won’t convince me until you present EVIDENCE.
For instance, a simple study showing that guys using such techniques have better success rates than other men. Not a single such study online! Why? As the saying goes “Sex sells!” No one wanted to verify these amazing techniques?
My problem is not only about the theoretical aspect of this issue. Look at it from the practical point of view: how are you ever able to notice which technique did work and most importantly what affect this technique had on the final outcome? How can you ever measure it given the multitude of factors that may have some influence on human mating (genes etc.)?
Doesn’t it make more sense to focus on improving the areas of your life where results are better visible (like staying fit or making money or even improving sense of humor) instead of vague psychological concepts?
scienceofattraction.co.uk, I don’t know if this meets your criteria as an actual study, but they took three actors, and three women, one guy used pick-up skills, one guy acted as himself, one guy acted as a bad boy. The badboy got the least votes of the three girls, came in first once, last twice, the pick-up artist came in first once and second twice. The be yourself guy came in first once, second once, last once. It does suggest that each woman has their own type, but, that they can also appreciate the pick-up skills.
The study is under dating techniques
@James – this doesn’t prove anything to me and especially that women appreciate the pick-up skills.
Perhaps the pick-up artist would have came first if he just acted like himself vs running game – he might have been the most physically attractive to the group of 3 women?
Mike, I’ve seen the show he’s talking about. He’s completely butchering the story of the show. I’m too tired to explain. Just go watch it yourself, you’ll see the perversion that james attempted.
Oh, and btw, that show was actually organized and produced by a famous UK NLP-guru…
You said it yourself:
It does suggest that each woman has their own type, but, that they can also appreciate the pick-up skills.
How the f@ck did they come to the conclusion that “they also appreciate pick-up skills” after examining 3 girls choices?? Can’t you really get what I am trying to say in every friggin section of this website?? YOU NEED TO RULE OUT OTHER VARIABLES, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT IS TO COMPARE SUCCESS RATE OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT GROUPS OF MEN.
Three actors and three women = the massive amount of 6 (six) participants sure meets my requirements as far as statistics are concerned LOL
So sorry but I won’t even read such “study”
There was nothing ever written. It’s just an NLP charlatan who took a camera and told three completely different looking guys to act in three completely different ways with the grandtotal of three women.
THE MEN
A) They got a SKINNY, feminine guy to use pop-psychology tricks (this is the guy james labeled a “pua).
B) They got a BUFF, Tall, masculine, broad-jawed guy to act mean and arrogant and demeaning
C) They got a short, FAT guy to act submissive and “nice”.
THE WOMEN
They got three COMPLETELY different looking women who were a different ethnicity, different height, and different background. (yes, a grandtotal of three women, I know, I know, how the fuck did they find so many!?!?)
THE TRICK
They got each of the guys to talk to each of the three women *always* acting the same way… Let me make this clear.
They did not get the same guy to approach a 30 women acting one way, then 30 women acting another way, then 30 women acting a third way.
No, they had the same guy always act the same way with all women (all three of them). That his behavior would be 100% of the reason he was chosen was always just pre-assumed.
In other words, this NLP charlatan thinks up an “experiment” where he ASSUMES that behaviour is 100% responsible for your results, and then tries to see which behavior gets which results. He never provides any evidence or an argument for the presupposition of course…
It is ASSUMED that a FAT short guy and a TALL SKINNY guy only get different results due to different behavior.
THE RESULTS
— The SKINNY feminine guy using pop-psych tricks got chosen a GRANDTOTAL OF ONCE!!!!!
OMG THAT IS SO AMAZING!!!!!!!!
HE GOT CHOSEN AS FIRST CHOICE BY A WOMAN A GRANDTOTAL OF ONCE!!!!!! OMG THATS SOOOOOOOOO AMAZING.!!!!! HE GOT CHOSEN A GRANDTOTAL OF ONCE!!!!!!!!!
Or “a full third of the sample of women chose him as their first choice”. The magnificient sample size of 3 women…
— The FAT CHUBBY nice guy got chosen ONCE TOO!!
— The arrogant buff guy got chosen ONCE TOO.
HUH!?!
So each chick chose a different guy, and each guy got chosen as being a perfect match by one chick (the hottest chick actually chose the buff, tall, broad-jawed and masculine arrogant guy)…
So at this point you might be wondering “Huh… if they all got chosen just once, then how did they place differently then”?
The trick this NLP fuck invented is to invent a second category… They had women choose what men would be their “second choice”… Notice, this was a forced out category… Who would you choose if you weren’t attracted to the guy you chose as your first pick. (each guy got chosen by one chick as the perfect match).
So with the new added category of “second choice” the skinny guy using psychology-tricks got chosen ONCE MORE than the FAT GUY!
OMG, THAT’s AMAZING!!! ALLELUJAH!!! CALL CNN, WE HAVE PROOF that leaning back and cocky-funny gets you orgies with megan fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The funny thing is that even as idiotic as this experiment was with it’s sample of 3 people, it still showed what we’re saying. Each woman chose just one guy as HER man, which just confirms women have a type.
OMG, THAT’s AMAZING!!! ALLELUJAH!!! CALL CNN, WE HAVE PROOF that leaning back and cocky-funny gets you orgies with megan fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your posts always crack me up
what’s really amazing is how many people buy this shit ….how easy it is to manipulate people.. unbelievable
There’s 6 billion people on the planet. Most average guys’ sex life is just fine without ever having heard of your scammy crap. Having sex is not exactly extraordinary.
You fucks need to provide evidence that you get anything out of ordinary (for example your approach-to-lay ratio is double that of a man of equal looks) or that you bang supermodels on a regular basis. Having a “just fine sex life” isn’t exactly something to write home about.
I’m an average guy. I’m overweight, balding, and live in a suburban apartment with a
room mate. My car isn’t flashy, my income is a little over the poverty line, and I don’t wear
the latest trends in clothing. But my sex life is just fine.
It doesn’t prove anything! Tell me honestly, have you tried what I described in “Do Yourself a Favor”. Dude, if that manipulation thing you worship is possible, then if you are good at it, your sex life shouldn’t be “just fine”. It should be awesome! You should be waking up next to Megan Fox and the likes. Ask yourself the question – what is wrong here? Why no statistically significant samples confirm it??
You state that you want proof that the skills the man has help him get the girl over the guy who doesn’t use the skills. The average guy that gets drawn into PUA are the guys that have little confidence, haven’t had much experience with woman, are wall-flowers, and think they need help getting women. Can this be agreed upon? If we agree, then when he learns the skills and goes out and starts approaching women and meeting these women who are attracted to him and would’ve been attracted to him either way, he gets laid and thanks the skills. Had he not gotten the skills, he wouldn’t have gone out, and he would’nt have been talking to more women, and he wouldn’t meet the women that are attracted to him, and he wouldn’t get laid. Any guy that goes out daily to get laid has developed some sort of system in his mind to how he reacts to certain situation, whether it was learned through experience or through a book, any guy that goes out to get laid, goes out with a basic plan that he can breakdown.
The men who seem very successful with women and don’t even face a lot of rejection, are men who are good at reading people in general. I think Alek recommended the Leil Lowndes book on Undercover Sex Signals. Body language is something I’ve studied passionately, for me, rejection is very limited, because I don’t ask a woman out if I’m not getting any signals from her, I’m not asking her home unless I’m getting clear signals of arousal. When I go out, I go out with the idea of meeting new, interesting, and fun people–mind you, women will be your friend if they’re not attracted to you–and so, with women, I’m either going to Have An Interesting Experience, Make A Friend, Get Laid, Or Get a Date, they’re the only possibilities I leave open when I’m communicating with the opposite sex. Girls that don’t give me sex signals still want to hang out with me because I’m friendly charismatic and fun–”Wow you have no attraction for me whatsoever do you?” Talk about body language with her for a few minutes, have some fun, and then I’ll ask her if she wants to go and meet some other people with me, and now I’ve begun creating a social circle. I’ve gone weeks getting numbers every day, and going home with women four times in a week, without any woman saying no to what I asked them. I talked to literally dozens of women, some I just stopped and said hi to and asked a few questions then let them go on their way, others I had long conversations with and sent them on their way. For me it’s a numbers game, but with little rejection because I’m constantly looking for their body language to confirm attraction. I’m very successful with that.
Dude, only 10 mins passed after your last essay. I’m not reading this one, and I’m sure admin won’t either because you displayed with your previous essay that you have NO INTENTION of reading previous answers and discussions on the site.
After your last essay that brought up things that previous zombies have brought up, I told you- go fucking read previous answers. Instead, you went and typed a new essay only 10 minutes later. It’s impossible you have read everything on the site in just 10 minutes – you never even tried to see if what you’re vomiting out hasn’t already been vomited out by previous zombies and bots and already answered by either me, the admin, piotr or one of the many fine minds on here.
If you apologize and go read everything ALREADY discussed and answered and you start your next comment referencing “here’s what you guys answer, here’s what I think bla bla”—> then we can further the conversation.
But in your fucked up zombie-shness, you’re actually writing things that have already been written and answered before without a single original new argument or point, yet you write them like you’re the first person to think them up.
You are right I shouldn’t even reply…. but on the other hand I can’t leave this crap on my website uncommented
Isn’t it ironic how every day you get a new zombie who comes in, and without reading the site posts a 600 word essay full of rationalizations and “arguments” and he actually believes he’s the first one to think of them
Even though an IDENTICAL essay was posted just 6-30 hours by another zombie.
But each of these zombies thinks they’re clever and coming up with new arguments. So not only have their arguments already been answered by you on the SITE ITSELF (i.e. the articles you wrote long before you even got any puatard commenters)… but these same arguments have been posted as comments hundreds of times by zombie-bots who each thought they were being original.
So with each new zombie, they not only not read the ARTICLES before posting a 600-word essay, they don’t even skim the comments to notice that just 4 comments earlier another zombie posted the exact same thing and got ripped apart.
If we agree, then when he learns the skills and goes out and starts approaching women and meeting these women who are attracted to him and would’ve been attracted to him either way, he gets laid and thanks the skills. Had he not gotten the skills, he wouldn’t have gone out, and he would’nt have been talking to more women, and he wouldn’t meet the women that are attracted to him, and he wouldn’t get laid.
I see you didn’t read section “Do Yourself a Favor”. It’s not because of the skills he gets laid. It’s just what you admitted in the end of your post = it’s a numbers game. The more lottery tickets you buy the bigger your chances to win. If you think there is something more than just basic math, than finding a girl that thinks you are “her type”, then prove it!
You state that you want proof that the skills the man has help him get the girl over the guy who doesn’t use the skills
Yes, that’s what I demand before I believe any amazing pop-psychology tricks do work. What you seem not to understand is that given the bewildering number of factors that may have some influence during mating process, the only way to verify it is to COMPARE SUCCESS RATES.
PS: For me it’s a numbers game, but with little rejection because I’m constantly looking for their body language to confirm attraction. I’m very successful with that.
What does it have to do with seduction?? If you comment this website….. have the decency to read it first! Read also previous discussions here, cause there is an answer to all you posted!
In the above quote you just repeated the strategy described in “Approach Guide” section. It has NOTHING to do with seduction. It’s just detecting appropriate signs of interests and closing the deal. A friggin numbers game! Where is the seduction here??
See if I had to use your logic about why being a PUA does not work it would lead me to believe that companies who spend millions on training their sales staff are also idiots. I have found that what the MPUAs like Mystery and some of the others teach is similar to what really good Sales people and top execs get taught. To sell a product you also need to sell your self and the tools given to sales people and execs are not that dis similar to what PUAs are taught. Even up market gentlemen clubs give their ladies scripts and have them wear certain clothing. The really good ones even understand body language very well or instinctively and know how to use that to make them seem more desirable. I think anything that can help encourage men to get out their shells go out there and have the guts to just talk to woman is a good thing. That is how Men who are good with women learnt the skill and if this encourages Normal unskilled men to go out their and start learning I see no reason why not.
See if I had to use your logic about why being a PUA does not work it would lead me to believe that companies who spend millions on training their sales staff are also idiots.
That’s a non-sequitur – read section “Logical Fallacies”.
I explained numerous times that you cannot explain human mating with ANALOGIES. Can’t you see that sexual attraction has it’s own rules? Rules described by scientists after carrying out experiments involving STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SAMPLES!
And I will ask again and again: why can’t those PUA freaks simply prove it? Why do you need to bore me to death with analogies? Gentlemen clubs, sales, WHATEVER MAN, these are only analogies, like that vegan Alek mentioned who tried to explain his theories about calories by making an analogy to car oils!
Can’t you see how irrational you PUA addicts are?
For anyone new reading this, earlier this week I shared a story of a debate I had a radical vegan (a friend of a neighbour).
This vegan said to me that the laws of physics do not apply to vegans. Why? Well, because, he said “You know, if you put a different car oil into the car, the engine functions differently”.
So this vegan actually believed that JUST because he compared the human body to a car engine and foods to car-oils, he had “proven” that the laws of physics do not apply to vegans.
Me: But what EVIDENCE do you have of this? There’s literally thousands of studies, and not a single one has found that 1000 calories of vegan food are different than 1000 calories of non-vegan food (when it comes to weightloss).
Him: DUDE I already proved it to you!!! What do you think? Are those racers who used different car oils all insane? What the fuck do you think they are, all crazy and spending money on elite car oil for nothing!?!?
Now, my story of the vegan is exceptionally clear and funny to anyone who isn’t a vegan. Even gamers can read this story and laugh at the vegan, and his belief that he had “proven” that the laws of physics don’t apply to vegans.
The irony however, is that gamers are unable to see they do the exact same thing. Just look at what the retard above wrote:
He’s doing the exact same thing as the vegan who thinks he has proven veganism by saying “oh, so all those racers using premium car oil are idiots huh!?!?”
@Cybrax – Mystery is a famous magician who is 6 feet 5 inches tall and has above average looks.
Rationally, I would conclude that he attracts women because of his physical attributes (his looks) vs his “game” (Mystery Method).
The seduction community works like this – promote success and coach to failure -> sell more products.
And mystery has actually admitted the same success rate as janka (he did this in the old days) where he admitted that he only converts one out of 10 numbers into a lay.
He has claimed higher abilities for make outs than what we’d say is normal, but he has never been tested on it.
The point is even the numbers he himself admits for getting laid are incredibly unimpressive. He’s a tall, good looking guy and he has the same success rate in lay conversions as the average guy??
Do you have a link or a quote of Mystery revealing his true success rate? I would put it in the same place where I cited Janka…
Search PUAhate, it might be mentioned there.
I recently saw them linking directly to a post of TylerDyrden (the third largest name in PUA) admitting his massive rejection rate and how he believes as a PUA you must conciously delude yourself into acting like it’s non-existant, despite the fact that it’s massive. He also admitted his numbers in either the foundations or blueprint project (only lay one out of hundreds of chicks sarged).
You’ve asked and you’ve asked for something that proves that techniques get more effects than average people. Reviewnest.com, I found it after going on several NLP websites, goes through materials with testers. They go through Music, Finance, Dog Training, and Hypnosis. They went through the best conversational hypnosis courses, and did a bar test. In that bar test the men approached women normally, and got numbers 9% of the time. Using Igor Ledochowski’s course they got it 89% of the time. But that’s not all. They sold shirts for higher amounts. They got people to tell personal information from mall surveys. And, a guy got a discount on a car.
Other techniques are reviewed and are less effective, but still better than 9%. There you go. A test done by an unbias reviewing company whose only interest is in finding the best products and find out if they actually work and how effective they work. Using skill, using just language, not even the PUA stuff meant for seduction (but anchoring and language) they went from 9% to 89%, with dry tests–meaning they called the numbers to verify they were real.
Give it a look.
http://www.reviewsnest.com Typed the wrong website in.
If you’re the clarence that I think you are, I have to say I respect you since I’ve seen your comments on many blogs on different subjects… but whenever you post on this subject, I almost cringe… Coz I know you’re an otherwise intelligent guy. How do you drop into such naivete when it comes to NLP and self-help?
Do you not REALIZE that the reviewsnet site MAKES MONEY promoting the products it “reviews”?
I always wondered why the FTC is bringing in this super-duper-strict rules for internet marketing. They are now forcing websites to put huge warnings “we actually make money if you buy this product”… I always assumed “huh, are americans such idiots that they need to be forced to be told that?”… but apparently some are.
Again, knowing that you’re an otherwise intelligent guy clarence, how does your IQ plumment so low when it comes to this subject? Like how did you get fucked over by reviewsnet and not notice that they are an AFFILIATE. They’re INTERNET MARKETERS. Reviewsnet is just a clever way of affiliate-linking to dubious products.
Since the new FTC law they had to put a disclaimer at the bottom in small-print, but most people don’t read it… Sigh…
Disclosure: As a professional review site, we are compensated by the companies whose products we review.
Btw, this guy has shot a few videos explaining how the “reviews & recommendations” scam works:
http://www.puafraud.com/preview-seduction-syndicate-revealed-introducing-bill-preston/
The FTC is cracking down on these guys, since they figured out that even plain-print disclaimers don’t work. Because of guys like you clarence, the entire internet will have huge warnings that take up half-a-page and you’re forced to read on every other site, because the FTC are trying to protect people like you from being scammed… It’s sad, it really is…
First off Alek, puafraud is run by Ross Jeffries, creator of Speed Seduction, The NLP Based Seduction system. He uses it to discredit his competition, by calling them out on every little thing he can. You’re using a bias website to prove affiliate marketing bias. Interesting approach. However, one should save condescension, it is the product of weak minds, who seek to belittle a point by making it absurd, rather than attacking it on its merits.
Second, I recommended the website, not because I used it–I purchased all my persuasion, influence, body language, micro facial expressions, NLP, conversational hypnosis, and sales courses before I got my jobs in Car sales and insurance–but because Admin said there are no websites that prove people with skills outdo those without it. This test claims to have used the same guys and just had them test without skills and then with conversation hypnosis and then got drastic results. I personally broke the sales record in both companies that I was at. Then I gave some friends the courses I had, and taught them some things I felt I had learned along the way, and two people broke the insurance record I set.
Third Alek, I know you don’t like essays, but, I have to. I’ve said this before I’m sure, I run my own Hypnosis and NLP office. I helped a mother just a little while ago who was so afraid of snakes she couldn’t watch Rango, or Kung Fu Panda with her children, she broke into tears and screamed when I showed her the cover of Snakes on a Plane. In under two hours she was watching that movie with me and her husband, after some hypnosis and fast phobia cure. My godmother has gone to a therapist for more than 30 years, been on medication for more than 15 years, after I took her through the swish pattern, circles of excellence, affirmation, visualization, and Change Personal History, she was off the medication by the end of the year and hasn’t looked back. I’ve helped people quit smoking, gain confidence, gain self-esteem, stay on diets, get over other bad habits, and be happier (even when they were previously suffering from depression). That’s why I believe in NLP, because I see it work every day with people that I help (well, three or four days out of the week some times).
Also, if you suspend your disbelief for a minute, buy Igor Ledochowski’s course on conversational hypnosis. Start talking with someone using the techniques, you can watch their pupils dilate, their body relax, their skin color slightly change, right in front of you… you can literally see the trance process. But hey. It’s all bullshit, nothing works, people got better because they wanted to get better, and so it’s all crap. Whatever? It’s bullshit that changes people’s lives, and as I give value for value, I’m happy. As long as a person walks out better than they came in, I’m happy.
I didn’t link to his post as a way of promoting Ross Jeffries dummie. I linked to his post for your benefit so you can have a fellow NLP-er explain to you how the reviews&recommendations affiliate site scam works.
INCORRECT
I’ve never said I “dislike essays” per se. I love essays (long posts), both writing them and reading them.
What I said was that I MOCKED guys who go ahead and write a 10-page essay response to this site WITHOUT having read what admin has written. I don’t mind essays. What I mind is someone taking 50 minutes to write something that’s already been answered, whereas it would have taken him 20 minutes to read what has been previously written.
Witchdoctors have similar stories. How are you different than a voodoo witch-doctor? The reason we invented SCIENCE is so we can do experiments where we SYSTEMATICALLY test things in REPEATABLE and CONCLUSIVE ways.
HOW
ARE
YOU
DIFFERENT
THAN A
WITCHDOCTOR?
Your paragraph above is identical to what a shaman would write in defense of shamanism.
You do realize this paragraph is identical to what scientologists say about auditing right? How are you different than a scientologist then?
As long as a person walks out better than they came in, I’m happy.
I see where you are coming from. But I don’t think that’s a correct attitude. Some cult members seem to be happier than rational people. All PUA bullshit has this small benefit that those zombie guys completely disregard rejection. So someone may say that’s a good thing. But you fix one problem (approach anxiety) and create another a lot more serious one: irrational beliefs, twisted view of the world….
You can learn to deal with rejection in another rational way – see section “Approach Guide”
First off Alek, puafraud is run by Ross Jeffries, creator of Speed Seduction, The NLP Based Seduction system.
Small digression: let me get it straight – Ross Jeffries the lunatic who endorses “magick” as a tool to get laid (yes, magic spells and all that shit!), runs a website exposing PUA fraud?!
I see his magick is real, because we all know magic is scientifically proven since the times of Merlin and king Arthur
but all the other schools are a fraud LOL Is this the Everest of hypocrisy or what??
When I began this website I often used the comparison regarding Harry Potter spells to make some guys realize that the way they “prove” PUA stuff I could prove magic love spells. But Piotr noted in one of his comments:
The parallel is more literal than figurative. Jeffries ran a seminar and sold a tape that purportdely showed how to use “magick” (i.e. spells, sigils, rituals, incantations etc) to seduce women. It looks like Jeffries has dropped it from his catalogue but here is a review of the product “Secrets of Kick-Butt Magick and Psychic Influenc”:
http://www.bestpuatraining.com/ross-jeffries/secrets-of-kick-butt-magick-and-psychic-influence-review
So Pick Up Artistry is limitless! Some people will swallow ANY kind of crap, even magic! PUAs have the mentality of the folks from dark middle ages!
He only exposes their commercial fraud btw
He never dares says that they’re selling a scam.
He’s only calling out PUA gurus for financial fraud like fake review websites, hidden charges, refund-lies etc etc…
Alek, you’ve got me interested, I want to know your explanation for how I broke those two company sales records, how I talked my way out of six traffic stops, how I went to 15 job interviews and got 12 of them, 5 of which I didn’t have the degree they requested in the ad (there was no legal requirment for the degree–I didn’t get people to break the law for me). Let’s forget about women for now, or making friends, let’s focus on the things where actual results are clear. Then, how the people who came over to my place–some colleagues from each job each time when I was leaving the job–learned the techniques I was using and broke the sales record after I left. The sales record wasn’t broken every week or every month, it had been up there for years previously. I’ll be upfront, six months in the insurance company–but the previous record had been three years. The two men that had broken the record before I came were working in sales longer than I’ve been alive.
We can both agree that science is based on peer-reviewed studies, correct? The Scientific Method, Ask a Question, Do Research, Create a Hypothesis, Test Hypothesis, Draw Conclusions, and Share Results, and for something to go from hypothesis to a theory, it needs to be published in a peer-reviewed study, where others then go about repeating the processes and getting similar results.
Einspruch, 1988, phobia cure evaluation was a study, in which the conclusion was, “Thirty-one phobic patients seen in group/class treatment programs completed Mark’s Phobia Questionnaire and Fear Inventory and the Beck Depression Inventory before and after 8 weeks of treatment. Seventeen patients seen in individual therapy completed part of the phobia questionnaire before and after treatment. Results indicate marked improvement by those who were treated. Findings suggest that NLP holds promise for becoming an important set of therapeutic techniques for treating phobias”
In a peer-reviewed study, Bulent Turan and Ruth M. Townsley Stemberger (2000) found that “matching another person’s representational language enhances perceived empathy.” The researchers placed a screen between the conversational partners in order to eliminate visual cues to empathy.
In another peer-reviewed study, professors Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh (1999) report that when experimenters mirrored subjects, the subjects reported that the experimenters were “more likable” and that they had had “smoother interactions” with them. They call this the “chameleon effect.” In addition, they found that people who were rated high on empathy mirrored their conversational partners more frequently.
Researchers at Stanford (Poulsen et al., 2007) programmed an AI to mimic student movements while explaining a possible new university policy. An article in Wired explains that 7 out of the 69 students detected the mimicry, but the remaining students who did not detect it “liked the mimicking agent more than the recorded agent, rating the former more friendly, interesting, honest and persuasive. They also paid better attention to the parroting presenter, looking away less often. Most significantly, they were more likely to come around to the mimicking agent’s way of thinking on the issue of mandatory ID.”
Cheek (1981) demonstrated that NLP Milton Model language use is capable of reaching and influencing the unconscious mind by inducing 3000 patients to respond with formal yes/no hand signals to questions while fully anesthetized.[
Ulbrich (1998) found that when NLP was used to treat serious chronic conditions in clinical trials, comprising 12 hours over 3 weeks, they “prove to be quite successful procedures” and “significant results show up”, noting that “the participators in the training judge the success of their rehabilitation measures throughout more positively than the members of the control’s group”. He stated that “apparently the NLP techniques used in training prove to be quite successful procedures for the promotion of health. Although the training only comprised one period of 3 weeks (12 training hours), significant results show up. Thus the participators in the training judge the success of their rehabilitation measures throughout more positively than the members of the control’s group.”
There are a lot more studies. NLP techniques are not NLP techniques, they are techniques taken in from a vast field of other tried and tested psychologies and put under the branch of NLP. The techniques I use are not myths, they are not fakes, they are tried and true techniques tested in studies, both peer-reviewed and control group studies. The true reason I was successful as a salesman in my opinion is that I took courses in everything from conversational hypnosis to micro-facial expression to NLP, I learned how to be flexible, the moment I saw discomfort or disaproval on their faces, I changed up my approach until I found an approach that worked with them. Or if I found they were completely closed off, I left and didn’t waste my time (but that was rare, I sold to 80% of the people that came on the lot).
There is science behind NLP, at least as much science as any psychotherapy has had. Psychotherapy by it’s nature does not give itself over to testing due to the fact that for the most part you can’t do fake therapy, without risk of actually hurting people. So it’s all results oriented, are people better at the end than they are at the beginning.
Even Sharpley Concedes this, Sharpley is the person that is quoted by Piotr who disproves NLP Represenational Systems–though two other studies conclude Sharpley misunderstood and put too much on Representational Systems. Nonetheless, Sharpley states, “There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures suggested by NLP have failed to be supported by those data (the principles being Preferred Represenationsal Systems). Perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field.”
The same way people who haven’t studied NLP did it.
DO YOU THINK YOU’RE THE FIRST PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SUCCEED AT A JOB INTERVIEW?
DO YOU THINK YOU’RE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO GET OUT OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS?
DO YOU REALIZE THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS ARE PROVEN to only remember cases that CONFIRM their beliefs?
DO YOU REALIZE WE HAVE EVIDENCE that people with strong beliefs LITERALLY only remember cases where the thing they believe in WORKED, but literally DELETE cases and memories where it didn’t work?
YOU FUCKING NLP FUCKS NEED TO PROVE IT IN A CONTROLLED STUDY. WE KNOW AS A FACT THAT ANECDOTES ARE FAKE, BECAUSE HUMANS WHO BELIEVE SOMETHING, BY DEFINITION LIE ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCED DUE TO BIAS (without even knowing they lie).
DO YOU GET THIS? WHY HAS NOT A SINGLE NLP FUCK OUT OF THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MADE IN NLP EVER PROVEN A SINGLE THING IN A CONTROLLED STUDY EVER? WHY ANECDOTE.,.. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE SAME FUCKING “logic” you use, can be used to “PROVE” scientology, voodoo, ghosthunting etc. Those fucks can quote anecdotal stories like yours all day too!!!
EVIDENCE
E
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
PROOF
P.R.O.O.F
P
R
O
O
F
ANECDOTES ARE NOT A FUCKING FORM OF PROOF. HAVE NEVER BEEN. ITS WHY WE FUCKING INVENTED FUCKING SCIENCE AND LEFT THE FUCKING MIDDLE AGES.
Evidence for achievement, comes from duplication, not controlled group studies, because a controlled group study takes out flexibility. Alek you’re an intelligent person, obviously well read in science, so I don’t know why you don’t think hypnotic language, rapport, and persuasion are possible, even though there is a great deal of science behind them. Robert Cialdini pointed to the power of the word BECAUSE, how it slips through our critical faculty and makes us more susceptible to agree with the premise, no matter how ridculous. A common joke is say “Silk!” five times, now… what does a cow drink? (Did you say milk, think again, cows drink water). People can be primed with language.
Also, knowing science as well as you do, how can’t you see the difficulty and frivolousness in a controlled study for Sales. Sales involves being incredibly flexible and changing your sales routine to fit the customers–most people don’t learn that, it wasn’t taught in any training from the companies that I went through (along with how to discard a bad sales approach and reintroduce yourself to the client–that is an NLP technique, and it is deadly effective). Duplication is EVIDENCE. You don’t just want a study. A study proves nothing. STudies must be duplicated for something to be called science. That’s literally how all science is confirmed, if people doing the exact same thing you did get the same results, it’s evidence. If people don’t get the same results its a failure. And I know you’re intelligent enough to know that there are plenty of studies on NLP, but there are not enough Peer-Reviewed Studies where people recreate the success.
We all learned what science is through the scientific method in grade school. Science is any study that proves a hypotheiss and is duplicated by other scientist under the exact same conditions and they can get the exact same results. That is what science is. All science is confirmation through duplication, that’s how something goes from a hypothesis to a theory. There are good salesman who persuade their customers and bad salesman who do not, people can learn the skills of a good salesman. People can learn persuasion. And when they learn these techniques they excel in sales. It’s proven, through constant duplication.
I listed a series of studies, peer-reviewed at that. From mirroring to phobia cures to Milton Model Language patterns, you ignored them all and demanded evidence, they are evidence, they are peer reviewed studies done by psychologist.
Wouldn’t any study on sales be anecdotal, the person who sells the most working the same amount of hours would be considered the better salesman, if that person is using the teachable techniques, it’s still anecdotal, because we don’t know if the people the other salesperson went to weren’t in a buying mood that day. However, when we then teach the guy that didn’t do as well the first time the skills and he excels, we can’t be certain that those people didn’t just get into the buying mood. Sales is impossible to quantify because it involves the unwitting human element (so it’s susceptible to other people’s moods). So even with consistent evidence that a person who learns the skills outsells the person who doesn’t, there are dozens of possibilities from location, for attitude, or anything.
This is my last post, mostly because I’ve lost interest in arguing back and forth. Admin asks for a website that shows that people with skills get better results, I find one. You ask for studies that NLP works, I list them, peer-reviewed, and done by psychologist. At each point I’m met with derision, broad assumption, and opinion, no intellectual assault on the studies presented, but a mere disregard for them.
I’m well aware of deletion and distortion (meta-model concepts for me, and more proof that NLP is just a hodge podge of psychology), that’s why my personal anecdotes are limited to a few specific events, events not able to be distorted. I’ve never gotten a speeding ticket or any other ticket (so there can’t be any deletion or distortion of times when it failed), all six times I’ve been pulled over, I’ve gotten off (every time ). I broke records, that’s a barometer of achievement, it’s something not distorted, the records been broken 8 times in the last twelve years and I’m the only first year to do it. I went to 15 job interviews, I got 12 job offers, 5 companies I didn’t have the degree for the company (now that is anecdoatal). I teach the interview skills and the people I’ve taught them to get the job offers, after months, and years of unemployment (that’s duplication, no longer anecdotal). Duplication is evidence. If what people were doing wasn’t working and I then teach them what I do which is influenced by NLP, and then they get success, it’s duplication, and it’s evidence. There has not been anyone who I’ve taught the skills to who haven’t had positive results (no deletion, no distortion, literally no one of the 37 people who I’ve taught these skills to have not seen positive results). Positive results include getting jobs in chosen profession and getting higher sales.
Now, let’s think of the studies that could be done to prove the persuasion model. Social Psychology is damn near impossible to prove, due to the fact that there are too many variables. You disagree with NLP, any study that proves it, you’ll find the variables that make it possible to be a fluke. And also, for someone who just was complaining about affiliate marketing, why would you suggest that NLP people fund studies to prove the stuff they do (you’ll simply say they funded the studies and thus obviously they can’t be accurate). I teach people to pause for effect, use open body language and mirroring, varying eye contact, open-ended questions, power words, double-speak, and control tonality, while leading up to attention grabbing words… Clearly the person now becomes a dynamic speaker, interesting, and a great conversationalist, so you state that it was these changes that made him successful, not the language, not the eye contact, and the such.
Again, the studies on the word Because prove there are words that our minds shut off when we hear and we easily accept what is being said to us and thus prove the hypnotic quality of language. The purpose of NLP is to effectively use people’s conditioned responses to specific stimuli, verbal and non-verbal, to persuade them easily. The key is to figure out what their conditioned responses are, and to elicit those responses through proper questioning, and proper value elicitation.
The studies are there, actually read my previous post. But not just NLP. Classical Conditioning is the same as anchoring, classical conditioning is scientifically proven. Mirroring and Matching existed before NLP, there are studies proving that they are highly functional in making people feel more connected and empathetic and more likely to accept what is being said to them. Phobia Cures are proven to be more effective than other forms of therapy for phobias. There is inconclusive evidence for anxiety and PTSD treatments–anecdotal evidence only. Hypnotic language has been known throughout history, NLP simply took it and grouped it together. Foot in the door technique, get them to do you one small favor and they’ll be ready to do you bigger favors later on (for psychology, have them start by doing something small to cure themselves and they’ll take the big leap for the cure after that) For seduction (it’s why relocation is important, if they’re willing to move from the bar to the booth with you, they’ll be willing to move from the booth to the house with you). I’m not doing something special here, I understand how people are persuaded, then using my language, body language, and other non-verbal structures I create the atmosphere for easy persuasion, by creating rapport, intimacy, and connection.
Have a Good one Alek, hope you all the success in the world, but for the future, avoid broad assumptions, keep yourself focused on disproving the person, or use the basic assaulting language patterns, instead of plane insults which demean you more than you demean the other person. “I know you don’t really believe that.” “If I thought you really thought that way I wouldn’t dignify you with a response.” “You certainly must not be serious, you’re much too smart for that.” These responses, far more than capitalized lettering, curses, and obvious annoyance, attack the original writer, while giving you the air of inteligence, it increases the image of knowing what you’re talking about, while at the same time, making observers feel as if you’ve bested the person. Instead of making people feel as if the person has gotten under your skin.
I don’t want to discuss NLP and sales with you guys, but since you mentioned seduction:
Admin asks for a website that shows that people with skills get better results, I find one.
I didn’t ask you for a website - I asked you for a serious scientific study! But I guess you reject the whole idea of testing smth in a scientific way:
Evidence for achievement, comes from duplication, not controlled group studies, because a controlled group study takes out flexibility.
Can’t you see that this way I can “prove” not only seduction but also horoscopes?? I can always find a group of people who will honestly tell me that horoscopes helped them make the best decisions in their lives! Do you believe in horoscopes?
I’m not actually discussing NLP with this bozo, I’m discussing the scam-method that both NLP and PUAs/gamers used. They are the same overall community, and the same people invented both.
The most retarded thing about him saying he found a website is that I already showed him it’s an AFFILIATE WEBSITE. Even IF he found some random neutral website recommending the product – it would have been retarded…
But Clarence went one step further in the retardation – he showed a site where the product’s AFFILIATE is pushing the product
It’s basically the internet version of an infomercial. It’s like asking someone for scientific proof that something works, and he points you to an infomercial for that product where they “tested” the product on the infomercial 
I have to answer where morsels of truth or half-truth are present. I already wrote an article responding to this retarded excuse. It’s not new, many PUAs have been using the same excuse to defend PUA from being tested (see how they’re the same people)?
Read This Earlier Response:
http://aleknovy.com/2011/12/14/gamers-are-too-busy-having-orgies-with-megan-fox-and-this-prevents-them-from-doubling-their-income-over-night/
YES, IT IS TRUE that isolating certain elements of a system and studying them in isolation might not tell the full picture since those things work in an overall and flexible system… YES, YES, YES… and it is true that it would take science decades to study such a complex system, YES, YES, YES
HERE IS THE CATCH these fuckers are trying to throw. WE NEVER ASKED THAT YOU PROVE THE SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF YOUR CULT AND HOW THEY WORK.
Your excuse is ONLY valid if we’re testing SPECIFIC elements and techniques. BUT WE’RE NOT.
We are asking for a test on the WHOLE system as a WHOLE. All you have to do is…
-> Take a 100 snake-fearing people and give them to say a licenced CBT psychotherapist
-> Take a 100 snake-fearing people and give them to an NLP practicioner
OR
-> Take a 100 men and give them to a CBT psychologist and mainstream sirc-type flirting coach and measure success rates
-> Take a 100 men and give them to an NLP therapist and a PUA coach and measure success rates
IN BOTH CASES, YOUR EXCUSE IS NO LONGER VALID CLARENCE. You have ALL the flexibility you want with those 100 people. The experiment would NOT constrict what NLPers or PUAs do, it would let them do whatever they want.
Again, you fucks keep giving excuses that are only valid if the research gets to the stage of studying the SUB-elements and figuring out why and how they work.
BUT YOU NEED TO PROVE THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE STUDIED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT YOU GET ANY RESULTS ABOVE ZERO ON THE WHOLE LEVEL
These fucks always point to individual components, never the whole – BUT EVERY CULT has a percentage of truth in it, no cult is a 100% lie
- NLPers will for example go dig up a a study that shows that (for example) shows that eye-movement can be linked to mental states and go “AHA, there, NLP has been proven. This is evidence that NLP can make you richer, get you laid, and make you taller too”
Clarence tried that scam too by posting isolated studies about isolated components, most of which aren’t even unique to NLP. See the fucking bullshit they do? They take a system with 23423 elements and claims, and they believe that proving one element is the equivalent of proving the system works
But NO successful scam on planet earth is a 100% lie, they all depend on having at least few true elements and half-truths. Proving that one element isn’t a lie does not prove that 100% of the elements are a non-lie 
That’s like saying people are only capable of either always lying or always telling the truth.
- PUAs will go for example dig up a study that shows that touching another person in the first 4 minutes makes them assume you’re higher status and they go “aha, All of PUA has been proven, OMG this is proof that you can have orgies with megan fox and angelina jolie!!!!!”
They are of course doing the same thing we keep pointing out with admin, which is skipping steps. There is no proof that increasing perceived status in the short term makes women want to fuck you more… In fact, evo-psychers CATEGORICALLY claim that in the short-term it’s a complete non-factor… In the short-term, women ONLY look at genes and long-term traits. So they make two jumps… first from saying that increasing perceived status when opening gets women horny (with no such evidence)… And then they make the jump that this proves all other 234234 PUA claims.
In other words…
-> PUA guru claims that if you touch a woman in the first 2 mins it makes her want to have orgies with you, even if she had no interest in you before whatsover
-> Study says that when HUMANS touch other humans in the first 2 mins of interaction they are perceived or assumed to be higher status (since they have the boldness to do it)
-> PUA disciple goes “OMG THAT PROVES WHAT MY GURU SAID OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG I CAN NOW HAZ DA ORGIES WITH DA MEGAN FOX AND DA ANGELINA JOLIE OOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG”
-> The PUA disciple than goes further and says “since my guru was right about that, he’s also right about the other 21312 claims he makes”, “there, all of PUAdom has been proven”.
All of this despite the fact that not a single PUA has ever taken on the challenge to be tested and prove he gets better than placebo results ON A WHOLE (date for date/approach for approach basis). Not that he can make more women smile, not that he can make more women giggle, not that he can make more women rate him as higher status… THAT HE CAN GET MORE ACTUAL results, END-BOTTOM-LINE-results, like getting ticked off on a speed-dating test.
P.S. Clarence, how does nlp explain what you’re such a failure at “persuading us”?
How do you rationalize out the fact that you haven’t persuaded any of the skeptics to your side? Shouldn’t your amazing NLP skills (that you so pathetically attempt to practice in a written form) have converted someone by now to your cult?
Courtesy of Paragon:
There are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits(indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits(indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment).
So, the onus is upon the ‘game’ community to unify agreement with either of these quantities(beyond a circular argument).
And there are obvious reasons why physical traits are an obvious confounder of ‘seduction’ competencies(ie. because relative deviations in physical characters can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success).
In order to advance a similar argument(unified in a broad evolutionary synthesis) for vague(independent) seduction competencies(ie. ‘game’), you would have to show their basis in evolutionary success beyond a circular argument(ie. how did female bias for these seduction systems *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with male reproductive success).
Until gamers can show this, they are leaning on naive premises(and, dare I say, unmitigated bullshit).
Game is popularly interpreted as justified ‘confidence’(given the ‘congruence’ apology that is regularly appealed to when game techniques/methods are demonstratedly falsified).
The parsimonious interpretation is that ‘confidence’ is a
dependent variable, adapted from justified expectations
(with a basis in some history of prior outcomes).
In other words: confidence is the subjective consequence
of an ‘expected value’ – derived of an obligate heuristic motif.
But, correlation does not imply causation.
It doesn’t just spontaneously organize within an empirical
vacuum, and thus cannot be trivially acquired outside of
‘experience’.
So, what gamers(and their apologists) are truly observing
(but not intelligent enough to infer), is not that women
are attracted to ‘confidence’ per se(as an independent
variable).
But, rather that the men who tend to be successful with
women in the first place(for whatever reason), also have a
high confidence(justified expectation) of future(continued) success.
Also, evolution doesn’t really give a fuck how you rationalize your justifications for not reproducing – thus, in evolutionary terms, you are no different then the males you presume dominance over.
Which brings me to the whole spurious ‘alpha-male’ meme.
Male dominance implies subordinate status concessions – which no longer describes how mate availability is distributed in large, co-operative, and ecologically prosperous populations.
So implicating dominance mediated mate access is nothing more than spurious self-promotion spun by imbecilic gamers.
Now, where gamer theory may be useful, is in instructing otherwise unhindered males against displaying/communicating/signalling loser vibes(anomalous signals which deviate from normal with respect to Koinophilia), which may work to confound positive fitness indicators.
But, this will prove determinate to only a very small group of maladapted males, who are in every other respect, attractive to women(rendering the premise of ‘gamer’ self-determination, as false).
From:
http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/gamers-are-sterile/#comment-3699
I agree with your post and will add that gamers promote the concept of “fake it until you make it” – they incorrectly assume that the faked confidence displayed by gamers is the same as the confidence that some guy inherently has by being born good looking or the same as the confidence that some UFC champion has by winning title fights…and so on.
So, some average looking guy will take a seduction boot camp and then will learn body language “tricks” to appear confident.
He will then go to a night club as part of a boot camp and approach the HB10 with his fake confidence – she will reject him instantly LOL.
He will be blown out of the set as the gamers say.
Of course, since the seduction community does not agree that a guy’s looks matter, the average looking guy will be coached that it was his approach angle that was wrong or he did not appear to be confident by his eye contact or he held his drink too high, etc.
Perhaps after 10 rejections, the guy will be frustrated and state in frustration that looks matter – he will then be further coached that it is his BELIEF SYSTEM that needs to change.
“he held his drink too high” LOL do they actually say such things or you made up this last one?
You wish…
It’s common marketing drivel in PUA…
Some boz was defending PUAs on the avoiceformen radio saying the following:
“What if, I could just tweak one thing about the way you stand, and then maybe one thing about how you dress, and bam you’re suddenly getting much better results”.
looooooooooooooolllllllllll
No seriously, they actually do that shit at bootcamps. If 10s reject the average-looking client (dude, you approached from a 45 angle, you need to go from 40 degree angle)
LOL – I recall an RSD boot camp graduate giving me some free tips and one was to hold a drink by your side vs holding it high in front of your chest.
The theory was that holding the drink high like that would subcommunicate to the target (PUA lingo for woman you are interested in) that you are an AFC and hiding behind your drink (hence unconfident).
Wow you guys are jaded. The accusations of scams, lies, and bullshit demean an otherwise very good site that does something rarely done, collects the information of what truly is involved in attraction. However, like everyone, you accuse people of Observation Bias, and then make the same mistakes yourself, putting too much onus on Self-Seeking-Self, misunderstanding physical attraction, and misunderstanding attraction in general. Most of the PUA’s that I’ve read most likely have had the success they claim in my opinon (in that, I mean, slept with 100′s of beautiful women, have had threesomes, and more, not being able to pick up any woman at any time), but it has nothing to do with their skills, or even whether or not they were traditionally handsome men. What they did was what every successful man with women does, Captured Attention, Maintained Attention, and Led the Attention, while setting a sexual context for their interaction. This is the mating ritual of modern man. To know as a scientific fact that all animals have mating rituals, and then believe that man doesn’t, that humanity, the only conscious being with emotive stimuli responses who can act in their own disinterest, then doesn’t have a mating ritual (mating ritual being what to animals that are attracted to each other do to so that they can then engage the other in sexual intercourse–or in layman terms, seduction, as the case would be… pantheras fight each other, the wild canidaes fight each other, primates beat their chest and scream, Aves (not mammals) make mating sounds to signal lovers) is horribly bad science. Men attempt to get women’s attention, maintain the attention, lead the attention, while being responsible for creating the context for sex, meanwhile, the woman goads him on with unconscious signals, from playful touching, hair touching, removing articles of clothing, playing with jewelry, and getting in closer proximity (while becoming more willing to follow along with what the man recommends). Pick-Up-Artist teach the techniques to do this, now, the techniques are what any normal socialized human being does, however, they have a niche market, nerds, losers, and people with low self-esteem. Now, before you bite my head off, screaming science, science! I’ll give you the science and I’ll explain to you why beautiful men get more women, but why Pick-Up-Artist have claimed to get women over men better looking than them, and why it’s completely logical, and based on proven science. I am all about science. I have a BS in biology, an MS in Evolutionary Psychology, and a huge amount of study in Social Psychology. I have a great amount of respect for what you’re trying to do on your website, I found this accidentally, as I was moving into my house and found a thesis paper on seduction (kind of) that I wrote in my senior year in college only 6 years ago, The Evolution of Human Mating: From the Caves to the Clubs, and decided to see what was happening in the seduction community. I’m going to try and keep it short, and keep the jargon to a minimum.
There are three things that can elicit physical attraction to another person. Physical Perception, Audition, and Olfaction–Shape, Sound, and Smell. Now then, first off, physical perception is based on symmetry and masculine traits. Physical Masculine Traits are a defined (but not pronounced) mandibular that is 65 to 75% the size of the maxila, arm muscles that pronounce both health and symmetrical placement of adiposity distribution, stride (this is where women consciously say he seemed so confident, but what they mean is that he doesn’t suffer from Leg Length Discrepancy that could be caused by sciolosis or muscular or bone diseases). Audition, the way his diaphram projects his voice, the way testosterone has altered his voice, and the way his vocal folds have strengthened or weakened his voice. A man with a deep (not gravely) voice that is calm (syllables are not stressed, or lisped when spoken) is perceived as more attractive in every study… men with better voices have a stronger diaphram, stronger vocal folds, and other atrributes that will subconsciously cue a healthy and viable man. Olfaction, this is where women say that the guy wasn’t their type but they felt so good be nearing him (too many people on this board accuse women of outwardly lying because of it not being socially acceptable to state that they found a guy physically attractive, that’s not true at all, all studies on attraction show that women internalize qualities, so subconsciously they like them, so then they look for conscious reasons why they like him)… a man who produces a pleasant scent is healthy–been in a hospital you know the sickly scent, but most scents aren’t that strong, or even noticeable, they are simply in the air, and a woman likes it and appreciates it. Humans are meant to reproduce, because of that, nature has seen it fit that a man must only meet one of these criteria to be attractive to a female (especially one ovulating–i.e in heat). When I wrote my paper, I wrote a small, yet unnappreciated anecdote (told to stick to the science, but, I felt it best to explain the process of mating). A man approaches a woman, he captures her attention and then maintains her attention, in the next sixty to 90 seconds, a woman will evaluate unconsciously if the man meets one of the three criterias for attraction, if he does, she will begin to reciprocate through non-verbal signals. The man, noticing these non-verbal signals, will escalate and begin to set the context for sexual intercourse, while leading her attention, which, she will willingly follow… if at any point her attention is broken, the man, will often have to start over again. If a woman does not reciprocate, he moves to the next attractive females and begins with her.
Now, here’s the thing, most men’s skeletal structure has some form of symmetry, whether in a proper stride (women look at a man from the feet to the face), to the possibility for developed arms, to the meeting of frontal bone, zygomatic bone, and the maxila that makes up the eyes, to a proper developed Mandibular and Maxila relation. The more a woman looks at you, the more likely it is that she will eventually find something about you that she finds attractive. The social psychological explanation for this is the Exposure Effect. My favorite study was by Goetzinger in 1968, who had a student come to class wearing a black trashbag. He was meant with hostility, than curiousity, than friendlieness. Another study found that women perceived the man near the mailboxes in the apartment building to be the most attractive in the building. This suggest that the more you see something, the more you begin to find things you like about it. Rather than calling a woman a liar–and claiming she was always physically attracted to him–it explains scientifically why women have talked about always seeing a man and not having any attraction to him, until one day, he did something, getting her attention, and it just clicked–that clicking feeling is when she notices something (whether he loses weight making more of his jawline noticeable, wore tighter shirts making his arms noticeable, or got her eye contact, and the symmetry in his facial features that she never noticed was finally noticed) and she feels attraction. There is a thing called intent blindness, you want an example of it, type in Count the Passes on youtube and follow the instructions. Most people walk around the world with blinders on, focused on whatever they’re doing, so they don’t notice other people as well as they should.
Why do beautiful people get more women more easily? This is confirmation bias that looks are important, but, that’s not exactly what all the science says when looked at things altogether–when you add it to the exposure effect and the halo effect. Beauty is something that is appreciated on an unconscious level by all people. Beautiful people get rewarded more as a plaintif, punished less as a defendant by juries, beautiful people get lesser jail sentences for crimes by judges, beautiful people make more money. Beauty is something that is appreciated on levels that we don’t consciously appreciate them on. When a beautiful person walks into a room, he is going to be looked at more, and thus, attention becomes easy, and both consciously and unconsciously the mind has already seen what it likes. Also, The Halo Effect, another social science experiment explains why the beautiful person can be a jerk and still get the girl, whereas another guy makes a misstep, a small trip, and loses the girl. The Halo Effect is when people carry over assumptions with them–once a person concludes something, it is almost impossible to change their mind–and they conclude, as we all do, naturally, that beautiful people are nicer, happier, more successful, more ambitious, more intelligent human beings than the rest of us, so if he’s an asshole, or self-absorbed, it must just be us, or, it must be they’re having a bad day, either way, it’s excused, and tolerated–whereas someone who doesn’t come in on the halo effect, will not be liked. However, if say an ugly person comes into a place with a beautiful woman, other women will look at him to try and figure out what she sees in him, and his attractiveness will go up. A non-scientific test showed women a picture of a man, then told women a bio of him, successful, wealthy, charitable, 60% of women said they’d like to date him, when they discovered that he was dating someone it went up to 90%–people look twice at someone that other people are able to tolerate.
Why do PUA’s claim they can beat out people better looking than themselves? You claim their lying, they could be? I have no proof that they’re not. But, when you accuse people of lying, slandering their product, and them, I think it requires greater proof than, there’s no scientific evidence supporting people with game do better than people without it. Scientifically speaking, the entire purpose of pick-up-artistry, at least when I was going through it for the paper six years ago, was to teach guys how to capture and maintain the attention of women and then lead their attention through a sexual context–and since that’s what they learn, they get girls. All of the techniques taught were meant to do that. That’s what powerful eye-contact does. Eye contact for the purpose of survival has always resulted in creating tunnel vision, especially once attention has been absorbed. Touch, the moment someone touches you, you give them your attention. The more they escalate the touch, the more of a sexual context is being placed on the communication, and the more attention is given. Voice, speaking clearly, from the diaphram, gives her full experience of one’s audition, it also demands attention, varying one’s vocal communications, talking loudly, then whispering, demands that she pay attention even more (these are recommendations made from PUA that people were learning). Olfaction, smelling nice using colognes will make you pleasant to be around, and being pleasant to be around, will allow for her to get closer to you to enhale your natural odors as well. If she’s paying attention to you and you’re being more entertaining than the good looking guy that originally approached her, she’ll go with you. Our biology is not meant to sleep with the most attractive person, our biology is to sleep with anything we’re attracted to… that’s what everybody on this board who promotes the science seems to miss, they make a broad leap that looks are important and thus women must want to sleep with the most attractive men. A woman makes a conscience decision to sleep with a man–it is not unconscious–she makes an unconscious decision of whether or not she’s attracted to that man–attraction does not translate into sex. Attraction is not seduction, it has nothing to do with the mating ritual, except for setting the parameters for it. Seduction, or Mating Rituals, occur, after there is attraction, it is the process that two animals that are attracted to each other go through to engage in sexual intercourse.
All attraction is biological, however, there are psychological things that can be done to increase how much a woman is paying attention to your attractive biology. Attention and Context explains why Verne Troyer and Ranae Shrider hooked up, why Lyle Lovett got Julia Roberts (both had money, so in no way could it be argued material gain–in fact Julia Roberts was and is more famous, it was after Pretty Woman success), most people have something that can attract the woman they are interested in, if they can get her attention long enough for her to find what that is, odds are the woman will find something to be attracted to. The average woman sleeps with 10 men in her lifetime, the odds that she is finding self-seeking-self fulfillment in each relationship, is very unlikely. What is more likely is she found guys who have certain traits that triggered her subconscious attraction, and they were able to gain her attention, maintain her attention, lead it, and place it within a sexual context.
Now then, all this being said, I can easily admit that mine is a hypothesis, however, there are of yet very few theories in Social Psychology, because it is a relatively new field. My conclusions are based on the psychological studies and biological studies that have appeared to date.
You have a great website, but don’t let yourselves fall into the same mistake that the pick-up-artist did (though pick-up-artist have made millions with their mistake) and that is confirmation bias. All of mating in nature is the act of the male trying to get the attention of the female, in a vast array of species.
Pick-Up-Artist teach the techniques to do this, now, the techniques are what any normal socialized human being does, however, they have a niche market, nerds, losers, and people with low self-esteem.
Are you fucking kidding me?? “Normal socialized human beings” don’t use negs! Thats just an example of one of the things those fucks teach.
Now, before you bite my head off, screaming science, science! I’ll give you the science and I’ll explain to you why beautiful men get more women, but why Pick-Up-Artist have claimed to get women over men better looking than them, and why it’s completely logical, and based on proven science.
No one is screaming “science, science” here … but yes, I will BITE YOUR HEAD OFF (in a figurative way:) because just like 90% of the zombies who come here you also claim your ideas are science based but you IGNORE the simple argument that:
IF
it is “completely logical” that supposedly
“Pick-Up-Artist get women over men better looking than them”
THEN EXPLAIN ME
WHY THE FUCK THERE IS NOT A SINGLE STUDY PROVING IT?
You didn’t reply to the statement YOU POSTED YOURSELF:
I have no proof that they’re not. But, when you accuse people of lying, slandering their product, and them, I think it requires greater proof than, there’s no scientific evidence supporting people with game do better than people without it.
Again, you want US to prove the negative?? And you dare to mention logic?
OK, that’s not my job, but here it goes: how can you combine the results of studies quoted in “Her Type” section with your claims about human mating?
How can you explain Paul Janka’s success rate of merely 9,8%! (read end of section “BS Created So Far”
In the end of your essay you noted:
Now then, all this being said, I can easily admit that mine is a hypothesis, however, there are of yet very few theories in Social Psychology, because it is a relatively new field.
Again, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?? “Relatively new field” ??? Casanova in the 18century claimed exactly the same thing! Hundreds of years ago (btw he was also a liar and a con artist – read section “Casanova’s Digit Ratio”).
Now, you gonna say “no, no that’s not EXACTLY the same blah blah blah”. Ok, very similar. But PUAry in the sense we know it today has at least 15 years! 15 YEARS, millions of dollars involved worldwide, TV show, thousands of websites, and you come here shamelessly explaining that there are no studies proving it cause it is a “relatively new field”.
Give me a break!
And as I’ve explained, they have no excuse, because:
A) It would ONLY take a SINGLE WEEKEND to do a basic study to prove they’re not complete cheats and scams – they couldn’t get that weekend done in fucking 20 years of existence?
B) People like DeScamangelo have made a QUARTER OF A (B)ILLION dollars off of this stuff. He could find 10 studies per day if he wanted to.
http://aleknovy.com/2011/12/14/gamers-are-too-busy-having-orgies-with-megan-fox-and-this-prevents-them-from-doubling-their-income-over-night/
Recently I was thinking how to expose this PUA scam, and I reached the conclusion that rational thinking simply „doesn’t sell.” I mean on the long run the truth will finally prevail, but what to do to speed up this process? What breaks through in the media are fresh, not necessarily rational, unbelievable stories or ideas. The more controversial the better.
So why not brainstorm to create a new school of seduction based on a brand new original concept. Some witty analogies (to car oils and the forth
, some funny stories, lots of vague pseudo-scientific terminology, some unbelievable success stories (I used it on Megan Fox and shit), and of course quotes of studies that supposedly prove it. We use all the tricks those PUA clowns are using, and a lot of naïve dumbasses should take the bait.
Than in the end we openly admit we were full of shit. But we had good intentions – making people realize how absurd PUAry really is. Also these rumors about an anti-PUA conspiracy you wrote about would somehow materialize
According to wikipedia, Koinophilia is when sexual creatures avoid the “unusual” and prefer the “normal”.
It’s interesting how that fits in with my personal experience. When I began moving away from game, I remember thinking “just be normal” – do nothing “special, unusual, or strange” whatsoever. No special body language. No faking aloofness or trying to be alpha. Just a normal social human being acting like a normal social human being towards a woman.
I found that when I did that, the reactions of women were much more positive and their vibes much better.
Problem is, even guys who are not into game have been taught to act “special” around women, like there is something unusual and out of the ordinary that you must do around them that you don’t do in “normal” social situations. Funny thing is if the theory of Koinophilia is correct this is PRECISELY what women are screening AGAINST! Women want you to act “normal”. When I go out to bars, I see so many guys acting in ways that are “special” around women (not like how they would act in normal social situations). I think this is the number one mistake guys make, in or out of game – thinking there is some “special” way to behave.
@ Jake – when I moved away from game and started acting normal, I also found that the reactions of women were much more positive and their vibes much better.
You mention faking aloofness (or what the gamers refer to active disinterest) and how it was strange behavoir – it is interesting how gamers will go on and on and on about the positive benefits of studying seduction (including increased confidence) and yet this is all based on being a fake.
“active disinterest” it’s the folk wisdom of reverse psychology applied to dating : ) all this crap comes down to reverse psychology….
It also doesn’t help that there’s a ton of confounding half-truths and false-positives, which is why men can fall for believing bullshit for so long.
For example, acting disinterest is often present when women pursue men, but the reason for this is because the men is OUT OF HER LEAGUE. The reason the guy is disinterested, is because he is getting pursued by chicks out of his league (he’s rich and she’s pursuing him for a commited relationship etc etc)… So these bozos observe correlation and mix it up for causation.
Another confounder is false-positives. For example if you give off mixed signals, you will get women to chase for your approval (because you lowered their self-esteem)… but you haven’t actually made their want to fuck you any higher.
Although I think that Koinophillia refers mostly to physical features, I think it can apply to behavior as well. I also don’t mean “mediocre” when I say “normal”. I think one can be an unusual and original personality in terms of ideas, attitudes, values, and attributes, while behaving towards women in ways that are socially “normal” – the way you would normally act in any social situation.
Admin you ask why Paul Janka gets only a 9.8% success rate. Outside of the fact that the man appears to be psychopathic, something that women probably can sense when they come in contact with him–The man was accused of attempting to rape a woman and his only respsonse was, “She got what she deserved for coming over under false pretenses.”–His approach is extremely direct, and he’s stated his preference for approaching women on the street, where they are the most distracted. He also approaches women for very short durations of time, I’m going by his interviews, this is the first time I’ve heard of the man. He says he’s walked away from conversations in 30 seconds while their still talking. So, he approaches distracted women, who may or may not be actually paying attention to him, or simply waiting for him to get out of their way. He doesn’t in that case capture their attention, and so, they do not take in his biological facilities that would lead them to feeling attracted. Even those that do, he has a high flake rate, this could be because of his quick and abrupt form of communicating, interest them, they take in a biological trait they liked about him, but then they cannot remember that trait when he calls–he’s forgettable.
Every mating animal in the animal kingdom attempts to get the attention of the opposite sex, and it’s the one that gets the most attention that gets laid. In the case of Pantheras (lions, tigers, jaguars, etc.), they fight each other to the death, in the case of monkey. You do realize that you are maintaining that humans are the only species of mating animal for whom biology is the only thing that decides sex is to deny our basic biological form. Also, by maintaining Self-Seeking-Self as a necessity of attraction, you’re ignoring that our genetic code is linked to Primates, a promiscuous social culture. In fact most animals that are social are promiscuous by nature. Early society was much like that, Greeks and Romans show this historically, along with the sixties and seventies. It is much more logical to conclude that women are attracted to a wider array of men, through specific traits of attraction that a huge number of men can fulfill, rather than believe that there are a few viable males to each individual woman.
The need for the male to capture the attention of the female is the dominant trait, that’s all I’m saying. If the woman is giving you her full attention and picking-up the conversation to continue it, she obviously is finding something attractive, women will humor a man, but she does not give her attention freely to those that she is not attracted to. When women don’t like a man, whether they think he’s ugly, they think he’s gross, he has a bad reputation (whatever the case may be), what do they do, THEY INSTINCTIVELY TURN AWAY FROM HIM! Why do that? Because subconsciously they know if they look at him, they may find something attractive about him. But, if they ignore him, they cannot find him attractive. This is why people say there is a thin line between love and hate (you give your attetnion to both so you are attracted to both), and opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. If someone is indifferent to you, they have no attraction to you, they have no care for you whatsoever, when you’re indifferent to someone you don’t pay attention to them.
I’m stating something that should not be controversial, humans are sexual beings, who are attracted to multiples biological traits that many of the opposite sex have (and a lot of the same sex have), and they will have sex with anything they are attracted to, and that they can consciously rationalize at the moment (there are women and men that have sex with animals and inanimate objects, which gives credence that sexual attraction is created through attention rather than sheer biology–a process known as sexual conditioning–there’s also men who have a thing for older women which goes against the biology of fertile reproduction). Which is to say, sex is a conscious choice, made from rationalizations, based on feelings of attraction created from subconscious stimuli through what is known to be the three factors of sexual attraction, Physical Perception, Audition, and Olfaction. Also, there is not a single woman who has had sex with someone she later regretted having sex with, or didn’t regret, that can’t tell you how she rationalized at the time (if she was sober). If you can’t get the woman to rationalize having sex with you, she can be your double, you can be a ten, rich, powerful, charming, and respectful, but if she can’t consciously rationalize having sex with you, she will not. If she’s married and in love with her husband, just because you have more and are better looking and have more in common will not get you the woman unless you’ve set a context where she can rationalize cheating on her husband–if someone is overtly religious, cultish even, they will not have sex. .
Also, you said that negging is not done by normal socialized people. I had to look up what negging was. Back-handed compliment, teasing. You’ve never been on a playground, or in a high school, or on a college campus, guys tease girls all the time that they’re interested in (how many mothers tell their daughters, he just picks on you because he likes you). The teasing becomes a little more subtle as they grow older, but hell, the first time I met my future wife, it was at a science conference, she was managing a booth, and called LPL protein, LBL by accident, and I corrected her afterwards. She laughed and said she didn’t know where LBL came from, hopefully they were just reading along and didn’t notice. I said, “Hey, for someone with such blond hair you did wonderful.” I smiled, (which she said is the first thing she really noticed about me, which I assume is a good symmetry between the maxila and the mandibular that I have). “Well, someone from the science department should know that hair color has nothing to do with intelligence,” she said, giving me eye contact, and turning her feet toward me–giving me her full attention. I nodded, I touched her arm, “Oh I do, and I can also see you’re a brunette from your roots… maybe it’s the hair dye going to your head. I’m sorry, that’s incredibly rude, I always get this way in front of very beautiful women.” I remember the conversation, because, like I said, I’d go on to marry this woman. If I hadn’t made that teasing remark, I would’ve never gotten her attention, and she would’ve never noticed my smile (the symmetry of my maxila and mandibular, which meant an attraction trait for her), we wouldn’t be married today.
Dude, another long essay without responding to most of my arguments.
About Paul Janka, I knew you will try to criticize his “game”, saying he did something wrong, he was too direct or… not enough direct… blah blah blah… I wrote about it anyway, cause other people reading it will judge for themselves – look up his videos on YouTube, I wouldn’t say he appears psychotic WHEN TALKING TO WOMEN (maybe in the interviews he says some controversial stuff). But like I said I won’t even argue about this one cause obviously it’s my subjective opinion against yours.
Can’t you really see that you can ALWAYS find something to bitch about in everyone’s “game”? That’s how this PUA delusion “works”. Guys who teach their students in the field often use this trick: they approach a chick in front of their students, and if she rejects him really harsh, they turn to their students saying: “Did you notice what I did wrong here?” LOL
Explain to me why Mystery and Tyler Durden also admitted having such a low success rate? (see comment by Alek Novy about this)
You also didn’t reply to my and Alek’s main argument:
Why no one has tested it so far, considering the huge economic incentive there is to test it, the popularity of this topic, and the revenues of all those PUA companies. WHY?
http://aleknovy.com/2011/12/14/gamers-are-too-busy-having-orgies-with-megan-fox-and-this-prevents-them-from-doubling-their-income-over-night/
Also, by maintaining Self-Seeking-Self as a necessity of attraction, you’re ignoring that our genetic code is linked to Primates, a promiscuous social culture. In fact most animals that are social are promiscuous by nature. Early society was much like that, Greeks and Romans show this historically, along with the sixties and seventies. It is much more logical to conclude that…
Dude, „it is more logical to conclude that” I am right since I presented studies PROVING the Self-Seeking Like Theory, and you presented … some loose theories! You have to abolish all the studies quoted by me to say what you are saying.
Your THEORY is that:
It is much more logical to conclude that women are attracted to a wider array of men, through specific traits of attraction that a huge number of men can fulfill, rather than believe that there are a few viable males to each individual woman.
Think rationally for a second, IF that was the reality then those guys who are like the “complete package”, not only handsome, but also socially skilled and stuff (I gave the example of Janka but since you don’t agree with me, imagine such guy) would be able to HAVE LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE WOMAN THEY DESIRE. You really believe there are such men around us??
Here you pull off a classic PUA manipulation, you start with a correct statement:
I’m stating something that should not be controversial, humans are sexual beings, who are attracted to multiples biological traits that many of the opposite sex have (and a lot of the same sex have), and they will have sex with anything they are attracted to, and that they can consciously rationalize at the moment (there are women and men that have sex with animals and inanimate objects,
Yes, yes, this is correct, but does it RATIONALLY mean some factor cannot be superior to others?? I have in mind of course our genes, that have substantial influence on our looks, and hence that’s the cardinal mate selection criteria (proven by Dr Fisher, Dr Alvarez and many many others, also read Suzi Malin’s book to understand “types” are NOT about beauty)
Than you draw a completely irrational conclusion, classic non-sequitur (section “Logical Fallacies”):
which gives credence that sexual attraction is created through attention rather than sheer biology–a process known as sexual conditioning–
About teasing…. God you just observed correlation and mix it up for causation!
And here is the most irrational statement ever:
If I hadn’t made that teasing remark, I would’ve never gotten her attention, and she would’ve never noticed my smile (the symmetry of my maxila and mandibular, which meant an attraction trait for her), we wouldn’t be married today.
Are you serious?? You really think she was into you because of THE TEASING?? If you asked your future wife at that science conference some other questions, without trying to tease, you really think she wouldn’t be attracted to you? She would tell you to fuck off? Or politely reject you?
How the fuck do you know that?! Let me guess… you gonna tell me that she told you so… Well, women are very reluctant to admit they fell simply for some guys looks in the first place. They ignore the first visual trigger of attraction, and focus on other factors. Contrary to you I am entitled to claim such things, because there is evidence for that. NOTE that buy saying about looks I am not claiming other factors are completely insignificant, they do matter after the first like 3 seconds when the female brain subconsciously decides “he is / he is not my type”.
Again, IF that is true there should be a single study PROVING guys who tease the women they approach have a significantly higher success rate than other dudes of similar physical attractiveness.
AGAIN, I NEED EVIDENCE, NOT YOUR THEORIES. CAUSE THIS WAY I CAN “PROVE” HARRY POTTER’S LOVE SPELLS WORKED FOR SOMEONE!!!
As you can see from this unoriginal retard’s desperate gasping, here we have yet another dude using the fragmentation trick of his cult.
His cult is split into 23423 factions and sub-schools (which only differ very slightly)… So whenever any ONE of the factions is disproven or completely ripped to shreds, any gamer can say “Oh, that’s what happens with THAT form of game, not with my form of game”
The fucking funny part is this fucking retard (the one calling janka “psychotic”) is that he has never gone out and randomly approached street chicks like janka, and then tracked his results. I bet this retard won’t have even HALF the results of Janka – but he doesn’t have the BALLS to systematically test his religion – he’d rather write endless essays instead.
HEY ALEX YOU FUCKING RETARD -> It takes 30 minutes to fucking do 10 sets in a mall. Why did you take 30 minutes to write this essay -> go to the mall and get 3-4-5 out of 10 random chicks you approach… GO.
I’m saying Paul Janka is psychotic because he tried to rape someone and then said they deserved it for coming up to his place on false pretenses. I’m saying he’s psychopathic (it’s different than psychotic) because he’s stated in interviews several traits that resemble that of a psychopath, as described by Sandra L. Brown in Women Who Fall in Love With Psychopaths. Psycopaths, just for your information, are charming individuals that are very easy to like, even more so than normal people, they can make quick and easy reads on people, because, unable to be empathetic, they learn early on to fake it by picking up on facial expression and body language so to better appear empathetic. As Errol Morris points out, appearing interesting, appearing empathetic, actually makes people feel as if you’re listening to them more. Perception is reality.
I think we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot here. First, I AGREE WITH BIOLOGY AS ATTRACTION. Second, I consider all pick-up-artist to be losers, getting women shouldn’t be a career, but something that happens because you’re living your life and living an exciting life where you come into contact with women often and have the guts to talk to them. Third, from the age of 21 to 24 I slept with 57 women before courting my wife (in that time, I also got my MS in Evolutionary Psychology, and did an intership at a laboratory at Umass). It sounds either like bullshit or amazing but neither is true.
I weighed 275 pounds, I had a jewpfro, freckles, and clark kent glasses, but I had no problem getting women. This isn’t some game or confidence bullshit. I was just a very friendly guy, and a girl who was like a sister to me told me she didn’t get why I didn’t ask her skinny friend out–they’d all hang out at my place, because my parents rented me a house, instead of an apartment for college–and this one girl always sat next to me, would listen to me, and more. Kara was 117 pounds, long red hair, freckles all about, and she had a small gap in her front teeth. I found this girl incredibly attractive, but didn’t see how she found me attractive. My friend, Laura, told me that i need to open my eyes and she explained to me all the female signals that Kara was giving off. I asked Kara out and a week later I was no longer a virgin. After two months we broke up. Well, instead of the usual tale of sorrow, where guys end up at the Pick-Up-Artist community, I thought, wow, beautiful skinny women will actually find me attractive. So, I took every opportunity to talk to beautiful and skinny women, and I read up on body language of attraction, I think they’re called Interest Indicators in the PUA community. And every time I got signals, I kept the conversation going, every time I didn’t get signals, I told her it was nice meeting her and to have a good day. About 10 to 20% of my approaches created dates, about 80 to 90% of the women whose numbers I asked for I got. I never went out once by myself with friends to pick-up women, I always went out to have a good time, and I just took advantage of every opportunity that was present.
That’s what I always thought the Pick-Up-Artist taught. Is that not what they teach? I don’t know, I didn’t study the community for my paper, i studied the methods they were using, and that is what I concluded from their methods. Approach, get their attention, look for interest indicators, bale if there are none, repeate until you find interest indicators, then lead conversation, and set a context for what you want from the interaction.
You guys have said that you don’t have a problem with getting women. Is there something in my description for approaching and dating women that isn’t what you do?
I believe in the numbers game (approaching lots of women, any intuitive person should be able to avoid most rejection by recognizing when someone’s not interested), but I also believe people listen to their gut reactions, and that their gut reactions to someone like Paul Janka is run for your life.
I’m simply stating that seduction is what happens after attraction. It is the process of leading the interaction and setting a context that makes it possible to rationalize sex.
Alex, I want to apologize for jumping on you too fast. I still disagree with a lot of things you say, but I now see you as simply being wrong, and not crazy.
In other words, you’re not in the crazy “I can cheat biology by changing my voice tonality” camp, so I think a more fair dialogue with you is fair.
I’m busy today, but I would love to see the dialogue between you and admin over the following posts.
I’m simply stating that seduction is what happens after attraction. It is the process of leading the interaction and setting a context that makes it possible to rationalize sex.
Your argument is very similar to what guys like Clarence already posted here. My reply is plain and simple:
If there is seduction, there should be at least one study proving it! A test on statistically significant samples, comparing guys of similar physical attractiveness.
My other objection is this:
Even IF there is such thing as seduction, that takes place after attraction, then WHY study it? You will NEVER know what difference a particular persuasion technique did make. You are not able to measure it. Why waste time contemplating thousands of techniques, unlimited numbers of approaches, like the guys noted here some even contemplate how high did you hold your drink in a club LOL
Think about: this PUA (and even seduction the way you understand it) craze just gets people paranoid, since there are no rules. EVERY aspect of your interaction with women could have some impact (in theory)!
Hey Alex,
this is a fabulous website! I’m glad that more and more people see behind the facade that is pickup, and realize the scammy nature of this business. What concerns me, though, is that those marketers have switched to targeting a crowd that would also fall for get-rich-schemes. The “get-laid-quick” scheme is very similar, obviously, and just like telemarketers fleece some greedy (or slow-thinking) people out there, so do “PUAs” relentlessly go after vulnerable men, and if you have a look at the logic of those sales letters, it’s obvious that they are meant to trick people who aren’t overly familiar with critical thinking. (See this post for illustration: http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2011/08/bradp-im-onto-you.html)
By the way, also check out my treatment of this industry in “Debunking the Seduction Community”:
http://www.aaronsleazy.com/cms/aaron-sleazy-debunking-seduction-community
It’s admin’s website, not Alex’s, lol.
Though he should probably finally get himself a nickname, so people no longer have to refer to him as just “ADMIN”.
Should I pick a nickname that sounds as silly as PUA nicknames?
Anything would work, as long as you have one, could be a first name (nobody will track you down using just first name).
I’d suggest going into the profile section:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/wp-admin/profile.php
-> should be there I’d guess
Where it has a field called nickname, write down
FirstName (Admin)
Then from the dropdown list, choose it as the display name.
p.s.
The reason I say you put (admin) in brackets instead of just going by FirstName is because many old comments have referred to you as “admin”, so you would probably want to keep it in your display name.
@admin – just pick a really anonymous name with admin in brackets as Alex suggests.
I have found out in real life that when you confront gamers or PUA gurus with your view that guy’s looks matter to women that you will be met with extreme anger.
Gamers will be ok with someone saying approach angles don’t matter too much but heaven forbid that they state that A GUY’s LOOKS MATTER TO WOMEN!!! LOL
Yep, it’s the single most-angering thing you could ever say. It’s like blasphemy.
Even with more balanced guys who are more focused on social skills (like Brent Smith or Cory Skyy) -> daring to suggest the influence of looks will make their followers go in EPILEPTIC shocks and you’ll see their faces turn red… It’s scary.
Thanks guys, will think about a nickname. In the meantime – I am still good old Admin
@AaronSleazy – I read your free ebook before I found this site and it was nice to see someone else reiterate similar ideas that I learned (the hard way) about the seduction community.
I like your take on the foolsmate LOL…
Well, some brainwashed Mystery followers on mASF tried to mock me by calling me the “king of the fool’s mate”, not realizing that this is the only kind of game there is. When you read those “field reports” of others you almost feel as if the women fuck those guys out of pity…
I would take this as the biggest compliment possible, lol. Because to “master fool’s mate” means that you become an expert at reading who’s attracted to you, becoming an expert at figuring out the contexts and locations in which you have the highest ROI (etc… etc).
Being a “master of fool’s mate” is being a master at efficiency. It’s all about how to get more results while doing less work.
Being called a natural is what pisses me off
I hate meeting PUAs who call me a “natural” coz that fucking implies I didn’t do any work to get where I am. I invested a shit ton of effort working on my social skills and flirting skills and my confidence and my physique.
I would love if they called me “the king of fool’s mate” though lol. I would take pride in that.
Let me give you an analogy to this ego-based fool’s mate crap
One of the businesses that I am involved with is web-design. In web-design you can create a website that looks like the best corporate websites in 2012, and do so at just 2-300$ if you use a template that you then tweak to your needs. With 200$ you get a website that’s at the level of cnn.com or what not.
There are however ego-based businesses out there who would rather build a website in notepad, from scratch, writing every snippet of html by hand (they refuse to licence any code, or use pre-made anything, not even html code or JS code or anything). They produce websites that look like the websites from 1995, and it takes 10 times as much effort and time to do it and costs like 5000$… So a shitty 1995 website for 5000$.
But they get to say “we did it from scratch, we didn’t use no templatey mate!!” I’m like “and your point would be? Your site still looks like every other site looked like in 1995? You didn’t exactly reinvent the wheel just because you wrote it in notepad”
LOL – I can just picture one of these Mystery followers on mASF typing away a “War and Peace” length post on a Sunday morning at 1:00 AM after some night club sarging chronicling how they managed an email close after a perfect A1 – A3 “attract phase”.
Meantime, it is 1:00 AM at your place and you have another “foolsmate” in your kingdom.
Mike,
you are not exaggerating at all. The most outlandish accusation was from some Mystery fanboy (who didn’t get laid at all), that all my successes shouldn’t count because I wasn’t following the rules. As if the world worked according to one insecure lanky dude from Toronto! Among the many gems he contributed was advice such as “learn a magic trick and then perform it for at least five girls a night.” You can’t make this stuff up…
Thanks Aaron!
We should cooperate against this scam : ) What do you thing about our idea of testing it, so there finally is a report exposing this scam including statistically significant groups of guys? “the Experiment” section
Come on dude, “beta dude”? That’s just silly. Pick something better and less generic.
You gonna have to live with that LOL when I wrote about some silly PUA style nickname I wasn’t bullshitting
It’s gonna be like a parody. My second choice was PuaDestroyer…
PS: I just updated the Experiment section with a summary of what we have managed to establish so far
admin,
there is no need to actually test it because the scam is obvious. Your level of success is greatly defined by your fundamentals, and the idea that picking up women is an independent skill is nothing but laughable. If the “pick up arts” really worked as advertised, you’d have short, broke, ugly men all over the world f*cking Jessica Alba lookalikes. That being said, I like the “experiment” page for the challenge it provides for any scam artist.
What would make more sense, though, would be to educate people on critical thinking because the stupidity you encounter from proponents of PUA (either commercial dudes, who often aren’t exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch), to their followers who defend it because it gives them “hope,” is beyond belief. It’s often as if you’d talk to moronic little children.
Yep, like I pointed before somewhere on this website logic should be obligatory in school : )
But I still think the experiment could convert many guys. Some PUAs would answer you:
“Oh no, an ugly hobo won’t nail Alba looking likes, but thanks to game you can date chicks that are 2 points hotter than you are” (I think that Roissy guy claims that).
In this moment a lot of guys get completely confused (ignoring lack of evidence of course). I am sure the results of such experiment will be shocking to a lot of people, because in my opinion they will show NONE influence of game on the results. It will rip appart not only PUAs, but even theories about seduction understood the way for instance Clarence explained here.
Remember that there are hardocore PUAs who are Mystery or Ross Jeffries fans, but there are also those guys who don’t believe you can “create attraction” but they do believe in persuasion, NLP, seduction in the broad sense…
Also a lot of quite smart guys get confused when PUAs show them a real couple where the man is average looking and of average financial status and his girlfriend is a true hottie (a personally knew 2 such couples). That’s why I often talk about women having their types. The mainstream dating advice often don’t explain these doubts.
PS: I just updated the Experiment section with a summary of what we have managed to establish so far
@Beta Dude
From now on instead of just stating (maybe a bit dogmaticly, I admit, on my part) that women are influenced by a guy’s looks, I will state that women have “their type” of guy that they are physically attracted to and that is why you see sometimes see what are deemed “hot” women with “average looking” guys.
BTW, I really think this is a better (rational) way of thinking because now all we have to do (as the “second group” guys) is to find out which women consider us “their type” physically.
I have to admit that at times, I am a bit like George Costanza of Seinfeld in my thinking where he once stated he’d rather have a woman that thinks he is good looking vs one who likes his personality. LOL
Great, and don’t let those Alexes and Aleks change your mind
Speaking of Aaron Sleazy – Admin, I think you need to put in a blog-roll widget and link to all these related sites like puahate.com, lifestylejourney, aaronsleazy etc… etc…
Give me a hand – cause I am still new to WordPress : )
BTW, I just added a link to Seduction Myth to my blog, and hope it’ll get you some more exposure.
Hey man, I love your book “minimal game”, just finished it (10 pages left).
I like how you use “game” and “seduction” in the marketing to draw in the fools, but you then pound common sense into them later on… You basically redefine “game” as mere common sense.
I love it. Your stuff on escalation and approaching is very similar to the SIRC-stuff, but I think the problem with it is that the way you explain it “sounds vague”.
Like when I read it, I know what you’re explaining, because I’m at the experiential level where I know what you’re explaining. But to inexperienced men, that section will read vague.
See this:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/approach-guide/
-> Scroll down to the later half that talks about touching, testing and escalation.
Guys who need to learn this, tend to have to have it spelled out in this sort of a literal way. I know that if I read your book 7 years ago or so, I would have completely misunderstood your escalation section and went around creeping girls out and wondering what’s happening
Hey man,
this was an issue I thought pretty long about when I was working on the book, but in the end I decided to not overburden guys with the minutiae of touching. I simply trust them that they’ll figure this out, and guys do indeed figure this out quickly once they realize that it’s fine to touch girls when they are flirting with them.
Thanks! As soon as Alek helps me with the blog-roll
I will post a link to yours.
Btw admin, feel free to contact me. I actually do wordpress for a living – I sometimes charge people 2000$ per day to re-do their sites using wordpress.
If you need any help, just email me, I’d be glad to help out for free. We can spiff up the site design-wise with the latest designs, and then I’ll help you with additional modules for stuff like comment-moving and additional features that will make dialogue here better. And yes, it means you can also finally have a blog-roll so you can link to people like Aaron etc.
Wow thanks man! I will e-mail you and we discuss it.
You got mail !
P.S
This might seem like a “low blow”, but I must point it out, since it’s relevant. This guy clarence who was talking about how amazing NLP was at auto-magically making him lose weight has recently put in an avatar… And he is… fat.
Now, I don’t want to make it seem like I’m “fat-shaming”, there’s nothing wrong with being fat. I was fat for 20 years of my life and struggled with it terribly.
The point here is this guy is selling an automagical scam that magically makes people lose weight, and he used HIMSELF as the anecdotal evidence, but it didn’t work for even him…
I have a question… the social habilities, the self confident and the humor sense are important of course… What happens if a guy doesn’t have those habilities? he should learn from someone or somewhere… That the reason because Mystery and others puas learned about seduction (social habilities in real?).
How anybody without self-confident, social habilities nor humor sense can get them without go out with puas or learn from them?
Thanks for asking. Great question. By some accident I answered it on my blog today.
http://aleknovy.com/2012/01/17/sane-alternatives-to-game/
Also go on this website, on the menu on top, see “reality check” then from the drop pick “approach guide”.
In short, one of the reasons that PUA marketers have to bash “mainstream advice” is precisely because it’s so much superior to theirs.
Any amazon bestseller on “how to work a room” or “how to charm people” or “how to flirt” is infinetely superior to all the PUA and Game materials combined.
Mainstream has a further advantage that it doesn’t FUCK YOU UP
like PUA advice does… The irony is that PUAs take and recycle mainstream flirting and dating and social skills advice, and then add 10 pounds of bullshit on top of it (just so they look different) -> the trouble is the shit they add in order to look different is likely to turn you creepy, weird and fuck you up for years. On puahate.com they have threads about “recovering from PUA” where guys share the processes they go through in order to rid themselves of the damaging beliefs and traits they picked up back when they were PUAs.
There IS (or does) exist something that’s in between the mainstream and pua-crap. There are these guys called ron louis and dave copeland, and they teaching mainstream-flirting advice, but it is less PC than mainstream flirting books in that it will give you a STRUCTURE on how go about building a get-laid life.
So, in your blog you said that there is a third alternative… being normal and reading books of Leil Lowndes could help people that have problems with those habilities.
In this world that there is more individual than ever, there are more people with social difficults. I am a psychology and I want to help people with these problems but recommend them something real that help them.
Thanks for the advice
Since the seduction community and being a (peacocked)”gamer” are now so maintstream (ie. with references to PUA in movies, shows like VH1, etc), many guys who have issues in dating will have to go back to “normal” or mainstream dating wisdom (ie. books by books of Leil Lowndes) just to set them apart from the “gamer” wierdos.
One of the issues with the seduction community is that it transforms ordinary AFC guys from being integrated members of society (who are normal) and makes them into wierdos – wierdos who give up their hobbies, authentic personality, passions, etc. just to be PUA’s!
This is indeed tragic.
Here is a short clip of PUA gurus doing pickup on a reporter and failing miserably;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPlB71q9SwA&feature=related
Here is a clip of one of the PUA gurus who failed miserably in the above clip actually teaching guys how to do PU;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-ECqsnzWA
I bet that the guys learning PU in the above video could do bettter by reading a book by Leil Lowndes vs learning from a PUA who is weird.
These videos inspired me
how about exposing this PUA scam by financing a journalistic report (if we don’t gather enough funds for the experiment with the speed dating thing). We don’t need any big names from the media, just a guy with a cameraman, who is contractually obligated to transfer the rights to the report to us.
But when investigating the community he wouldn’t reveal that he is “working” for us. So those con artists would think they are dealing with another Neil Strauss who will give them free publicity. So they will probably have no objections to sign a contract allowing that journalist (and any person he further assigns the rights) to publish their names, photos, post this report online and the forth.
I am counting that the end result will be something like “Borat.” Imagine that journalist acting like he is completely brainwashed by the PUA cult, imagine him provoking those PUA clowns to say the biggest nonsenses ever, fully convinced they are the heroes. Go all the way. Keep reassuring them that the journalists are on their side. The final result will be a material with a lot of statements that contradict one another. We will also have a lot of “field testing” that actually show those guys failing so bad. For ex. we ask them to present us a really skilled PUA, and provoke them to brag about his purported abilities. Than the crew goes with a camera with him to let’s say a speed dating event, and keep track of his actual results.
@ admin (aka Beta Dude LOL)
There are actually several videos of guys using PUA skills and failing miserably on youtube – I just posted the couple of links I found.
Perhaps it would be good to just have a section on this site to just post the links to these PUA fail videos – that way, the guys “sitting on the fence” about believing whether the seduction community is legit could be bombarded by these videos and then make up their mind based on other views of the seduction community.
For the journalist idea – journalists are always looking for interesting stories and Valentines Day is coming. Perhaps a journalist would appreciate a lead (it could just take an email to a newspaper) that a story exposing the seduction community would be very interesting.
Many cities have boot camps and all a journalist would have to do is go to the place where the boot camp is taking place.
Getting a story like this could be a huge break for a journalist to get well known (just like Neil Straus did) – I think he would appreciate the tip.
I will add more of them to my YouTube channel, thanks for the suggestion BetaMike lol
The following link shows excerpts from a PUA bootcamp – not only are these extremely humorous, they certainly will make guys think twice about being in or joining the seduction community cult;
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2011/04/vince-kelvin-joke-is-on-you.html
Imagine taking a PUA boot camp and then watching the weirdo instructor gaming women who not only are fat, but ignore him. LOL
Well this is clearly a massive fail, if you were actually rational, you would realise that it is impossible to prove something like this. Attraction and romance is not logical. How about you suggest a reasonable study to actually prove something like this? Empirical science has its limitations and this is definitely an area where it is ineffective.
listen Jacko Wacko, no one said attraction is logical (straw man).
READ CAREFULLY before criticizing. We only claim it is a drive, and as such it cannot be created.
As for your claim that it is impossible “to prove something like that”. Well again, you didn’t even read this website, cause otherwise you would know about section “the Experiment” which describes precisely how to prove PUA stuff wrong. In fact, it has already been proven – studies in sections “Her Type” and “Genes and Personality Types” contradict PUA bullshit (if skills matter most, then those researches wouldnt be able to find any hormonal correlations).
Lastly, IF seduction exists, then how can you explain the miserable (in the light of what PUAs promise you to get) success rate of Paul Janka? Read ending of section “Bs Created So Far”
Interesting point about sexual attraction. Had a chat with NYC Lair Chief last summer at the Dating Summit and oddly enough he said pretty much the same thing about attraction, yet, even so, there is still plenty of things for PUA to work on.
Now, a few important points to consider that haven’t been addressed earlier, and this isn’t to invalidate your original assertions, because they are pretty sound, but to expand on them and put it in to more practical terms, because for us guys its all about results, not some abstract theory, unless it’s useful and can be applied in real life that is.
First of all, I think we’ll agree that an average guy, and more so a PUA, doesn’t give 2 shits about sexual attraction, because while it might get you all warm and fuzzy thinking about whether a girl is sexually attracted to you, but in the end for a guy it’s not about sexual attraction, it’s all about GETTING LAID. A good thing to realize is that there are plenty of sluts around where you just have to be at the right place at the right time and what does your research say about alcohol and its effect on our ability to make sound judgment? And here, PUA skills come down to being persistent and having social savvy to isolate the girl while guarding off her cockblocking friends and other dudes.
Another thing, we can’t just equate sexual attraction with sex because there is plenty of secretaries fucking their bosses and agents. A couple anecdotal stories, but bear with me because they illustrate a point, and those things actually happened. When working in mall security, ended up fucking my supervisor not because I was attracted to her but mostly cause had nothing better to do so it was like why not, actually she had another girl with her, and there was possibility of a threesome, but the other girl left so I kinda got stuck, but in a good sort of way, and later I found out she had sex with the director of security there and it was all fucked up just all around but fun at the same time because everybody knew what was going on. Another time I had a girl hook up with me just to get back at her ex boyfriend, actually it was a bit more complicated because her ex-boyfriend was my friend and was gonna introduce me to her, but apparently she still had some unresolved feelings toward him, cause by the time we got to the party where she was at, she was already making out with 2 dudes half naked. It was cool cause I knew the dudes through military and we were all drinking and that girl had nice tits but was pretty nasty all around, so all 3 of us fucked her at the same time and that was the craziest thing I did because we’d clap hands every couple minutes and rotate, like some kinda military drill lol, but I’m sure other guys did more outlandish things and it’s all a matter of going for it.
So you get those revenge fucks, and than you have girls working out their daddy issues or other insecurities so they are not driven by passion but just looking for some validation or whatever is wrong with them I don’t know, but they will always have sex with you if you just play your cards right. And if they are gonna hook up with some random guys while looking for love in all the wrong places, that might as well be you, for all I’m concerned.
Take Genkhis Khan, he had sex with countless women. He’s DNA is in 8% of Mongholian man and 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants. Was it his good genes, or did he end up in power and than use coercion and social status to get sex?
Than, there are all forms of deception to get sex, and it’s fucked up but guys do it all the same. There was a famous confidence man Richard Allen Minsky who scammed countless victims in to sex by cold calling and whispering at a barely audible level until the victim called out a name, giving him the information needed to continue the ruse. He would then pose as an attorney to convince them that the aforementioned loved one was in legal trouble. In variations of the scam, he would say that the loved one was involved in a hit and run accident that carried a mandatory two year sentence.He would tell the victim that a witness would have to be bribed with sex or money in order to drop charges so that their loved one would be released from jail. Minsky met with the women as the so-called witness at various locations such as hotels, and sexually assaulted some of them. In some of the cases, he urged the victim to dress provocatively for the meeting. Minsky was difficult to prosecute in some of the cases because there was no weapon or threat of bodily injury.
Now, the final point to consider, and this is actually the most important thing because it will ultimately determine the quality of your sex life. Just because somebody is sexually attracted to you, does not mean you will get to have sex with the girl. There are may be social norms, logistics, relationship status, and other things in a way. Say you are on a street, or riding a bus, or even at work and see a cute girl, if you don’t know how to manufacture a socially acceptable way to create interaction and carry it forward for you to get together, it’s not gonna happen. IT”S ALWAYS A MANS JOB! I had a girl at Donkin Donuts yesterday give me a smile at me with that sexy smile, and than extend eye contact, and I knew at the moment she was attracted, so I could have capitalized on it and asked her out, but fuck, color me stupid, I just went on with my day.
Seduction – you are right, to fuck with it. But if having sex with countless women is something you are interested in – getting in to pickup is a reasonable thing to consider, although I’ll tell you a little secret, actually the cheapest way to get sex is to pay for it, in Canada for about $160 you can get the hottest girls and you don’t even need to be fit or attractive, or good or anything and it’s even cheaper in Easter Europe and Asia so I don’t even know why I bother with pickup stuff … although, oh yeah, because in US that shit can lend you in jail, so yeah, better to stick with pickup. It’s tough because you gotta have your logistics, looks, health, attitude all figured out, but it’s the only way.
But those “abstract theories” you reject as purely hypothetical were formulated after studying the behavior of thousands of REAL people (sections “Her Type” or “Genes and Personality Types” for instance). It’s not like they were made up in a lab with white mice and shit.
Those abstract theories explain why for instance this doesn’t make any sense:
And here, PUA skills come down to being persistent and having social savvy to isolate the girl while guarding off her cockblocking friends and other dudes.
If you do this with a girl who is not attracted to you at all, you end up loosing time “guarding off her”. You do agree that attraction cannot be created right?
Another thing, we can’t just equate sexual attraction with sex because there is plenty of secretaries fucking their bosses and agents.
Yes we can equate it, because the examples you gave are more like prostitution. It doesn’t count. MOREOVER, how do you know that those secretaries were not attracted to their bosses?? (at least many of them could be, and some small part could be regular prostitutes in the office)
Again, you guys confuse “looks” with “beauty”. For us men it is almost the same. For a woman to feel attracted to a man physical attractiveness (being handsome) is not necessarily needed. What she always needs though is appropriate genes, the man has to be “her type” as many women tell – “Her Type” section, “Genes and Personality Types” section. This explains why beautiful women end up with ugly men sometimes. All the more if those dudes who “match” their genotype, have something more to offer, instead of looks, like status for instance. But again it is not status per se that makes the difference. Otherwise those secretaries would be fucking anyone with a higher rank in the office! They would be fucking the new boss right away. It doesn’t work that way. Status is merely one of the secondary factors that comes into play when genotypes “match”
Take Genkhis Khan, he had sex with countless women. He’s DNA is in 8% of Mongholian man and 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants.
What does it have to do with the topic?? You really think those women had a choice?? You think they could reject the emperor?? Yes, sure soon after their heads would be cut off together with the heads of everyone in their families. Again, it doesn’t mean that some fraction of those women couldn’t be genuinely attracted to Mr Khan. One thing does not contradict the other. Some small part of them probably were. His status was merely a secondary factor just like in case of the secretary fucking her boss.
Finally, I can bet any money that the Experiment (read this section) will prove that the success rate of guys like Richard Allen Minsky is exactly the same as the success rate of any other guy OF SIMILAR PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS. If I am wrong, how do you explain Paul Janka’s small (compared to PUA theories) success rate?? read end of section “BS Created So Far”
Admin, I think we are in agreement here that scientific evidence you’ve offered show strong genetic influence on human matchmaking. It’s like the odds in a card game, they might be stacked for you or against you, and when you want to play in NBA, you gotta have the genes, because training alone is not enough.
On a separate note, think it would be fair to say that if a girl is attracted to you, but you don’t make a move, there is a good chances that nothing will happen? Now, that is not to say that at times a girl might initiate, but not always, so you’d be missing out on a lot of opportunities and for guys that don’t have the best genetics to begin with, not making their move would almost certainly ensure that they’ll remain virgins forever, which is sad. Hence the saying – YOU ARE THE MAN, IT’S YOUR JOB!!!
Now, one of the problems with guys that are not good with girls, asides from genetics, is that they don’t really make their moves cause they are shy and if they do, they go about it in a clumsy awkward sort of a way that gets them laughed at, and they get their egos hurt, and don’t approach as much as they could or should. And even if they accidentally end up on a date once in a blue moon, they don’t know how to move things forward, so they either leave it up to the girl to take initiative all along the way which I think you’ll agree could be counterproductive at times, or they make award advances that makes everybody feel uneasy and uncomfortable and lead to dates from hell that everybody hates.
So in the end, what it comes down to, while you can get better with girls through conscious effort, the main problem is with marketing and false advertisement that is common not just to PUA, but to a lot of other fields, like nutrition and supplements, health and fitness, weight loss, and other fields. Actually something as mundane and straight-forward as horse-power rating on air compressors – how could you screw that one up …but the fucked up thing is – until recently you’d see your local Sear advertising 3hp air compressor, that actually had only 0.5Hp motor in it, before they got slapped with class-action lawsuit. It’s getting a bit of topic so don’t want to dwell in to it but you can read more about it here: http://www.kevinsbrady.net/motors.pdf Really – if marketers fudge hard numbers in your local retailer, with online marketers all hell breaks loose.
Tyler in Blueprint decoded said that less than 3% of the guys ever get good, which I feel is pretty generous cause in reality it’s more like only 0.5% of the guys that start to pickup girls, that get to the point where they can consistently get good results from cold approach (e.g. get laid with a new girl every weekend when going out 2-3 times a week), the rest either get completely discouraged or get decent enough to get a girlfriend and than quit.
Now, Paul Janka’s numbers, if you say it’s 1 out of 10 girls he talks to he gets laid, that’s actually really good!!! For cold approach, I think a more reasonable guideline is – out of 10 interactions, you might get one number, and out of 10 numbers, you might get one date, and out of 10 dates you might get laid once. This numbers are more in-line an been confirmed many times over. For an average guys that is decent looking, can hold a conversation without getting awkward and can move things forward, if you to the math, that’s ONE LAY FOR A THOUSAND APPROACHES. Now, if that sounds bad, I can tell you for a fact that, it can be a lot worse because I personally know a guy who went on some 50 odd dates and HAVEN”T GOTTEN LAID ONCE, how it’s possible I’m not sure, because he wasn’t bad looking or anything, but may be some emotional hangups, who knows, eventually he did get laid though.
So in the end, genes not withstanding, its still you responsibility as a man to take action, for 99% of the guys, genes alone will not get you laid!
All this stuff is addressed in the approach guide. Alternatives to cold approaches, etc. Percentages and what you can do to have a higher average (basically, how to spot interest, select venues based on interest level, etc – so you dont have to do *cold* approaches).
Youre overcomplicating the social thing and making it seem far more fearsome than it is.
All you got to do is be a normal human being and treat it like a normal social situation, requiring no special behavior at all. Youre just seeing if someone wants to be friends with you. It might not come as smoothly at first for guys who have been implanted with the belief that they have to act *special* around girls, but after a little while the vast majority of men can become perfectly comfortable and normal around women once they grasp that you dont have to *make* them like you or do anything *special* around them, which is all it takes to allow those women who find you *her type* to be willing to act on her attraction to you. Thats really it.
Its not rocket science – one you realize how simple and effortless it really is, and you stop overcomplicating it in your bran, interacting with women goes from being an anxious chore (typical gamer) to being fun, guilt and acrimony free, and spontaneous.
Hey Jake, good point about approach guide, gonna check it out!
You know, at first I’ve read the article and the comments here, and it sounded like admin was discounting guy’s ability of to get girls through conscious action, which would imply relying purely on fate and providence, and that I think everyone will agree is not a good way to go about living your life, but now it looks like there is more depth to that, so that is good and hopefully we can make it more clear to everyone, so there is no confusion.
Now, about being normal, that is also very good point and clearly works for many guys. So what would we recommend to guys that are normal by all accounts, and are functional members of society as far as their job and career and social status, and they just don’t seem to get girls, is that just because they don’t try or don’t try hard enough, or what’s there for them to do because I had friends like that? Perhaps I’ll hold off on that discussion though, cause I haven’t checked out action guide, and there might be some gold nuggets there that will address all of that.
Also, btw, let’s not give anybody impression, that being normal and confirming to society standards is the only way to get girls, because there are guys out there who are clearly eccentric and out yet get tons of pussy because they are wild and exciting and just seem to click with certain types of girls, and that is most usually what we would call “party” girls that are drawn to that. So it follows that there are many guys that want to get with this girls, but they aren’t getting it and so in case you’d want to get a share of that, it might be a conundrum for this guys on how to go about it, unless they drop they cool and become a bit eccentric themselves, but that’s getting a bit off point, so again, I’ll refrain this to the action guide discussion later.
Again mate, thanks for heads up on the action guide, because that is clearly what’s needed to point guys in the right direction on their path to success with woman.
If you apologize to admin and the commenters that you stereotyped due to laziness, all will be fine.
You marched in here and posted like 1 hours worth of writing and lecturing to admin and commenters, before you even read what the site and it’s commenters are about.
You took 1 hour making an ASS-U-M-PTION, when it would have taken you 1/3 of that to check if your assumption is right in the first place – do that next time before you lecture people based on assumptions, mmmkay?
Look at him, he’s still going on and on and on and on….
Read the site first to see if what you’re saying isn’t already covered instead of just droning on and on and on and on.
More reading, less blabbing.
Mayhem, when I say *normal* I simply mean dont go out of your way to act in a *special trying to make her like me way (game, etc)*. Simply be yourself and be socially calibrated (no matter how exciting and eccentric you are with girls who like that kind of thing, if you are socially mis-calibrated and mis-read her signals you are not gonna get anywhere).
Now, it is important to point out that being exciting and wild and eccentric does not create sexual attraction in ANY girl, but you are correct that it will not freak out certain types of girls who are already into your type. Other girls it might will freak out – but who cares? Point is, be yourself and get the girls that are meant for you! Be *normal* in the sense that you dont act *special* to make girls like you.
And like Alek Novy says, you REALLY SHOULD be reading all the comments before posting! Most of this stuff has been discussed IN DETAIL!!
@Mayhem, like Jake said, a lot of the stuff you brought up has already been brought up and discussed many times before. You haven’t brought up one single original thought or idea.
No offense, you seem like a smart guy. I’m just saying there isn’t an original sentence in your comment. You should have read more of previous comments and content before responding.
That’s actually often misquoted by admin and a few other folks here, so I have to keep reminding what the actual stat is.
He LAYS one out of 11 phone numbers. He doesn’t lay one out of 10 approaches lol
He hasn’t shared his actual approach-to-phone-number ratio. But even if he gets 50% phone numbers, that means he lays one out of 22, not one out of 10.
Ewwwwww doood that’s horrible
I know you were trying to make a point, but you exaggerated so much you went into the absurd 
Even back (a decade ago) when I was fat and super-shy and anxious and nervous and trembling when approaching chicks, I could get as much as 30% numbers – no, it’s not normal to only get 10%
BTW having been involved with this a long time, me and my many acquintances and friends have tested and kept track of everything. I’ve come close to Janka’s numbers at times, and some of my friends had his ratios (consistently too).
Also, there’s a couple of studies where they had guys approach strange random women, and they got percentages almost as big as ours (and Jankas).
Do you get this? A university picking random dorks and just telling them to straight up ask women out, got almost the same results as a guru who had dedicated his life to it.
If you seriously think 1 in 1000 conversion is normal, there’s something really wrong on your end.
That’s actually often misquoted by admin and a few other folks here, so I have to keep reminding what the actual stat is.
You are right! Not even Janka reveals his approach-to-lay ratio. This should be the most important ratio from any guy’s perspective.
You already mentioned it before, and I really don’t know how did I missed it.
Already amended the main page and ending of section “BS Created So Far” where Janka’s success rate is described.
“Take Genkhis Khan, he had sex with countless women. He’s DNA is in 8% of Mongholian man and 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants. Was it his good genes, or did he end up in power and than use coercion and social status to get sex?”
That you make this example means that you are either:
- mentally handicapped (“logically challenged”, if it suits you better)
- trolling
- a paid shill
Sorry, but no one can be so stupid to use Genghis Khan as an example when discussing seduction. Do you realize that he wasn’t just some regular bloke who rolled up to chicks and said, “Hey, what’s your name? Wanna have drinks some time?” As far as I know, he had women all over his empire carted to his palaces. As Beta Dude said, what other choice did they have?
Sleazy, admin already did a good job explaining why seduction does not work, so I don’t think it’s productive for us to dwell on it, as that is now sufficiently clear and universally agreed by everyone. So here we are moving beyond seduction and just looking at practical ways a guy can assure getting laid, unless you think it’s 100% fate and no conscious action could change or influence it.
Now what’s up with Genghis Khan? Well, he obviously was a crafty fellow who got around getting all the pussy he could get his hands on, and was not relying on some fate or genes. But don’t think for a moment here, that I’m suggesting that we all move to some desolate nations and start our own empires, lol, that would be too crazy. I mean the guy clearly was not ethical and a nutcase on top of that, so it’s better to just take it as an example of a guy thinking outside the box to get above average results and that is all there is to it.
A bigger question is what is there for a guy to do? That’s where PUAHATE guys gone wrong, cause other than just hating and bashing, they have no solution, aside from hire a hooker (which is actually pretty valid) or kill yourself (which is fucked up). They also advise guys to see a shrink like some holy grail. Well, what do you know – I was at NYC Dating Summit last summer talking to one dude there and he only found out about the whole thing cause his psychologist sent him there. LOL. It’s good that his shrink was thinking outside the box, not sure how that supports or negates what PUAHATE guys are saying. When you go to a shrink just remember – THERE IS NO MONEY BACK, THEY CAN USE MISLEADING TESTIMONIALS and THEY DON”T HAVE TO ACCURATELY TRACK AND REPORT THEIR SUCCESS RATE. Also methods that shrinks use don’t have to be scientific or have any efficacy at all, not even pacebo effect like some puas undoubtedly rely on, because it actually is pretty powerful in it’s own right. So as far as shrinks are concerned, for all we know they’ll just keep taking your money for a long time.
With that said, I don’t think admin have to come up with all the answers here, but he should make it clear, so as not to confuse anyone, that even though seduction doesn’t exist, there is still a lot of things that a guys can do to help himself get laid with more and better quality women, less you think sitting on a couch eating chocolate chip cookies is a good way to go about it, hoping for girls to magically appear in your bedroom, but I’m sure you not advocating that. We just need to put our efforts together to make it more clear.
IF YOU WERENT SO FUCKING LAZY, YOU WOULD HAVE READ THE SITE BEFORE COMMENTING YOU LAZY BUM.
It would have taken you less time to read through the site, then it took you to write that out. THERE ALREADY IS A SECTION FOR THAT. It’s the “approach guide” on the far right… Sheesh.
What’s with all these lazy commenters who come in and write 50 page speeches thinking they’re being original and saying original things, but they’re saying things that are identical to previous commenters – and all they had to do was take 20 mins of skimming the site to see what has or hasn’t been covered.
YOU
FUCKING
LAZY
FUCKING
BUM
COULD YOU HAVE AT LEAST HAD A MODICUM OF DECENCY AND RESPECT TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT ADMIN SAYS BEFORE SAYING WHAT HE SAYS FOR HIM!?!?!
YOU FUCKING LAZY LOSER. What’s with all these fake dichotomies you fucking lazy bum. “Oh, so if you’re not into pua, you must be into seating on a coach and doing nothing”. WHAT THE FUCK!?
Making the assumption that admin is the typical puahate-type-woe-is-me-I-cant-do-anything dude, would have been justified as a PRE-stereotype BEFORE you visited the site.
BUT THE FUCKING SITE IS FUCKING FULL OF SOLUTIONS AND YOU HAVENT SAID A SINGLE THING THAT ADMIN HIMSELF HASNT SAID. BUT YOU KEEP ASSUMING WHAT HE WOULD SAY IF HE FIT YOUR STEREOTYPE.
ALL IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FUCKING MINUTES OF SKIMMING TO NOT MAKE SUCH A HUGE FOOL OF YOURSELF.
Sexual Attraction is the only thing I think we’d actually care about, romantic or personal attraction is something we have little care about when it comes down to us getting laid.
We can’t equate sexual attraction to sex because women will use their bodies to gain things from people they have little or no interest in, that has a small little piece of truth to it. All consensual sex where nothing is to be gained except pleasure and intimacy is based on sexual attraction and very little else.
Revenge sex is about finding people you’re attracted to to sleep with. Beta Dude and I have gone back and forth on this, but, their are a range of traits (I believe broad, I think Beta Dude-admin-thinks narrow) that a woman can find attractive. You’re talking sexual inhibition, a woman who will have sex with many guys that she is sexually attractive to, versus women who begin the elimination process through personality, conversation, and possibility. The woman who took on three dudes found three guys, you being one of them that she was attracted to. In any club or party, are you telling me you couldn’t find three women you would be sexually attracted to to have sex with if they offered. Daddy issues simply means that the first guy she’s sexually attracted to who offers her validation will be the guy she’ll sleep with and anchor onto.
Genghis Khan really, I enjoyedd the movie mongol, but the man was a dictator, so of course he got sex whenever he wanted. Richard Allen Minsky set up situations to rape women through blackmail that didn’t even exist. It was rape and blackmail. Yes, women will use their bodies to protect loved ones. You could also say a guy comes in with a gun and wearing a mask and demands the woman to have sex with him, and she does it, obvious proof sexual attraction isn’t necessary for sex. No shit! People do things to protect those they love, protect themselves, or to gain something that can make their life easier… wow, that’s amazing, prostitution and rape are your examples that sexual attraction isn’t necessary for sex. You could’ve used cults, you could’ve used con-artist who got background information on women and became their perfect mate by understanding what it was they wanted and needed–who seem to be able to go after specific marks without fail. But you use sitautions of rape and prostitution.
Yes, most psychiatry relies simply on the fact that people have the answers to their own problems and if you can listen long enough and point out to them what they’re saying, they can come ot their own realizations. It’s not science, it’s not anything, it’s something having a lot of good friends would replace.
You seem completely uninformed, and a bit off.
A woman will go out on a date with you because she’s sexually attracted to you, she’ll talk to you at a bar and give you her full attention because she’s sexually attracted to you, but, yes, you have to know how to create the proper social context for her to rationalize that sex is a good idea with you as a person. Sexual Attraction does not equate into sex simply by the merit of attraction alone, women are looking for people that are like them, that make them feel good, and that they can relate too. Outside of sex, Attention, Understanding, Acceptance, and Affection will get just about anyone to do anything for you.
Alex, thanks for a good word! Good point about psychology and how understanding human psychology is a good thing and helps us to get deep understanding of human nature. Now, there are more points we can expand on, but like the other Alex mentioned, to keep this thread on topic, here we’ll continue to focus on debunking seduction, and lets join our forces again elsewhere, till than, cheers mate!
Suggestion to admin:
Hey man. I think you should also open up a section called “excessive comments”, so you can move comments like Mayhem’s there. By that I mean comments where someone is droning on and on about something that’s already been covered and answered just a few comments earlier or in the articles themselves.
You need a strict RTFM policy. It’s good for new people coming in, because they need to be able to get the gist of the site and the points quickly. If the comments section are just an endless series of 500 comments all saying the exact same thing (500 dejavus of you constantly re-explaining the same thing to 500 new clones) – people just won’t bother reading the repetitive comments.
I’d just leave up the very first comments where certain topics were breached or mentioned (and then answered by you) for the first time. Any subsequent dejavus can be moved to the “excess clone commenting bin” – make a special page that serves just as a place to move people bringing up old shit out of laziness.
The site will be more productive if only new points are brought up and answered and debated – not if you have 10 deja-vus every day
Hmmm will think about that. As you see I still keep posting comments that are not totally off topic but include doubts that have been explained somewhere in order not to discourage people. Moving those comments to some other section without deleting them sounds good.
Thought this had some good sense to it, like to get your opinions on it guys.
http://sashapua.com/direct-vs-indirect-the-truth-revealed-by-ryan/
It’s still a PUA selling something, but at least he drops a lot of the bogus stuff.
Had another thought about pickup:
In short, just because there is no proven system to pickup, doesn’t mean that you can’t figure it out and get good at it. Statistical preference don’t tell the whole story, because it’s obvious that it’s not a RULE, just some general pattern that showed that people where more likely to hook up with genetically similar people. They also have studies showing that white people make more money than blacks, so what? Does that mean that if you are black you can’t make any money or can’t get a job? I have a friend of mine who’s a medical doctor and he’s black so the last part is obviously not true, but I’ll leave it up to you to make your mind up about the first part.
Actually, of all the people I’ve ever come in contact with, and I’ve come across a lot of guys in the pickup community, I only know of one guy that could somewhat definitively confirm that there is some efficacy to PUA skillset, but I’d let you be the judge of that. Anyways, the guy joined my local lair a few years back, and he wasn’t a virgin but getting laid was something that only happened once in a blue moon even though he was an good kid. At one point it got so bad, he just got fed up, something had to change so he started looking, and back than I guess mystery method was popular.
Can you imagine a somewhat shy an awkward guy going out and practicing mystery method? Day in, day out, as in 7 days a week, in small bars in a small town, creeping pretty much everybody two towns over. It happened! It got so bad, he couldn’t even go out without being called out for being weird, yet he persisted going out day after day. At one point he watched new RSD program and dropped the routines. As far as I know he never paid for any bootcamps or went to any seminars, but just slowly went at it.
After 6 months of it not working, most guys would get frustrated and quit or get a girlfriend, not sure what kept this guy going but he persisted. How long did it take? Actually a couple years to get to the point of having measurable success. Now he’s one of the best ladies men I’ve ever known. I know it’s not bullshit cause I had to actually give the kid keys to my van to get laid, and at other times walked in on him banging a chick when we were sharing a hotel room. That’s only one guy and I know a lot of guys, most of them actually never get good, even those who keep at it, but than it might be a race thing. I know 3 Asian guys that tried going out 4-5 times a week for at least a year and never got good, so clearly it doesn’t work for everyone.
Does that proves that seduction does or doesn’t exist? Dunno, but it does show that at least in some guys where is a transformation where they could go from not being able to pickup any girls at all to being a full out ladies man.
Look forward to your comments guys, cause we need to figure this one out.
Peace
Mayhem
This has been covered before too…
You’re really becoming annoying by bringing up things that have been already discussed and answered in detail. Yes, stories just like your friend’s and your exact question.
I would be pulling my hair out by now if I were admin coz he keeps Re-explaining the same shit… You’re like the best I’ve ever seen at laziness yet… You still refuse to read previous comments despite 7 warnings from 3 people.
The point that you could not get batter at picking up woman as an acquired a skill-set is absurd, because it’s so easy to disprove.
I saw another guy bring it up here here that he got better by practice and it was discareded as anecdotal evidence. While it’s true that it’s just anecdotal evidence, still, as long a you can find at least one guy that gets better with woman over time by continuously practicing, even one case would server as a proof.
Say you take a group of 2 thousand guys that are in their mid 20-s and could not get a girl to save their lives.
You split them up.
Control group – those guys continues to live their life as usual.
Test group – tell them to go out 5 days a week for a year and apply whatever, techniques they can find and see fit.
After a year, you tell guys in both groups to go out for 7 day and see how many times they can get laid.
If guys in the test group get laid more, it would prove that getting laid is a skill set that could be acquired.
Based on what I know, I would expect that in the test group, you’ll end-up with 10 or 15 guys that get good and can reliably pull every time they go out, but that’s just my experience, you can base it on your experience.
@Mayhem – this wouldn’t prove that seduction/PUA or “gaming” women is a skill that will enable one to get more women!!!
Perhaps the “Control group” are just guys who stay at home vs going out.
If they stay home, then they won’t meet women.
Going outside of a house can hardly be described as a “skill” in my opinion.
Getting with women is a normal human process and not a skill.
Hey, you are actually absolutely are right, if control group guys just sit home and do nothing they’ll get nothing. The whole thing would be pointless. A good comparison would be after a year to have guys in test group AND in control group GO OUT. Have BOTH groups go out and do cold approaches for a week and compare how guys do in both groups and who gets laid and what not. And to be fair to control group guys and to even out the chances, we’d even move the guys from the test group to a new location, because after going out for a year, they’ll develop all kinds of connections with bouncers and bartenders in their local town and will know a lot of girls which would make it easier for them to pull, so to be fair to control group, test group guys would have to go out in a new city, actually hell, make both groups go out in a new city – even playing field, no back-channeling and relying on some old flings. That would be a telling experiment.
My experience tells me that guys in control group will fail miserably (remember that we are talking about groups of guys that weren’t good with girls to begin with). When they go out, guys in control group will be:
* Too scared to approach
* Go in their head and over-think everything
* Look uncomfortable and out of place
* If they work up a nerve to approach they’ll freeze up, eject early, get nervous and creep the fuck out of everyone
* Will feel uncomfortable interacting with new people solely for the sake of being social
* Gonna get stressed, loose whatever energy or momentum they have and will want to quit and want to leave early
Again, just my experience, feel free to disagree – guys in the test group IMHO would do better because if you go out for a year, and that’s just my opinion here, again just based on experience, that you’ll much more likely get the following down, that would give you a better shot:
* Able to freely express yourself in front of strangers that are highly judgmental
* Become completely desensitized to rejections
* Able to pickup on subtle verbal and non-verbal ques
* Know how to start and advance your interactions
* Know when to hit it and know when to quit it based on the above-mentioned non-verbal and verbal ques
* Be comfortable dealing with new people
* Know how to maintain your state and your energy when out and about
* Have a better insight on different types of venues, best hours, social dynamics and different types of crowds and the kind of things you can get away with
Now, not every guy in the test group will get those things down and get good results, but I expect that at least 1% of them will be good after doing pickup for a year.
Where you mentioned that getting with women is a normal human process and not a skill, I agree that we can call it a normal human process, it’s just that some guys need more help than others.
BTW, please don’t get out of this that going out for a year is a good or a reasonable way to learn pickup, it’s just one of a ways that is is simple and does it in a brute-force type of fashion through the school of hard knocks
Peace
Dude, you are still not reading this site, or not comprehending it.
Yeah, you can get better at picking up women. What you cannot do is create sexual attraction where none existed before.
But you can learn not to get better by 1) Learning to better spot signs of interest where you would not have noticed them before 2) Learn to not fuck it up with chics who dig you already with weird or antagonizing behavior (of which game is a prime example. Attempting to be *dominating* will fuck it up with most chics)
Anyways, thats my last response, because 1) Either you just dont care about reading this site 2) You cannot understand the material presented here 3) You are being insincere.
Good luck, though.
@Jake – it is obvious to me now that Mayhem is a “gamer” from the seduction community and just wants to do “damage control” (his post comes across like a sales pitch for a PUA boot camp).
Seems I also have already heard his points about making connections with bartenders and bouncers elsewhere (ie. from guys who did the RSD boot camps).
@BetaMike
I agree. I sensed it 3 comments in, but then I assumed he’s just dumb.
But after 10 comments it became clear he’s trying to do these silly manipulations that are so transparent. Yet he thinks he’s clever.
Manipulations hein? So he is “seducing” us …. it works! LOL
He DOES sound that way, I will admit, and I am not sure that that is not precisely what he is.
I sometimes respond (up to a point) even to people I believe are being insincere if they provide me with a good opportunity to make an interesting distinction or re-iterate a point I think needs emphasizing, for the benefit of other readers.
Sometimes even trolls can serve as very useful foils in developing our position, lol.
In other words, at first I thought he’s just a guy who still has pua-brainwashing and he unwittingly is still influenced by it.
It’s clear by now that it’s a gamer who thinks he’s cleverly manipulating things for damage-control reasons.
I’m reading Aaron sleazys “minimal game” book.
So far I like everything I’m reading, it’s almost like an extension of this website. I obviously dislike the term “game” even when Aaron uses it in a different meaning, but aside from that, it’s pretty good so far…
I’ll write more when I fInish it.
Yep, I also dislike he calling himself “seducer” …. but I understand marketing reasons
the word “seduction” is so strongly promoted in pop-culture.
That would be great, Alek. I am actually very interested in it. If despite of the use of the term game it is essentially just a flirting guide and a way to better navigate bars and clubs to find the girls that are into you (as it seems from the excerpts I have read that it is), I would buy it.
I will wait for your final review.
Jake, Minimal Game is exactly that: a way to better navigate your environment and find girls who might be interested in you. After all, that’s what “seduction” boils down to in the end.
Im sold! Especially with Aleks glowing review below. To be honest, at this point I am not so interested in the flirting stuff, as I dont want to overcomplicate things. I have a very simple formula based on the approach guide here that I have been applying the past few weeks and have been seeing absolutely excellent results. I think that the only room for improvement for me in this area will be gained through experience. No more theory
But from the excerpt I read, Aaron, you have some very interesting ideas about aspects of picking up women in clubs that I never thought about before – like how to gauge the *mood* of a club, etc, to see if girls will be receptive. Stuff like that. Its amazing how once you drop the *seduction* nonsense all these other aspects of getting girls that you can actually do something about come into view!
I will definitely post a review on Amazon once I finish reading it!
Well Aaaron’s book is almost like a more wordy version of the approach guide. It’s still short.
He doesn’t actually introduce any further complexity than the approach-guide we have on here, he just explains the same sort of thing in a different way.
It’s still at the same level of simplicity.
Thats actually pretty awesome that he came to that independently. For lots of guys that might still be very useful, but I suppose for me that would be redundant at this point. Ill still read it though.
But does he have sections on club navigation and mood judging and other non-flirting aspects that we have not discussed here?
You won’t learn anything we haven’t already discussed here in the comments. He’s saying the same things, only in a different way.
It’s a short book, so its useful in a “re-affirming way” – as in to re-affirm what you know, and you might pick up a few subtleties here and there.
But I don’t see anything drastic that you didn’t already know.
Yeah, but, that’s also common sense. Don’t expect anything that will surprise you. Then again I’m making assumptions based on things that seem common sense to me, maybe they’ll be new to you.
He makes a point I’ve made at a few other places, but I havent’ made here. ITS A FAR HIGHER ROI to focus on picking the more productive club (where YOU specifically can get laid more easily) than to try to adopt around clubs where you don’t fit in.
In other words, I see PUAs who spend years trying to get laid in a “fancy club” even though they’re probably more suited to picking up in a rock-club. A ten is a ten is a ten. In bed they both look the same – so the ten who dresses like a rocker girl is still a ten – you might have to change clubs. This is common sense to me and I’ve mentioned it many times, but a ton of guys miss it.
He also mentions the power of becoming a regular and becoming a guy who “fits in, yet still stands out” in a certain scene. If you become a sort of a “face” in a certain enviroment and are often seen by the women there you can build up status – to where you will more often get approach invitations etc… etc…
One thing he said that I think we should add under our approach guide is that he splits chicks into “green zone” “gray zone” and “red zone”.
Our approach guide only tackles green-zone chicks, but he points out that once you’re getting laid regular with green-zone (approach guide) your ego will be pretty strong due to the successes, so you can bump it up a notch to gray-zone girls (girls which you’d miss if you follow the approach guide).
So he acknowledges that for someone who doesn’t have a good backlog of success, it’s wiser to do more interest-reading and less rejection-risking (like our approach guide). But over time you bump that up.
Overall dude, don’t overthink it :d I’m sure you’ll pick up 2 or 3 gems, which are really just clarifications on what we already know and believe.
It’s like 10$, which is no huge investment. Even if you learned nothing, it’s a good fun read. But you’ll probably pick up 2-3 subtleties that do make a slight difference.
Don’t expect mind-shattering revolutionary things you would have never guessed though. This isn’t game – it’s common sense.
Thanks for that, Alek! Truth is 2-3 new insights, at this stage, is pure gold, even if subtle. Its foolish to expect anything dramatically new at this point – as you say, its mostly common sense.
Well, I bought the book! So we shall see.
Debunking the Seduction Community is also a great read. Although I think it lacks the explanation why the core ideas of this movement are irrational. Or maybe it’s a good think, cause there is room for my website
While I like Aaron a 100% – some of his friends seem a bit on the gamer-side.
For example, I agree with everything aaron says, and though I dislike that he named the book “game”, it’s immediately rescued by the fact that he dissolves the entire notion once a person is reading the actual book.
Some of his friends however give me a headache. They still blog about questionable new-age concepts, diet-fads, and they still over-complicate meeting women and adding many additional and unnecessary factors and levels.
Cause like I said Aaron attacks the community, but not the core of this absurd seduction concept that is also shared by some mainstream dating experts, and our culture in general. So there is still a lot of work to do.
Jake,
thanks for buying Minimal Game! I’m looking forward to your review.
You made an interesting remark:
Its amazing how once you drop the *seduction* nonsense all these other aspects of getting girls that you can actually do something about come into view!
One of my earliest realizations, when I was trying to write about seduction in the frame the “community” provided, was that I would actually have to add things that aren’t there to make it fit the common expectations. Bizarre PUA lingo, however, is only obfuscating. Just compare, “She smiled at me, so I walked over” with “She gave me an IOI, so I approached her.”
Since their inane theories and laughable acronyms couldn’t explain my successes (“Dude, you’re not following the rules!”), it was obvious to me that they must be nuts. This was further cemented when I figured out that one of the most respected members on that forum had gotten laid just two or three times in ten years but was held in high regards for his knowledge.
Obviously, when people want to believe something and are invested in it, either emotionally or financially, they are blind to fact, and deride reason. They don’t believe what they see, but instead see what they believe, which is a fact that has been pointed out over and over on this website.
Hey admin, like 3-4 of my comments here and on the approach guide were up briefly but are now gone – is it some kind of glitch?
I think so… I am sure I didn’t remove any comments so far. Not even the most PUA retarded ones…
I see them now! It was just some weird time lag. Cheers
Did you have links in the comments?
Sometimes wordpress puts comments in moderation queue if they contain a bunch of links.
P.S
About 1/3 done with sleazy’s book and I kind of feel lame. We say so much of the same shit as him that it’s creepy. I’m sure someone will accuse us of being sleazy’s paid shills. And by “we” I mean us 5-6 guys like Piotr, Jake, Admin, Mike, Piotr etc…
We all sound like we are rehashing his book lool… Very similar points. But that’s a sort of level everyone seems to get to after a certain level of experience I guess.
He’s a bit more hardcore though in the sense of going for everyone and taking some rejections. He’s not as indiscriminate as PUAs, but a bit less “playing it safe” than say the sirc-based approach guide.
The framework is the same
- “realize that when women are looking for casual sex they decide in minutes, if not seconds if you’re their type”
- “just try to find out who those women are”
- “escalate”.
I see no pending comments.
As for Sleazy’s book, this part of Jake’s comment got me interested “way to better navigate bars and clubs to find the girls that are into you”
You can get it on amazon kindle store and read it in minutes. Jake’s summary is correct.
P.S.
You don’t need to own a kindle device to read kindle books. They have pc/Mac software too.
I got to the part where he defines his use of game and seduction.
I find them very acceptable. It seems by “minimal game” he only means “knowing how much to persist without bein too pushy”
Looool-that is a skill that we actually pointed on this site is probably the only skill you need.
I still dislike that he uses the term “game” to label it. The term is just way too toxic and filled with too much bullshit. I prefer to just put this under flirting skills really.
Alek,
it’s good to know that you like Minimal Game. I know that it doesn’t have much to do with “game” per se, which is why I put the adjective “minimal” in front of it. A big part of the motivation for writing it was based on witnessing how ridiculous “game” as promoted by the vast majority of people in the seduction industry is. Had I never come across Mystery Method or any of Neill Strauss’ stuff and thought “What is this sh*t?”, I may not have bothered writing much about my own adventures. I did receive many requests along the lines of “What is your method, bro?”, and this made me realize how confused many people in this scene are.
What is your method, bro?
You should reply “There is no spoon, there is no game” LOL
One more thing, Alek: Could I possibly ask you to write a review of Minimal Game for Amazon and/or your website? One or two paragraphs would be perfectly fine.
I’d really appreciate it. Thanks!
Hahahah speaking of synchronicity.
I just started on that about 5mins ago. I’m already half way through a post recommending your book to everyone.
@Aaron Sleazy – since Alek recommends the book, I will order it from Amazon – I like what I see in the “click to Look Inside” preview so far.
Yo, Aaron, like your style man, I got your book and read through it today and I got to say it’s down to earth, plain and simple. Also read Sleazy Stories, that stuff was very interesting, funny, and a great structure of your direct game. And I felt you really pointed out the flaws of the PUA industry.
All top notch stuff man. You got a lot of good stuff. Have a good one man.
Alek,
I just read that article on your blog. Very nice!
Mike,
thanks for buying the book. Please let me know how you like it!
You know this site is absolutely brilliant. I got into game about two years ago because I had attended this conference and met this absolutely beautiful woman, and we got to talking, and she really liked me, she was touching me, sitting next to me in the conference, telling me her plans for the night, and I didn’t think this woman could be attracted to me, so I didn’t make a move. Then a Cousin heard the story and read an email the woman sent me, and asked me if I was a moron. So, I wanted to never miss an opportunity again.
I was smart enough not to purchase much, maybe 800 dollars worth of stuff, a small pittance, downloaded a lot, but none of it really gave me any basic answers to the stuff I wanted, all of it came off like bullshit, and ridiculousness. And eventually got disillusioned, and I had fallen into a crappy relationship so I stopped looking. When the relationship ended, I threw out all the PUA crap because I became quite certain that was useless, and I went to a bookstore, and bought all the books on socializing that I could. I have to say, in the last six months, I’ve gone out on dozens of dates, made friends, and gotten laid a lot.
This site is awesome, and I wish I had found it sooner, to find out that PUA is a crap waste of money. But it’s easy to fall into that stuff when you’re lonely and socially awkward as I was.
But with a few good books from people like Leil Lowndes and the such, I’ve begun creating a great life. I found the a no fail way of getting dates, dress well, walk with confidence, hold yourself in esteem, but don’t take yourself too seriously, and approach everyone with a mindset that you’re going to have a great conversation or an interesting conversation, either way, it’s going to be a fun experience. By doing that, I make lots of friends, and have gotten lots of dates. Instead of going out and prawling for women, I go out and prawl for a good time, a lot of times those good times end up being with women.
@ ADMIN & EVERYONE – Check This Out:
http://www.goodlookingloser.com/2011/12/23/getting-women-is-a-numbers-game-the-odds-are-in-your-favor/
An acquaintance of sleazy’s I believe. Did an experiment just politely complimenting and then asking women out, merely trying to pretend to be an average joe just being super-average and using nothing special.
- He got roughly the same percentages as Paul Janka
Just to re-iterate, these same percentages have been confirmed in a few other places.
- The AWAW book suggested this method as long as 6-8 years ago, it was the first ebook in the community that said you don’t need to overcomplicate, it shared these same ratios as well, and most anyone who tried it found the same results roughly
- Me and my friends were “awaw guys” for like a year or two, and we had the same percentages as well (roughly).
Now… He says “I was surprised by how big the results were, but I still prefer my agressive game method bla bla bla”…
That’s surprising to me, since I’ve never seen anyone even claim to get higher than these ratios. So if this super-simple average-joe method gets the highest-ratio possible, what does he mean? So I asked him this question for clarification, we’ll see what he answers….
==============
Me and my friends did similar experiments years ago (we learned this from a book called AWAW, it was the first book suggesting that things aren’t complex, just quickly ask out a bunch of chicks). The book also included these same ratios.
Me and my friends also applied this method, and got roughly the same percentage (no excels, but those were roughly the conversions). It didn’t matter if the guy was a virgin, or someone with a bunch of previous lays, everyone got roughly the same results.
My question to you GTL
You say “Not bad, but I’d still prefer my more agressive game, etc, etc, etc”. Do you by that simply mean “to save time and not waste time on chicks who aren’t DTF” or do you actually believe you can get a higher-percentage of chicks?
I’ve honestly never seen anyone get higher percentages than these, no matter what they did. So I’m assuming you just mean “escalate faster and save time” – not that you can actually get more than 7-10 lays out of 100 completely random daytime approaches?
big LOL
Janka is not better, he also gets results that should enlighten him, but than he goes on with the seduction bullshit.
I am gonna include this in ending of section “BS Created So Far” right below the part about Janka’s success rate
He wrote me a huge response, but he still didn’t clearly respond if he has any proof that his additional method gets any better results than the “average joe approach” he proved works just fine.
My personal guess (from experience and observation) is that you Always get the same chicks. Different approaches might just change the timeframe, but you still get the same 5-10 approaches you would have gotten with a simple “asking them out politely” approach.
Im not sure if he tried to imply that with a “aggressive sexual approach” the quality and type of chicks would be different. His answer wasn’t very clear.
However I believe that everything is the same, you would have gotten the same chicks whether you applied either method.
Always get the same chicks. Different approaches might just change the timeframe, but you still get the same 5-10 approaches you would have gotten with a simple “asking them out politely” approach
Yes, and this means that not only PUA is bullshit but even seduction understood as merely persuasion doesn’t exist. So guys like Clarence who agree you cannot create attraction but advocate techniques that supposedly can increase your chance with the chicks who “match” you, are also wrong.
Alek, I’m not sure if I agree with you here or not, entirely. I do think you can improve your chances of a hookup if you show a certain “energy” that can come across in an aggressive pick-up.
Some women, especially women who aren’t extremely attractive, can be more turned on (than they would normally be) if a guy they find attractive is making it very clear he wants to have sex with them as opposed to just getting their number.
Of course – no amount of “aggressive” game would make a woman who wants nothing to do with you suddenly find you attractive.
Is there a compelling reason for an attractive guy to go after unattractive girls!? I’m not sure where you got this from, but your hypothesis strikes me as entirely implausible. Further, how would you convey that “energy” if you aren’t even horny for that girl. It doesn’t add up my friend.
Aaron, I never said “unattractive.”
I said “not extremely attractive.” There’s a big, big difference.
What’s your evidence of this?
My observations come from being around hundreds of guys who tried out dozens of methods each. I’ve been in this a decade observing guys coming and going and doing everything and anything.
I’ve honestly never witnessed anyone getting different results no matter what their method was, energy or no energy.
The only things I noticed making a difference was things like improving your looks, changing venue (sometimes you can double a guy’s results if you just get him to go to a place with more liberated chicks or people who he’s more compatible with).
I’ve yet to see any evidence of “energy” though. In fact, all the evidence I’ve seen is that if a chick is into you, she will make it easy and make it happen. SHE picks you up, not you her.
Ok, he responded with a further clarification. He makes some good points, but they are all still in the realm of “so what” for me.
For example he says that certain girls you approached in the day, she would have fucked you and was horny right there, but you lost her because you didn’t escalate fast enough, and by the time you called her on the phone, she had gone cold (etc…etc)
That’s all fine and good. But it’s kind of “grasping for straws”, because any chick who would have banged you right there on the street, is not going to magically lose all interest in you later on, lol.
I mean sure, pure randomness says a few will… But for a woman to be so hot for you that she’d fuck you 30 minutes after a street approach she must be REALLY REALLY REALLY into you and you are REALLY REALLY her type – she’s not gonna change her mind just coz you postponed
So it is a valid point in that it might happen *sometimes*, but he doesn’t mention the corrollary. Maybe some chicks who DO want to fuck you will be put off by your fast escalation – so you lose a few chicks through fast escalation. So it evens out.
What I’m trying to say is not that his method is wrong (I actually like it, I like being productive and hate phone numbers, I’d rather screen DTF girls fast)…
…but I think he’s trying to hold onto the idea that you have more control than you do. It’s kind of sad when you think about it how little control we have, but it’s something we have to accept.
Everyone everywhere gets the same sorts of results no matter what method they apply. That’s a hard pill for some pill to swallow, since they want to believe there’s additional progress to be squeezed out of studying the process… but there’s just not. You have to learn to live with those numbers.
In my opinion it might just be that he prefers his approach, not that it believes it gets him more results, but that it might get the women that are ready to hop into bed immediately vs. women who want to date a bit and then have sex.
Like I said, I did the same AWAW approach (didn’t know that’s what it was, I learned it from Larry Hite, who learned it from a man in the fifties) when I first started, then I just became a massive socializer, talking to everyone, and waiting for signs of interest. I probably talked to 10 to 20 women before one showed interest, but, I wasn’t one to get rejected very often because I was social, I talked to women like I talked to guys friendly and interested and wanting to become friends, until a woman gave me interest indicators, and then I got flirtatious, and put my attention on her. My approach didn’t get me better results, but, it was the approach I felt the most comfortable with in my single days.
Everyone has the approach that they feel comfortable with in my opinion. My father gave me the advice, go out dancing at 10 at night, the woman dancing with you at 2 in the morning you can take home, that’s what my father’s approach was. That was my father’s approach, he drank, he danced, and he fucked a lot of women in his day.
So it might not have to do with any better odds, just what you’re comfortable with.
That’s not AWAW… AWAW is
A) approaching indiscriminately (any chick whom you’re physically attracted to) on the street, malls etc (not social events)
B) Complimenting her
C) Asking for her number
In other words, you do not wait for signs of interest. You just every single one for a number provided she’s not outright hostile.
Exactly, I love that about Aaron, he specifically spells out that what he does is just what he prefers.
The thing I dislike is that there even some non-puas who try to imply their preference has magical qualities that go above the numbers-game. They’re not all bad people, some just have a confirmation bias, but some do it because they need to sell product.
The thing I dislike is that there even some non-puas who try to imply their preference has magical qualities that go above the numbers-game.
I would compare it to stock experts who claim they can beat the market, but the reality is that the performances of the majority of mutual funds is below the market. That’s why index funds are so popular.
The above comparison is not 100% adequate though. Cause there are some stock traders that managed to beat the market, but I doubt any man can have a success rate significantly higher than other guys of similar physical attractiveness.
The guy is lying about the results. How do I know – cause I’ve done it and know of hundreds of guys who’ve done it and. No way will you get 15 dates out of 100 approaches, may be 15 numbers of which 90% will flake. 15 dates – no way, he’s off by at least a factor of 10.
Mayhem, we know you’re a paid shill for some people. Can you please stop embarrassing yourself. You’re downright transparent.
-> To anyone reading this – what this paid intern is doing is a common trick in the PUA cult.
-> Their cult is based on brainwashing guys into thinking that if you’re an “average joe” you could go on and and and on asking every girl on the planet and never get a date if you “don’t do it right”
-> The reason this tricks works, is because the insecure guys that they target are usually in denial. Ask a newbie PUA what he actually DID before joining PUA and he will say “nothing worked when I was normal”, but if you ask him POINT BLANK questions like “SPELL IT OUT FOR ME, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ASKED A CHICK OUT, AND HOW MANY DID YOU ASK” —> they will run around in circles and never answer the question
The vast majority of guys who can’t get girls are in denial about not actually doing enough (kind of like obese people are proven to be in denial about how much they eat)… In the same way, guys who claim that nothing worked for them being normal are in denial about the fact that THEY DO NOTHING, THEY NEVER ESCALATE!!!!! (or sometimes they fail to read signs due to anxiety)
The PUA cult is a fear-mongering enterprise built on fear-mongering guys into a fear that they’ll be “celibate for life” if they “do it wrong”.
It’s better not to resort to ad hominem when you run out of arguments, but I understand that it can feel frustrating when people don’t shares your view point.
Anyways, you are in denial if you don’t believe that there is plenty of guys that are doing a lot of approaching and not getting anything. In another place in the forum I already sited that according to National Center for Health Statistics / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – average number of woman that a guy slept with is only seven. That is how PUA coaches get their clients, guys just aren’t getting it on their own. Because an average is 7, that means that there are tons and tons of guys that are getting absolutely nothing. I’m not saying that PUA coaches are helping anybody, but to say that all this guys are failing simply because they are not trying hard enough is absurd.
If you’re not a PUA shill, the above means you are either:
A) Retarded
B) Set world-records at failing reading comprehension.
Neither of three options is flattering.
I NEVER SAID any such thing. Of course there’s a ton of guys doing endless aproaches and getting nowhere (they’re called fucking puas, and we mock them right on this site!!!!!!!) – How can we mock something that we claim doesn’t exist. What are you, an imbecile?
What I did say is that if a guy has gotten no results is that he is not ESCALATING.
Do you not get the difference between the two words? Lemme show you
E
S
C
A
L
A
T
I
N
G
Fuck, how did you confuse that with “approaching”.
It begins with a different letter and it doesn’t even rhyme. So which will it be mister PUA shill? (or is it merely retardation)?
To anyone else reading (aside from this retard/shill) -> what we’ve often pointed out on this site is that PUAs prey on guys who are dishonest with themselves.
They will say shit like “Omg, I’ve done a ton of work and gotten no results”, but if you ask them to POINT BLANK list ESCALATIONS they are never able to… Ask them “quick, when was the last 100 times you tried to kiss a girl?”
They always have excuses. They never ask for numbers, and if they do, they never follow up on those numbers. They don’t touch the chicks but just talk endlessly and they’re like “Omg, I done so much, I dunno why nothing works duuuuuuuuur duuuuuuuuur duuuuur”
In other words, there’s a ton of guys out there who are in denial about not having balls to escalate.
-> These guys will spend years hovering around, chit-chatting with and socializing with chicks but never actually MAKE MOVES (or make them way too late, like 6 months later)
-> A PUA comes in and he’s like “see, the reason you get no results is because you’re not SAYING the right things and standing in the right way”
Ball-less wonder goes “OMG!!! THATS IT!!!!” “I must have said the wrong things or stood the wrong angle!?!” “IF I learn this PUA crap women will throw themselves at me and do all the physical escalation themselves OMG!!!!!”
It’s the same denial fat people have who don’t admit they’re eating a ton. Same denial skinny people have about how little they eat.
A lot of guys who get “no results” are not ugly, they’re not repuslive, they just DONT MAKE MOVES – simple. But they have a complete blindspot to the fact that they’re not making moves (somehow expecting things to magically happen). So they’re easy prey for the predatory pua who comes in re-affirming this lie.
Oh, one more thing, while we are at it something just popped to mind – came across Vin DiCarlo escalation ladder a back in the days and kinda always kept it as a reference. I assume many other guys did as well, as it’s the time-tested gold standard on escalation and what do you know, it’s now available for free from da man himself, anybody reading this who’d like to get better at escalating or even just get a refresher or perhaps a few new ideas would do well to check Vin’s guide out here:
http://www.vindicarlo.com/DiCarlo%20Escalation%20Ladder%20-%20vindicarlo.com.pdf
You should be able to directly download it without having to sign up for anything or enter your email or anything like that, no BS, no upsell, just my little gift for everyone today
Yours in brotherhood
Mayhem
@Mayhem – again, you just tipped off that your are part of the seduction community by signing off one of your posts “Yours in brotherhood
Mayhem”.
See, for me, that was one of the key reasons to get out of the seduction community as I am a fierce individual by nature (could not be fully be brainwashed – especially the seduction community dogma that a guys looks aren’t an important factor to influencing women in choosing a man)whereas all the guys in the seduction community are brainwashed to think alike (ie. one collective brain).
I guess that is how the seduction community gurus control guys;
One brain.
One neck.
One noose.
Mayhem, you are a seduction community shill and your posts only make me dig in my heels deeper to disregard what ever you write!
Mayhem,
in my not so humble opinion, Vin DiCarlo’s escalation ladder is retarded. He tells you that you have to go through all those steps in the exact same order as he prescribes it, and there’s an absurd amount of over-complication in it. “Overt kino class 2″ — are you f*cking kidding me?
On a side note, those people in this comment thread who try to defend pickup and who, as Alek rightly pointed out, are most likely in damage-control mode and being insincere have their equivalent also on blogs that expose the get-rich-quick gurus. For instance, on SaltyDroid.info, you occasionally come across guys who make somewhat vague statements that always amount to something like, “while I’m not making millions like guru X, Y, Z, I’m now making, after busting my a** for two years, about $10k which is more than I used to make in my day job.” As the admin on that site pointed out, those people, for some reason, always post through a site that hides their IP like “hidemyass.com”. Further, they never specify what kind of business they actually run online. (Of course not, because it’s entirely fictional. Some pickup gurus use unpaid interns to write fake reviews on forums, and I wouldn’t be surprised if those poor guys were ordered to infiltrate SeductionMyth.com as well.)
Similarly, our PUA defenders on here are also conspicuously vague, and try to make statements that some minor improvements here, and a few there, all still add up etc. pp, and want to then use this as a general defense of the fraudulent pickup gurus. It’s so transparent that it’s laughable.
Ok, I’ve got two anecdotes for you. I know anecdotes aren’t scientific results, but it’s the best I have.
When I first started working on my ability to attract women, I was working as an editor at a newspaper. That summer, we had an intern who was regularly in our little “group” of young people who went out drinking. It was general knowledge that she was a lesbian – still, I thought she was hot.
On one of the last nights we went out as a group before her internship was up, I decided to start flirting with her, just for fun. Maybe to see if I could get her to show interest in a man. I started making sexual comments to her – and she reciprocated. She ended up spending the night.
She later admitted she’d been attracted to me all along, but was afraid to make a move because she considered herself a lesbian (and even had a girlfriend.) If it weren’t for my aggressive sexual come-ons, that hookup never would’ve happened. My overt come-ons were the reason she decided to sleep with me.
Second example:
I was a regular at a Beer bar and pizza joint less than a block from my house. I spent a good 2 hours there chatting with the bartender who was my friend, eating dinner and talking. I did not go out to meet anyone – it was a Tuesday night. There were two rather drunk women at the end of the bar, and I struck up conversation – it was the younger, more attractive one’s last day at her job. At the end of the night, the bar was getting ready to close, and we’d been talking about sex for quite a while – but she had a boyfriend. She kept turning me down. On my way out of the door, I came up close behind her and said something along the lines of “You sound like you’re going to break up with the boyfriend anyway, why not go out with a bang?” and she paid her tab and followed me to my apartment.
Now, as I said before – I did not use “flirting” to create attraction where it does not exist, but I DID use certain techniques to encourage women who had reservations – mostly these techniques boiled down to me making it clear that I’m not just looking to have sex – but that I’m actually quite good at it and that they’ll enjoy it.
To me, this is “aggressive” and it was the difference between me being alone at home vs. what actually happened.
There seems to be a miss-understanding here EE
Two things
1)Missunderstanding about terms.
We’re talking about two different things my friend.
-> When you’re using the word “agressive” you’re talking about what we call “persistent”
-> What this guy means by “aggressive” is being sexually aggressive and that he instantly touches, and gropes and physically escalates women just seconds or minutes after having just said hello
Get it? So what I’m comparing is two methods which you would both deem aggressive by your definition of agressive.
What I’m saying is that if you are persistent in asking for a number, and then persistently calling and persistent in asking for dates – out of a 100 women, you will get the same results as if you touched and fast-physically-escalated them right on the street. Make sense?
This of course ASSUMES you are escalating fast on the date. This doesn’t mean that you are persistent in getting them on the date, and then standing around and waiting for things to happen
So the comparison is only in terms of sexual aggressiveness on the street. It’s not “persistent” vs “non-persistent”.
Secondly – it’s not about results, but attraction
We’re saying that a woman doesn’t magically start desiring your penis more or less based on whether you did the first one or the second one. The PHYSICAL attraction is the same. Get it?
Your example is of why you DID or did NOT get the result. Your friend did not say that she found you unattractive, but then she became physically attracted once you made a move
This proves our point, no?
In other words EE:
-> This guy (A) believes that you can make women desire your penis more by instantly touching and groping them within minutes of having approached them as a stranger on the street
-> I’m saying that (B) if you ask them for a number and persist in calling and asking them out, you can then be sexually aggressive on the date itself
->I’m saying that A and B would roughly produce the same bottom-line results out of a 100 women, as the women who are attracted, are attracted regardless of which strategy you took
->I’m saying that yeah, maybe some woman will only fuck you under one strategy, but not the other. But you can’t know which women only fuck under which strategy… and in the end the results are the same, since most women who DO want you, will be fine with either strategy
-> You misunderstood that I’m saying that you can get the same results by just being passive and waiting for women to make sexual moves
I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that you can postpone the sexual-aggression for the date itself and still get the same results.
-> You also misunderstood that I’m saying that what you do doesn’t impact how much sex you have. That’s not what I am saying. Of course if you push harder, you will have more sex (DUH!!). What I am saying is that you do not “create attraction” by pushin harder. You just get more women to ADMIT their pre-existing attraction.
Make sense?
I could say more, but I’m just going to say this:
/agree
Glad to know we’re on the same page!
Also (sorry for double post) I feel like PUA/Game has ruined our terminology.
I feel like we need new words to describe things like “aggressive” etc. Could we start a wiki?
Human mating is so simple when you get to the core, that some people are trying to complicate it by all means just to have something to talk about. So the only thing that may affect your success is the strategy you choose to find those “matching” females, and of course all the stuff I call “secondary factors” that can have some influence when there is competition from other “matching” males (like: bodily attractiveness, money – things you can change in your life).
I really don’t think “style” of approaching women makes any difference. Sure it is my personal opinion, but until there is some hard material evidence for it, I will still insist on my view.
You can have the impression that the way you showed your interest in them made some difference. But my view is that the result would be exactly the same if you said something less “aggressive” instead. Of course at some point the man has to make the first step, it still works this way : )
@AARON SLEAZE
I noticed you had promoted frost. I don’t see how it does you good to associate with folks who are the exact opposite of what you say and pro-actively promote bullshit and questionable crap
This frost guy is still in the woo-woo stage, and he had a massive defeat in a debate with non-gamers where he completely embarrassed himself by giving all these new-age claims and stuff.
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2011/12/review-freedom-twenty-five-21st-century.html
Now, later in the comments some people called this out, and how this is some dude living in a tony robbins new-age dream, and you agreed. I don’t understand why you even promoted him in the first place though?
And some of the people you link to, still engage in questionable new-age crap as well. It kind of makes you look less authoritative as a non-pua, when you promote people who still spread the exact same stuff that you debunk.
You’ve got a point, and this is an issue I’ll think about.
Frost turned out to be quite problematic. I read his book with barely any previous knowledge of him, and without being familiar with his blog. While I think that he does make a couple of interesting points in his book, I also questioned some of his positions in my review. Overall, it’s not such a bad book, if you manage to look past the obvious bullshit in it. I can understand, though, that some people just quit after a chapter or two.
Taking his blog as well as the online guide for the book into account, which wasn’t available when I reviewed the book, I have to conclude that I probably should not have promoted this guy in the first place. He does come across as rather immature. In the book, I dismissed some of his remarks as humorous, which were in fact indicative of his character and intellect. Well, hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
BTW, where was Frost’s debate with non-gamers? Could you possibly give me a link.
When I debated with him, I had no clue who he was (I still don’t, I honestly haven’t even visited his blog yet, lol).
But I have a massively fine-tuned bullshit-detector. I can tell when people are full of shit within a few sentences, and I’m always right… because people who are full of shit will always give themselves away.
Also, people who are at your level are always telling truth and are of integrity 100% of the time. So if you see someone say even 2-3 stupid questionable claims in the first 5 minutes, know that they are guaranteed to be full of shit.
Here’s a link to all 5 parts of the debate between gamers and the MRA.
Frost was an official representative of the game community for the purposes of this debate.
Here are all the parts of the debate:
http://bitly.com/yfOQ4H
Note, the actual articles themselves are not the bulk of the fun and the debate between gamers and non-gamers. Much of the good stuff happens in the comments of those 8 pieces.
Thanks for those links. Well, if anything become clear in this debate then it is that the “gamers” can’t hold a candle to the MRA guys. Frost in sounds like a twelve year-old at times, so weak is he at making a convincing statement. I especially loved this part:
Frost: “Have expectations, and enough pride in themselves to walk away from women who don’t meet them””
Commenter: “I don’t need Game to learn that. Also, remember by your definition successful Game is dick in pussy. Therefore walking away would be unsuccessful Game.”
Did you also notice that Frost talks as if he was the spokesman of an entire generation? It seems that the commenter on Amazon who attested him to have a severely swollen head was right on the money.
There was some really great content in those threads. I especially liked Barbarossa’s “Deconstructing Game, and PUA frauds” video, which you had linked to.
Hey Aaron,
Added your website to my favorites in the end of my front page. That’s like a cheap blogroll
it should do just fine, before I get myself one of those widgets…
Also mentioned your name in the new section “Fool’s mate”.
I’m wondering, as I’ve been examining these PUA’s, if there groups at the Seminars suffer the same delusions as those that go to John Edwards or other psychics, they ignore all the misses and put a lot of weight on small and meaningless hits, such as getting phone numbers? I mean, I surfed through a lot of PUA forums to see what Aaron Sleezy was talking about when I read his Debunking Seduction. The guys seem so obessed with getting numbers, getting IOI’s (what are IOI’s by the way?–just interest indicators?), and none of them are getting laid. One guy I read said in the last six years he had 3 girlfriends and owed it all to Love Systems.
Alek likes to talk about Fad diets being the same as PUA, but at least on Fad diets (at least the ones I tried) people lose weight initially, they just usually don’t keep it off. These guys aren’t getting laid at all. This is ridiculous! Makes me question capitalism, I must say. I mean hell, these guys are better lookin than I ever was, I had a Jewpfro, weighed 275 pounds, freckles, and clark kent glasses (I reiterate because I didn’t know it was an accomplishment, I thought getting laid was easy and simple and that most people knew how to do it, but reading all these posts) and I got laid 57 times in from 21 to 24, and then got a wife. I mean hell, what’s so hard about going out and meeting people, smiling, and talking to people. If you do have problems with that, there are great books like Social Intelligence and Win the Crowd (both men Daniel Goleman and Steve Cohen I’ve had the opportunity to meet because they talked and performed at the school I work at).
These guys are nuts and wackos, and my research makes me regret my initial posts defending anything about them. However, I will admit that I see some sanity in people who talk about direct game, though, not enough to recommend any, though I do like Aaron Sleazy, because even though he talks about Game, it seems more out of neccesity so that people will easily accept what he is talking about. I have now read all three of his books in my free time, it took a few hours, but i was very impressed.
Still though, I don’t get how people can listen to the success stories of these guys, and still think PUA is real and good, going from sleeping with 0 women to having a supposed no lose system and sleeping with 3 women in a few years is not an accomplishment. What cognative dissonance do people have to come to such conclusions?
Based on information compiled by National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men is SEVEN. If anybody doubts that, this is out in the open so you can see for yourself. Sounds like you are not telling the whole story, or found a way to get your numbers up and tenfolds above and beyond anything that an average guy would ever get.
No reason to be hating on somebody for being widely successful above and beyond what we know from authoritative sources is reasonable, so I’ll refrain from making any accusations till you sir have a chance to clarify.
PEace.
Here’s my clairification. I wrote in another post how it’s not crazy or bullshit and explained it. but since you won’t read that I’ll explain it again. I graduated high school at 17 having never kissed a girl or been invited to any parties, at 21, 3 1/2 years into college, my best friend, a sister to me, Laura asked why I didn’t ask her friend out Kara, they all hung out at the house my parents rented for me, considering it a novelty of sorts. Kara was 117 pounds, she had long red hair, freckles, and a gap in her front teeth, she was and is incredibly beautiful. I didn’t think it possible she could be attracted to me, but, I asked her out. She said yes. A week later I was no longer a virgin. Two months later we broke up. But instead of depression, or going to a Pick-uP seminar, I thought to myself if one beautiful skinny woman could be attracted to me, more can. The first two months, I did the what Larry Hite the commodities trader suggester, which is the AWAW method, go out, compliment a woman, say you would like to have coffee with her later, and ask for her number–much can be accomplished with fasle confidence. When you’re sincere in your compliment and in your interest in a woman, none I can remember were rude or insulting, they smiled and said no, or every once in awhile, smiled and said yes–and there number was real. In two months I got 4 lays out of a probably 300 to 500 approaches–I got like 40 to 50 coffee dates and 10 invites to go to clubs with girls (this is estimate, it’s too long ago for me to remember clearly). During that two months, I wanted to learn to be more social, because that’s where I thought I was drowning on my dates with women, or when they took me to the club. I read Dale Carnige, Allan Pease, and a host of books that I think are obsolete today with Leil Lowndes, Daniel Goleman, and Steve Cohen. Soon though, I wasn’t just approaching women trying to get dates, I was approaching everyone trying to meet new and interesting people. Not counting the two months with kara it was probably a little more than 28 months of my life that I spent approaching and talking to thousands of women, making hundreds of friends, and accumulating 57 lays of absolutely beautiful women. When you compliment, pleasantly comment, or make an observation with every attractive woman you see, no filter, no hesitation, also, with sincerity, respect, and actual interest, it becomes easy for women to love having you around as a friend, and easy for women to act on their attraction toward you without worry of social stigma (going with the fat guy). Also, due to my socializing, I was invited to a lot of frat and sorority parties, 12 lays came from there.
If you do the math, it was roughly 1 to 3 women a month, most months two. I talked with literally thousands of women, I didn’t hit on them, and I never physically escalated or tested like the approach guide suggest, I just waited to recognize any signs of interest, and then began to flirt with them.
I mock no one, sell nothing, and am promoting nothing. The pua industry however calls everyone an AFC, it offers products, and promotes themselves as great seducers of women. Also Mayhem, the guys at the bullshit pick-up industry say that any man can get any woman. So if you have this failsafe system then you should be doing better than the national average. These guys are not getting laid, they are not getting women, they are being fucked over. I didn’t have a failsafe system, I had no “game” I was just me, and I got better results, being fatter, and less attractive than they were. That’s my point.
Then they’re being mind-fucked being told they need to be higher value, presupposing that they are lower value to women, that all women are the same, and that all women are bitches. They’re being filled with a bunch of bullshit ideas that they’re not good enough just being who they are. And if all that’s true, then guys following this shit should get more sex than the national average.
Alex, thanks for clarifying your story! Sorry if I doubted you earlier.
Now I see you’ve made recommendations for books Social Intelligence and Win the Crowd by Daniel Goleman and Steve Cohen. I’ve originally discarded them because it seemed like you were downplaying how much effort it took to actually get there, but now your approach sounds believable, so I’ll add this books to my list of books to read. Thanks!
Cheers
ATTENTION: For any new random readers reading this, Mayhem (aka vin di carlo) is a PUA who’s doing damage control.
Specifically, the trick he’s attempting here is a very old trick that was originally invented by Eben DeScamangelo. Watch his amateurish manipulation…
I see you’ve made recommendations for books Social Intelligence and Win the Crowd by Daniel Goleman and Steve Cohen. I’ve originally discarded them because it seemed like you were downplaying how much effort it took to actually get there, but now your approach sounds believable, so I’ll add this books to my list of books to read. Thanks!
The entire PUA scamdustry is based on addicting you to the notion that you and yourself and experience in the real world are not enough. They are based on brainwashing you into linking every and any improvement to a product.
One thing DeScamangelo invented is to tell you to go buy a whole bunch of mainstream books on random crap. He would say “oh, nad if you want to know how to kiss, you need to get the 3 tome encyclopedia on the history of kissing” “oh, and if you want to know how to walk into places, go get the 1000 page neuro-science guide to body-language cues”… etc… etc
The trick there is that even though he was recommending books by other authors he makes no profit from (respectable scientists even) – the trick he did there was to MAKE YOU into a mental masturbator. The idea was to addict you to linking progress to buying products, so he himself could then later sell you onto more shit.
So what Vin DiCarlo (Mayhem) did here is that he first expresses INCREDULITY at something, and then finds a way to “unconfuse himself” by your next reply, and then link your reply to a product. At first it was to his crappy overanalytical “escalation lader”.
Now he’s trying to link being social to a fucking treatise on how the social brain works.
While Daniel Goleman’s book is very interesting to sociologists like myself – it will NOT improve your social skills, in fact, it might make you a mental masturbator and make you over-analytical.
@Alex – you mention in your post that you were a fat guy and had 57 lays.
You realize that women are (more) attracted to a guy’s face vs his body – right?
For those 57 women, you were “their type”.
I see many guys who are overweight with hot women and these guys always have what society consider’s an attractive face (example George Clooney).
On the other hand, I seldom see really buff guys who have an ugly face with attractive women.
I am very buff and fit yet have an average face – a friend of mine the same age as me who is about 40 pounds overweight has had way more women then me – he has a George Clooney look (he even started to go grey in his early 30′s).
Beta Mike, I don’t know about my attractiveness level, I always felt I had a large forehead, which leads me to believe in trait liking. Women that were attracted to me commented on my smile and my eyes often and constantly. I don’t know. Also, though I dated a lot of beautiful women, my type was the nerdy girl, the slightly chubby girl, or the average woman, though in the end, I found that women are women, once they’re naked and your having sex, looks begin to matter less and less, until you find that woman you really love.
Alek, I have to disagree with you, I recommended Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman and I recommended Steve Cohen’s Win the Crowd, these two books are very important to me, they were the foundational works to helping me become the social person everyone now loves. I’ve recommended these books to colleagues who used to dread fundraisers for their department, and though still not pleasant for them, they find it incredibly easier to mingle and talk with people. I’m not calling these books magic solutions to people’s problems. But a lot of people are completely incompetent in what it means to be social and how to be social, as I was, and these works helped them as they helped me. Yes, someone who is just learning to be social, and having read these books, is like someone who has just learned to drive, they’re stiff, they’re uncertain, they make some mistakes. But for a lot of people, it helps them to know when to stop and shift gears, to become conscious of other people. You say it puts them in their head, I’ll agree, but, it puts them in their head for minutes to remind them to get out of their head.
Becoming social is a process, one I don’t think I would’ve done as well with as quickly as I did without the help of those works and Dale Carnigee and the such.
However, I’m not recommending these books as a magic bullet to confidence and social ability, but as a great help to giving a person basic understanding of what it means to be social and some steps in how to become a person who can win a crowd.
Wait, what does goleman have to do with carnegie?
One is a practical and amazingly useful book, the other is just sociological theory.
I never said that carnegie is not useful, please don’t misquote me
In fact, I often say that mainstream books on confidence and socializing are VASTLY superior to any pua material.
I was specifically talking about the idea that “reading a bunch of material on THEORY” can be useful – i.e. the idea that daniel goleman is a magic bullet.
Mainstream books on socializing (the practice) are pretty darn good. And they include:
-carnegie
-lowndes books
-how to make people like you
Depends on the context. When it comes to one-night-stands and fuck-buddies, it seems the physique wins out (according to the research I’ve seen).
We are pretty strict on this site to delineate quick lays and relationships.
Women get into relationships with men they do not feel much physical attraction for all the time. He could be rich, he could be a great provider, he could have great career ambition (etc).
When we say “looks are everything” we’re talking about quick lays.
Maybe because such men are exceptionally rare on the planet overall? In fact I’ve never seen a “buff guy who has an ugly face” ever in my life. Unless you meant “buff guy with average face”?
Barely 1 out of 10,000 men has a great physiqie (I’m guesstimating). Barely 1 out of 100 men has an ugly face.
A man having both is a pretty rare occurance. So the odds of you noticing and knowing even a few such guys are small, and then making generalizations based on 2 guys is a pretty bad method.
Buff and fit is quite subjective. There are some pretty good predictors of how sexually attractive a male physique is, and it can be quantified.
-Measure your shoulders(relaxed, don’t flare out, don’t cheat)
-Measure your waist
Divide shoulders by waist. This should give you your V-Taper ratio. What is yours?
Sexually attractive male physiques (or “buff) start from 1.5 on up, with the ideal sexually attractive physique for most women being 1.6 on up.
Let me give you an example
- My shoulders are 127cm
- My waist is 79cm
- My v-taper ratio is 1.60
That makes me buff, and women compliment me on my physique all the time.
What is YOUR v-taper?
@ Alek – I am learning alot from you.
My v-taper is 1.38 and I am a shrimp compared to you!
I guess I am fit/slim (subjectively speaking) but not buff as per your definiton (I won’t use the buff adjective ever again LOL).
BTW, I consider guys like Cristiano Ronaldo and David Beckman to be “benchmarks” for what most women would want in a guy (ie. body/build and face).
For ugly guys who are buff, I am thinking of some of the body builders at my gym (in various gyms as well – check one in your area) who are on the “juice”.
For me, I would rather work on making my face/dress style attractive vs bulking up my body (because for the sports I enjoy, being bulky/muscular would work against the sport like “gaming” works against getting women).
I am not so sure about this concept Alek. Yes I am addicted to the facial appearance theories
so I guess the Experiment could also settle this dispute.
There is no dispute to be settled, you miss understand what is being said.
- a woman decides whether you are her TYPE based on her face
- out of the men who are her type, she then chooses whom to sleep with based on who’s the more handsome of the lot
Make sense? You keep misreading that people are disagreeing with your self-seek-self thing. We’re not, we’re just talking about the next level of filtration.
In a club there will be say 300 guys, and 10 will be her type (she picks type based on facial similarities etc)
But OF THOSE 10, she decides to sleep with the one who is most handsome.
Make sense? This is where physique plays in.
I get this, but I had the impression Alex wanted to say that guys of average physique with the finest facial features are going to have a higher success rate than buff guys with average facial features.
If the self seeking hypothesis has some merit, than guys with the highest level of facial “averageness” should be in a privileged position. It’s easier for them to find “matching” females.
Anyway, this is a purely hypothetical analysis, since it wouldn’t change my strategy when meeting ladies.
Well, the part about the faces makes no difference yes, but physique is change-able.
Improving your V-Taper will drastically improve sexual and social success.
They are attractive to women yes, but they’re not “ideal” in terms of sexual attraction. And they’ve also been chosen by the fashion industry (gay men and lesbian women).
Look at men who are on women’s erotica covers and romance novel covers lol – those are picked by horny heterosexual women, for other horny heterosexual women.
I have the research papers listed on my blog somewhere, but I’m too lazy to spend 15 minutes tracking them down for you. Here are some quotes from a quick google search instead.
Seems obvious, but it is also proven by research. Time and time again, social psychology research shows that women will choose more muscular men for short term sexual partners, and have sex with them faster without a long dating period. They will also have sex with these types of men without developing an emotional attraction to them first.
Despite this idea, this research is proof that the way your body looks absolutely makes a difference in the amount of sex you will have, and the amount of different women you can have sex with.
In other words, guys with the right ‘type’ of muscularity can have sex with more women, more often, and less physically attractive men are rarely chosen by women for short term sexual relationships (more muscle = more flings).
This is obviously some pop-science summary, but I’ve seen all the research and
a) It’s damn solid
b) It’s been confirmed, and re-confirmed, and then re-re-confirmed a ton of times.
It’s pretty much accepted that more muscle = more casual sex UP TO A POINT.
Fortunately, that point is also the point of what’s possible naturally lol
Think men’s health covers.
More muscle up to a point. You meant that one shouldn’t go a lot further than the mentioned 1.6 ratio, right?
Some people are just lazy… also the amount of idiots is horrifying, one born every minute. But it is like that, it has always been like that, and it probably always will be.
The only thing that got worse is the media – check “Mainstream Media Bought It”. How come distinguished newspapers as the NYT approve this load of bullshit?? The people working in those newspapers must know very well that what for ex. mr Styles is claiming is just laughable. They can’t be all idiots. Or can they? They are the worse in my opinion…
Beta Dude, I just read the section, I figured the post here might get a little more reading. John Stossel wrote a great book called Myth Lies and Downright Stupidity (about media stories that have no scientific proof or that are completely misunderstood). they are a ratings based business, and when you look at what Doctor Phil says, A way for men to get a leg up, or a bag of tricks that leaves you asking what happened the next morning, you have the media with a complete misunderstanding of what the PUA’s are selling, and just trying to create another fear for parents for their young daughters going out into the world.
I constantly mention sociopaths because they were part of a thesis paper I did for evolutionary psychology and my wife knows both Martha Stout and Sandra L. Brown (two women who have written great books on the topic of Psychopathy). When the media thinks of pick-up, they think of it in the way that Brown and Stout describe sociopaths, men who know how to exploit sexual attraction (they don’t think of the claims that these men are making, that they can create attraction in any woman). Sociopaths have an innate ability (due to growing up with the inability to be empathetic) to read people and pinpoint those who would be vulnerable to their sexual overtures… and then exploit those people for their own gain, whether momentary fling, her life savings, or on rare but occasional occurence slave or accomplish.
The media sells PUA as men who are exploiting attraction, telling parents that these men are going to be fucking your daughters by exploiting her psychological weaknesses and her biological attraction. And parents tune in and the media then doesn’t question anything, so that the viewer–whose IQ goes down 5 or 10 points when watching the news–begins to believe that PUA is a legitimate form of attracting women.
That’s my opinion at least.
Yeah the more frightening news the better. I know news business is still a business, and they have to “sell” their stories. But famous mainstream newspapers should have some limits. What’s gonna be next – get-rich-quick schemes?
I read Stossel’s book – amazing. I found out about a lot of myths that I didn’t know, like the lie about DDT for instance. I have even sent Stossel an email asking for a report on the seduction community
Hey Alex,
The guys seem so obessed with getting numbers, getting IOI’s (what are IOI’s by the way?–just interest indicators?), and none of them are getting laid.
It’s a matter of cognitive dissonance. I was recently talking about this with a friend of mine. His hypothesis was that those people are so incredibly desperate that they blindly fall for the absurd marketing claims of PUA gurus, and because those guys give them hope, they defend them even if they have no success at all. I found this explanation rather plausible.
There is indeed a big misconception about what the community is. It doesn’t consist of a small army of womanizers who bed everything with a pussy. Quite the opposite is true. While there are a few guys who get laid, most just don’t get anything at all and thus trick themselves into believing that it’s an achievement to collect a dozen phone numbers a night (which all flake).
(BTW, you wrote that you read my books and that you were very impressed. Could I thus possibly ask you to write reviews for Sleazy Stories and Minimal Game on Amazon? I’d really appreciate it.)
I’ve written about this before – I call it the addiction to false positives:
http://aleknovy.com/2011/11/21/direct-vs-indirect-game-bla-bla-measuring-real-results-and-the-delusional-power-of-false-positives/
Actually, that’s a perfect example.
The initial weightloss on diets is also a FALSE POSITIVE… Most fad-diets are designed to cause a quick water displacement, and not to make permanent changes. They trick you into moving the scale, but they don’t make you lose any more FAT than random.
Same as with pua-cult. They trick you into getting more conversations with, and numbers from women. But they don’t mean anything, just like that initial scale-change means nothing.
THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE.
Seriously, that was probably the most important thing I ever learned to get out of a lifetime of friend-zoning by women.
The first key was for me to start approaching women – but that wasn’t all – because I had no way of weeding out the women who wanted to be sexual with me from the large majority who just wanted to be friends. (See my 1-in-5 comment)
I had to escalate and check responses (and do it EARLY!) to know if I was wasting my time.
@EE – there are also guys out there like me who have a HUGE ego and don’t take rejection well.
That’s where I think having a definitive guide to IOI’s would be great because some of us just want the “green zone” women who we are attracked to and who in turn are attracted to us.
For me, my libido is normal (in that I don’t go to strippers or watch porn to make myself hornier than I need to be) and thus, I also have interests in life outside of women that take priority – so this term “escalate” that you use is daunting to me as I would walk away if a woman isn’t into me.
If I have to escalate with a woman, I am most likely in her “grey zone” and it all seems like quite a bit of effort for something that is normal (ie. getting with women).
One of the reasons that the “gamers” in the PUA community are such angry guys (towards women thinking they are bitches) is that they go for “red zone” women (women who are definately not interested – mostly because they are out of the guy’s league) and “grey zone” women (the guys aren’t their first choice) – the problem is these PUA guys escalate by using “game” where of course the women then reject them.
Beta Mike, the approach guide was written for that particular reason. It came out of a discussion between people who were like “What if you completely hate rejection though?”.
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/approach-guide/
So the approach guide as it is written now is so that it minimizes rejection as much as possible. However, from reading Sleazy’s book, I think it can be updated to say that “you can play it less safe as you get more success over time”.
I’ve gotten great success both doing something like this strategy (the sirc-based approach guide) and doing AWAW. I’ve never done Sleazy’s – be physical from the start even with grey-zone chicks thing though. I’m probably gonna do that over the next year just to see what happens. I’m at the confidence level and experience where I could probably try Sleazy’s approach.
If you’re not there yet, try the approach guide. It helps you play it extra safe.
That’s what the approach guide tells you to
If she’s not interested, walk away. It also tells you how to test for interest in a way that allows you to save face and not have to be rejected.
So… go read it already
Another reason women reject these guys is something that feminazis will never admit -> women are shallow!!
As I changed my look, I noticed I could get away with so much more. In other words, as you upgrade your look or start wearing more expensive clothes, you will find that even if you go for red-zone chicks, they are very polite and flattered when politely declining your interest.
Whereas if your look isn’t optimized, you will find women are vicious and cruel no matter how polite and respectful you are.
Women tend to not be honest about their shallowness. They have to invest a reason why they were cruel to you so they make shit up like ‘he was creepy” or “had a bad vibe”… But if a good-looking guy made the EXACT SAME approach, with the exact same everything – they would not have called him a creep or been vicious.
That’s why you test, test, escalate, test, test, escalate. Read the approach guide.
@ Alek – thanks for your post which clarifies what strategy I should use (considering I don’t like rejections).
BTW, what does AWAW stand for – I have not been able to find a definition.
We talked about it earlier. Many years ago, my friends and me got no results with the community despite massive amounts of approaches and effort and studying game.
Then we discovered this little book called “Approach Any Woman Anywhere”.
In it the other explained that everything is basically a numbers game, and you just need to focus on being HONEST with yourself about how much you ESCALATE.
He also shared his ratios and numbers, and how many minutes he invests to get a number.
He shared approach-to-number conversions, and then number-to-date conversions.
He gave a very simple method of
-> complimenting 3 women a day
-> as long as the woman isn’t hostile, try to chit-chat for a few minutes
-> Ask for number (every single time)
That’s it!!!
After years of keyboard jockeying and endless “sets” that went nowhere, me and all my friends finally started getting dates and lays. Even the virgins went from zero women success, to having 5-6 lays within a months of starting the AWAW experiment.
Aaron’s friend GLL did a similar experiment, and got similar results:
http://www.goodlookingloser.com/2011/12/23/getting-women-is-a-numbers-game-the-odds-are-in-your-favor/
@ Alek – you mention the virgins went to 5 – 6 lays using the AWAW method???!!!
I suspect that you guys must be somewhere in Eastern Europe (Hungary & Romania come to mind) or perhaps Berlin where I recall the women are extremely friendly.
Here in North America, the women are not that friendly.
This leads me to another seduction community dogma in that women are the same everywhere – this could not be further from the truth (especially for me since I am a world traveler).
In North America, Asian women seem to be the toughest as their type is usually an Asian guy (so I pity a non-Asian guy who approaches 100 of these women and fails 100 types in a row).
I had a quick look at the AWAW book you mentioned on the amazon site – I prefer the “vibe” of sleazy’s book but I am not discounting looking into the book if you think it is worth reading.
Believe me women may appear friendly in different parts of the world, but it doesn’t mean your lay ratio will be higher – if you actually count every approach. The only difference is that you will get rejected more politely ..
AWAW was written by a guy in some of the US cities.
The link I gave you is from a blogger based in LA, who was previously in New York.
He too notes that yes, different cities the women have a different amount of “friendliness”, but the ACTUAL RESULTS are the same.
The only difference in between localities is how nice women are about non-interest. You will still fuck the same ratio of women in new york, paris, berlin and LA -> the difference is that in new york the non-interested women will tell you to fuck off before you even finish your first sentence. Whereas in LA/Berlin they’ll chit-chat with you for 3 minutes and give you a fake number.
Bullshit.
First of all, I already told you it differs from city to city. You can’t make a statement about an entire fucking continent
Secondly, good looking men get friendly responses everywhere. If you optimize your looks, you will find you get good reactions even in the unfriendliest cities.
Third, if you dislike bad reactions, then… just do the approach-guide which is designed to be super safe, and guarantees no bad reactions (since you never even do a full on approach unless there’s an opening or half-interest)
You’ll see the approach guide is already designed in a way where you don’t ever even approach unless it’s certain she’ll at least be nice or half-open to an approach.
Actually – we really need to talk about this.
When started looking into “seduction” online and eventually bought “How To Succeed With Women” (Ron Louis) I was living in a “city” (I use that term loosely) with a population of <75,000 that had one major college – but that college was a Christian school. Beyond that, the city had ZERO dance clubs and no bars were open after 11 or midnight.
One of the problems with living in a small city is that women don't have much competition for each other, so finding a HB9 or a HB10 was statistically rare – as many of them didn't have to take as good care of themselves to "beat out" other women in the looks department.
Anyway, because of all this I had to learn approaching at non-social events, like book stores, coffee shops and other locations – mostly during the day.
I was extremely frustrated by PUAs/Gamers who lived in big cities and could hit up multiple clubs in a night – we didn't even have a SINGLE club to go to.
Are there any plans to address men in small cities/towns where there aren't many places where women "gather" like clubs?
@BetaMike
I live most of the year in NYC, and I party there extensively as well as LA and occasionally (though far less frequently) Miami.
I can tell you without any doubt that American women in these cities are both extremely pretty and extremely friendly (if you approach in a comfortable, friendly way yourself). This idea that North American women women are particularly hard is a myth – I really dont know where it comes from, but I think some guys buy into it before they get comfortable with women, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words guys hear over and over again that American women are particularly unfriendly and then adopt auto-rejection as self-defense mechanism. They then go out doing auto-rejection and get bad reactions from women, reinforcing their belief. (of course, you also have to screen for signs of interest from women before seriously approaching. Approaching a hot girl who has given you NO signs of interest despite you trying to get her attention in a club can get you a bad reaction in ANY country in the world, emphatically including Eastern Europe)
I have partied pretty much all over Europe and Asia – nowhere have I found a place where pretty women are as approachable and friendly as NYC. The idea that it is better elsewhere is a myth – if you ever go to Romania or Hungary excepting super friendly women you will be sorely disappointed.
I know from myself I used to do this auto-rejection thing all the time, which used to kill my chances with women. Once you get comfortable and normal with American women, they are as good as anywhere.
No offense, but this is the weirdest thing I have heard. Asian women in the States are pretty much crazy over white guys – there are about a dozen sites by Asian guys bemoaning the fact that many Asian women in the States will completely refuse to date Asian guys and prefer white guys. Asians are not really my type, but I have hooked up with a bunch, and I regularly see cute Asian girls hooking up with whites guys in the clubs and bars I frequent. Its like a nightly occurrence.
In Asia itself, for purely social reasons, far less women are willing to date white guys (although a ton still are) – but in America? Generally, the deal is that most white guys who are great with women dont really go after Asian girls, because they are seen as much less of a *prize* than a hot white girl.
What you are operating from, my friend, is called a *limiting belief* – for some reason you have adopted this belief that Asian girls dont like you, and operating from that mindset.
American girls and especially Asian girls in the US are NOT particularly worse than girls in other countries in terms of friendliness.
Its a myth that will lead many a man to bitter disappointment if believed.
As I changed my look, I noticed I could get away with so much more. In other words, as you upgrade your look or start wearing more expensive clothes, you will find that even if you go for red-zone chicks, they are very polite and flattered when politely declining your interest.
I have noticed the same but with regard to bodily attractiveness…The difference was enormous after I got in shape.
@ Beta Dude (admin), when you write that you get better results by being in shape – that contradicts what BetaMike wrote earlier that he is buff, but it doesn’t really help him, because it’s not about being fit, but your facial features is pretty much all that matters. I know you’ve also listed some studies on facial features and such, so not sure where you ultimately stand on this.
Do we have scientific evidence, to say one way or another. I suspect that you’ll tell me to just stop being lazy and get my ass in the gym, but I don’t want to put much time in to something that doesn’t help much, so will appreciate any feedback.
Thanks
Yeah, but being buff is not the same as being *in shape*.
Women actually dont like too much muscle. Being in shape means being lean, having very little fat, and having good muscle but not too much, and a good v-taper thing going on. Trust me, it makes a huge difference.
Also, you have to dress decently in a way that reveals that you are in shape.
So where is the border between being in shape and too much muscle. The 1.6 ratio Alek mentioned?
@ Jake – I first heard the term “limiting belief” in the seduction community.
Your post sounds like it came out of the RSD (Real Social Dynamics) handbook of gaming.
Don’t tell me women are the same everywhere – fuck off! That’s just another seduction community dogma!
One guy on here says the women in NYC are bitches and then you say they are the friendliest.
Rationally, some cities may have more men to women ratio – perhaps that correlates with my experience (but don’t go claiming women are the same everywhere and it is my belief system, blah, blah, blah….I know what my senses experience – fuck you).
He didn’t say that “women are the same everywhere”. He said the differences are exaggerated by some guys.
For example you said that entire continent of women is unfriendly to you. That’s an absurd statement.
–> That proves the point that the guy himself is a big factor then no? <—
Nobody on here said that "chicks in nyc are bitches". I was telling you what GL said – that in NYC he kept running into unfriendly chicks who'd shoot him down immediately, whereas in LA they'd be super friendly to him.
Then again, Janka seems to always get friendly reactions in NYC. Could it be because GL has a very direct (hitting on them from hello) approach, while Janka is very leisurely and gives the chicks space?
The point was “whereas in this city UNINTERESTED chicks might politely let you down, in this other city, they might tell you to fuck off from hello”.
But as I also pointed out AS YOU UPGRADE your looks, it becomes the great equalizer – and even in places where chicks used to be unfriendly to you, they all of a sudden become friendlier.
And also, it has to do with your approach vs. the chicks experience there. In some cities, women deal with a TON of cat-calling. So if your approach (OR LOOK) even comes close to resembling the typical cat-caller, the chick immediatelly stereotypes you and tells you to fuck off before even giving you a chance to see who you are.
Just because you originally heard a concept in the community, it doesn’t mean the concept itself is non-existent.
You can find an entire chapter on beliefs in any textbook on social psychology, and all the ways in which beliefs shape perceptions and actions.
The thing that RSD/community does is to lift concepts from psychology and give them unrealistic meaning and value.
For example it implies that if you just chant something, your belief will magically change, and then you get everything you believe
-> That’s the part that’s stupid, not the idea of beliefs itself, which is quite scientific. Do you get the DIFFERENCE?
You’re conflating things to muddy up things again.
-> Women use the face PRIMARILY to decide if you are their TYPE
-> From the men who are within her pool of types, she uses the handsomeness of face and physique to decide whom to fuck and date first.
As I demonstrated to BetaMike, he only think he’s fit-looking, but his measurements say otherwise. At a v-taper of 1.4, that means in clothes he looks like any average non-fat guy.
I’m sure he looks better than average without a shirt, but in clothes, with 1.4, nobody will even guess he workouts. Just like David Beckham looks like any random skinny guy with his clothes on (he only looks better when he has his shirt off).
There’s a level beyond which it’s extremely obvious your physique stands out, and that is somewhere around the 1.5 range, in this range it’s pretty obvious you’re in good shape and muscular, even in clothes. People start asking you where you workout, and ask you for fitness tips.
It depends on the person and other factors and their starting position. Someone who’s overweight (but has a decent amount of muscle) will see a huge shift losing weight. Someone who’s skinny, will not see a huge difference by adding 10 pounds of muscle (he needs to add maybe 20).
All in all, it has to do with convergence. It is almost impossible to get to a men’s health body and not get all these amazing benefits (even if you’re not handsome-faced) – because to the women who’s type you are, you will be pure sexual bliss.
@BetaMike, who, did not mean to strike a nerve there!
Look, I am not trying to contradict your experiences. I just know from my personal history that I used to walk around auto-rejecting American women because I believed that they were harder than women in other countries. I used to auto-reject American women dreaming of the day I could travel to Europe or Asia where the women were much *easier*. Then I did travel to those places – thats when the dream collapsed. Its sort of like when I was kid I used to think Europeans were so much more sophisticated than Americans, then I met actual Europeans, and I realized it was a myth. Let me ask you, have you been to Eastern Europe, or even Western Europe, to make a comparison? Because I have.
I am just trying to suggest to you that it is POSSIBLE you believe something that is making you auto-reject American women, which is hurting you and reinforcing your belief. Its something to consider (we all want to improve our life, right?) But if you disagree and just think that American women are particularly shitty, thats OK too – we dont have to agree. No biggie. I am just describing my experience and what I have found to be true.
As for women *being the same everywhere*, I have found a great degree of similarity in the attitudes and behavior of very pretty women all over the world. I cannot literally say everywhere because I have not been everywhere, and I cannot say the attitudes are exactly the same, because there are differences. But I CAN say that in my somewhat extensive experience, the idea that pretty women are much easier and friendlier in some places is probably a myth. And believing in this myth might prevent one from dealing with women in his own country.
Now, what I HAVE found are countries where average to ugly women will be super-friendly and throw themselves at men. The very poor countries are like this. Now, even in these countries the pretty women are almost no different from Western women.
There’s absolutely no reason to worry about that because…
+++ It’s impossible to overshoot it
It is literally physiologically impossible for any human being to put on much more muscle than the ideal. Because…
-A> Different women define the ideal differently, but it’s only off by a few pounds. So if the ideal for one woman is you being 175lbs ripped, for another its you at 178 ripped, and another at 172 ripped… So, the ideal is more of a range.
-B> Different guys have different muscle-gaining ability, and some will be able to put on a few pounds more, and some a few pounds less
-C> No guys however is able to put on more muscle than the ideals found in research. In other words, it is possible you might have 2 pounds more than ideal for Jane, but you’ll be perfect for Sarah. You won’t however be able to put on a ton more muscle than what is ideal for any one woman.
It’s BIOLOGICALLY impossible to put on an unattractive amount of muscle without steroids. And I believe one has to be a fucking retard to use it.
As long as you don’t use them, there’s nothing to even think about… JUST workout like hell, and gain as much muscle as possible —> that’s it
No need to worry beyond that. You can’t put on too much muscle EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.
Sounds like someones a little sexually frustrated. Just get your dick wet and this will all no longer be an issue
Sounds like you are 9 years old.
I approve even this kind of retarded comments, and than I read someone on PUAhate saying there is censorship on this website!
puahate is filled with a lot of pua shills who try to make the forum less readable and less trustable by inserting a lot of “noise” and disinformation.
Mayhem for example was sent on this site to introduce noise and worsen the signal-to-noise ratio.
Hey guys, just discovered another site:
http://beyondpickup.wordpress.com/
Hey, I’m wondering if I can get people’s opinions on The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene.
So, the topic of this article is about the seduction myth and you’re asking opinions about a book called “The Art of Seduction” …
“Seduction is the belief you can “create” sexual attraction in the head of a woman who previously hasn’t been attracted to you (for ex David DeAngelo frequently repeats that you can “create attraction”). This particular claim has never ever been evidenced!”
These three particular points may provide some evidence that can create attraction (unethically):
1. Brainwashing techniques
2. Little Albert Experiment (“was a case study showing empirical evidence of classical conditioning in humans. This study was also an example of stimulus generalization.” )
3. Injecting said victim with hardcore drugs could induce an attachment to the said PUA
deja vu! deja vu !
1. brainwashing techniques – so post a link to any such studies! thats just a vague term – why hasn’t anyone tested the application of brainwashing to sexual attraction?? I demand A FAIR study on statistically significant samples, not some dude’s impression… The only brainwashing that works are the marketing techniques that enable PUA gurus to make millions selling this shit to naive horny guys.
2. your little Albert Experiment proved a VERY GENERAL claim (“evidence of classical conditioning in humans”). I made this reservation on the front page of this website. I am not asking for evidence proving GENERAL IDEAS, I want a study showing that you can create sexual attraction. Period.
3. LOL are you serious??
I’d like to address Alek’s “false dichotomy” regarding:
Either 1) One Night Stands and 2) Relationships.
Besides what Alek said (3) The period where a woman is evaluating you for a relationship) there is also another, one that I took advantage of:
4) The ongoing hookup where you both mutually realize a relationship won’t work for personality reasons but the sex is good so you call each other up intermittently for booty calls.
Otherwise known as the FwB.
One thing I think is missing from this entire conversation (and I think it’s a cultural thing) is that not all sex is created equal. I’ve been with some very gorgeous women who were completely lazy in bed. I’ve also been with some chubby girls who don’t put a lot of work into their appearance that could really blow your mind.
For me, it was worth it to develop a FwB scenario with the “good sex” girls regardless of how attractive they might be to the greater population (but still attractive to me, mind you!) than to keep a continuous string of one-night stands. I dunno if that’s what everyone else is talking about here, but that’s what I found most fufilling.
Actually I said the following
So 1) includes your 4) :)
I don’t know why you got the idea that people are targeting an endless string of ONS-es?
P.S
Check out my response to your small towns question in the approach guide. This is my final recommendation for “the guide”, you know the idea we had of an alternative to game that will help guys escape angry and bitter dateless-ness or sex-lessness.
My Proposal:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/approach-guide/#comment-1914
Ah, my apologies. I misread that and couldn’t find the comment to quote exactly.
I guess the “endless string of ONS” is a artifact of listen to PUAs talk – where the height of “game” was to walk up to a completely random HB10 you’ve never talked to before and take her home 30 minutes later – and the ability to reproduce this night after night.
Like I’ve said before – I just want to make sure we develop a “no-gimmick” guide for men of all levels of weight and location to do “the best they can do.”
Yes, ideally they should lose weight and move to a larger city – but chubby guys in rural areas should at least get *some* worth out of this guide.
In all fairness, if a technique can work for one brain state why can’t it work in another brain state?? A specific study that you would be looking for would probably be unethical. However, we can piece things together through our understanding of how brainwashing works… And yes, I have to agree the PUA culture is selling a lot of snake oil.
Here is an excerpt from: Deprogramming, Brainwashing and the Medicalization of Deviant Religious Groups
Author(s): Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthon
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Feb., 1982), pp. 283-29
MEDICALIZATION AND DEPROGRAMMING
Deprogramming is the process of persuading cult converts to relinquish their involvement with cults. The process is frequently coercive: the convert is abducted from the cult and physically detained during deprogramming. Coercive deprogramming has often been described as a confrontational technique in which stress is used to break up “programmed” mental patterns (Kim, 1979;
Melton, 1980; Shapiro, 1977). Clark (1977:E6895) notes that depersonalization induced by cultist indoctrination “does not respond to the most effective antipsychotic drugs or treatment customarily applied by mental health professionals to restore effective thinking.” However, methods of forcible therapy or counter-indoctrination developed by non-professionals such as deprogrammer Ted Patrick appear
to have been effective in “liberating” converts from cultist bonds. The effectiveness of deprogramming has been interpreted as confirming the psychopathology cf cultist involvements. Clark (1977:E6895) views this effectiveness as a “rather compelling piece ,- evidence” that depersonalization is in fact produced by cult indoctrination. “The deprogramming process as it is now practiced effects,
in a large number of cases, a fairly rapid return to the old language skills and
memories, original personal relationship patterns and of course the old problems.” According to Conway and Siegelman (1978:69), “deprogramming confirms that some drastic change takes place in the course of cult experience, for only through deprogramming does it become apparent to everyone, including the cult member, that his actions, and even his expression, speech, and appearance, have not been under his own controls.” The widespread success of deprogramming has
helped discredit the cults by suggesting that cult conversions are not authentic (Shupe and Bromley, 1980a). Early accounts of deprogramming emphasize
its stressful and confrontational nature. Shapiro (1977:81-82) notes the use of “abreactive” techniques: “Much emotional turmoil is produced in the mind of the cultist as he hears blasphemous allegations against his charismatic leader and his
beliefs. It is demonstrated to him how Bible passages have been torn out of context and misused [by cultist leaders].” The arousal of excitement and anger are thought to be necessary to break down behavior patterns produced by conditioning. According to Shupe et al. (1977:950), “verbal abuse targeted at the cult believer, his beliefs, and cult leaders is a fundamental tactic of deprogramming.”….
Here is another source:
Brainwashing Techniques in Leadership and Child Rearing
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Volume 5, Issue 4, pages 270–273, December 1966
There is no reason it CANT, but one cannot just assume it DOES, either. What gamers do is say *look, your behavior affects women wanting to be friends with you, so then it MUST also affect them wanting to have sex with you. Its proof!*
THAT is bad thinking.
In all fairness, if a technique can work for one brain state why can’t it work in another brain state??
I think we addressed this issue like a 1000 times! Read ending of section “BS Created So Far”, where it is explained why analogies can lead you to jaded conclusions.
Furthermore, it obviously can’t “work in another brain state”, when you have studies showing that in such “brain state” (I have human mating in mind here) things work completely differently! So until you abolish the studies quoted in “Her Type” or “Genes and Personality Types” don’t come here speculating that “maybe it could work”. Yeah, maybe the government is hiding an alien space ship in area 51. Speculations and analogies – no evidence.
How can you explain all that brainwashing claims in the light of for instance Helen Fisher’s studies (thousands of REAL couples were examined). You really think that none of those males knew any persuasion or brainwashing techniques? You really think that the patterns found by Dr Fisher in the thousands of couples were a mere coincidence?? Remind you here she found patterns linked to hormone levels – i.e. things you are born with. You cannot change it with the most sophisticated brainwashing techniques.
A specific study that you would be looking for would probably be unethical.
Again, read this website before commenting. There is a specific proposal for such study in section “the Experiment” – read it and tell me what is unethical about it??
Unethical, that’s just an excuse you found. What other excuses you have? No PUA was interested in proving it? Fine, maybe they weren’t cause their are making money anyway. But the scientific world? I will tell you why, cause the scientific world knows very well (numerous studies confirmed it) that looks (not beauty) are the primary attraction trigger. In other words, if you don’t “match” this particular female you are dead in the water, no brainwashing, no persuasion, no voodoo, no magic love elixirs are gonna help you.
PUA gurus would be left homeless since most of then are high school dropouts…
They’re panicking, this movement is threatening their very survival.
It’s unethical To render all these people homeless, which such an experiment would do…
hahaha, unemployment will rise! Maybe a government bail out for the seduction industry?
This must be a joke, you guys reference here SIRC (Social Issues Research Center) Guide to Flirting, so I go there to read up on what all the fuss on flirting is all about and in the 3rd opening paragraph SIRC says:
“According to some evolutionary psychologists, flirting may even be the foundation of civilisation as we know it. They argue that the large human brain – our superior intelligence, complex language, everything that distinguishes us from animals – is the equivalent of the peacock’s tail: a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners. Our achievements in everything from art to rocket science may be merely a side-effect of the essential ability to charm.”
That’s right, read that again – according to evolutionary psychologists our complex language, brain and intelligence is a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I took you guys seriously and even let my friends know you might be on to something and now, that’s right – the joke is on me, thanks for nothing! WTF is this!!!! A bit too early for an April fools, don’t you think?
I even posted your article on our forum site. Was giving you some counterarguments here to make sure your point were legit, but on our forum site I actually supported you guys all along cause I thought you were serious. What am I suppose to do now, go back, apologize, and tell the guys we’ve been hoaxed? That is totally not cool
Hopefully there is an explanation. I’ll eagerly await.
Peace
Brother Mayhem
Dude, this has already been answered in the comments like 40 times… Search the comments for the clarification on “flirting skills” and “long term”
We have specifically talked about that THERE IS SUCH a thing as flirting skills. Search “flirting skills” on this sites comments.
As for what that means, you will see that flirting is defined as SHOWING and COMMUNICATING and reading interest. Nobody ever claims that flirting can INFLUENCE PHYSICAL ATTRACTION – it can’t.
Wikipedia says
Do you GET the difference? This site is about saying that you can NOT create physical attraction. Do you GET the difference? Flirting PRESUPPOSES that physical attraction exists for it to be successful. Do you GET IT?
Did you scroll down and see the very first point of sirc lol?!?
Mayhem, are you pretending to miss the qualifiers and clarifications on PURPOSE
-> we KEEP reclarifying that IT IS possible to increase PERSONAL and ROMANTIC attraction using actions and words…
—> In other words, it is possible to use words and actions to INCREASE a short term partner’s interest in being your GIRLFRIEND (level 2)
—> getting that short term partner (level1) in the FIRST PLACE (level1) only depends on her being attracted to your looks and you being able to communicate interest
-> we keep clarifying we are ONLY attacking the concept that one can “increase” PHYSICAL attraction using actions and words
-> PUAs claim that you can bang more women SHORT TERM by changing your actions and words
-> we are saying there is NO EVIDENCE that women look at anything except looks in the short-term
DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE? There is no evidence women look at any other traits to determine physical attraction.
- to choose a friend? Yes (personal attraction)
- to choose a provider? Yea (romantic attraction)
- to choose which stranger to fuck tonight? Nope (just looks)
Your behaviour can only repel her, it can’t however make her want to fuck you more
You can’t increase physical attraction using actions and words. You can only repel women with clumsy, creepy behavior. But you can not make a woman physically attracted if she wasn’t when you entered the door.
The whole point is that PUAs try to take LONG-term concepts and try to apply them to the short-term. They try to imply that you can use boyfriend traits to get a one night stand with a woman who isn’t already attracted to you. They claim to CREATE physical attraction where none existed.
Which part of that says that you can use actions and words to create PHYSICAL attraction? That is actually pre-supposed to exist, as you would find out if you kept reading lol.
What that paragraph means is that we have evolved strategies to know how and when to show interest, where to do mate poaching and when not, when to take a chance and when to not, how to impress someone in the long-term and convince them to mother/father our baby etc…etc. Knowing how not to repulse physically attracted people, knowing when to make an attempt a flirt with a chick who’s boyfriend is not near etc etc…
Read clarification on long-term vs short term. It is possible to use actions an words to increase romantic and personal attraction. We are only attacking PHYSICAL attraction and short-term here.
Physical attraction???? WTF! Is this another part of April fools???
The article we are commenting on said clearly SEXUAL ATTRACTION. In black and white letters – sexual attraction – very clear, can not mistake it for anything else. The article never even mentioned physical attraction! Do a simple keyword search in the browser and you can easily confirms.
Sexual attraction!!! Lets repeat, sexual attraction!!! What do evolutionary psychologists say we use to attract sexual partners – our complex language!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wooooooooooooohooo
Alek, I know it will be rough to see things come undone and to see the new rules come in to place, but just wanted to let you know that your true friends are still here, and even though you have fell to the other side of the reason, everyone you know and love will still be here to work together on creating a new and better lay guide for guys to approach woman and get laid – PUA space is still too full of bullshit, so it’s still up to us to set it right, we just need to make sure that we are coming from a solid footing.
Peace
Brother Mayhem
WTF are you talking about?? Do you see any substantial difference between “physical attraction” and “sexual attraction” – from the evolutionary point of view? I am not asking you to explain the roots of the words “physical” and “sexual” in the English language, I am asking you what difference does it make in the light of the TOPIC??
It’s called “grasping for straws” I believe. It’s typical of gamers and it ALWAYS happens as you know. After they lose every argument, the last thing they resort to is clutching onto semantic on arguing about HOW something was written. This is like déjà vu 568? Lol
He has yet to provide any evidence that a woman who sees you as a 7 sexually, can be made to see you as a 9 by your actions and words. (as per roissy claims)
HE REFUSES to offer any study or evidence.
His tactic has whittled down to “well there COULD be such a thing hidden in some neuron of the brain, and we might not have discovered it yet” lol
Which IS TRUE. We can’t prove only looks determine attraction. It’s like disproving the existence of God, that is true.
But what he is saying is the equivalent of saying “since god can’t be disproven, let’s write a guide on how to pray to ZEUS so we get laid more” loooool
Greek Mythology Game LOL
yeah, it’s pathetic, now he posted about some shit on Tyra Banks show. Like I noted before, what makes me really angry though are not PUAs (some of them probably know very well how absurd is this, and are in the community just for the cash). What makes me really angry is mainstream media. They are deliberately promoting: a) a scam or b) a completely irrational concept (in case of PUAs who actually believe in all that twisted theories)
So on too of being logically challenged, you’re also dyslexic? Here’s the paragraph you quoted
So no the term you saw “in blakc and white” appears nowhere.
We can argue semantics all day, and if that’s all you have left, well…
Whether we say physical attraction or sexual attraction or whatever term we use… You know full well what we mean – how physically attracted a woman is to you, how much she LUSTS over your PENIS.
What the evo-psych people mean by “sexual partners” is simply “people who choose to reproduce with you”.
Not “people who find you hot”, but people who choose to reproduce with you.
What ADMIN is disputing is that you can use words and actions to make a woman DESIRE your penis more than otherwise. That’s it.
Not how likely she is to fuck you… But how much she DESIRES to fuck you – as in physical lust for your penis *
- YES you CAN improve your flirting skills to improve your chances of fucking MORE of the women who are attracted to you YES YES YES
- No, you can’t make women’s physical desire to fuck you GROW by what you say and do
DO YOU get the difference between those two concepts? Is that too subtle to grasp?
*-By “desires” we mean physical lust for your penis which obviously excludes transactional sex. For example when a woman wants to fuck you more once she discovers that you are rich, because she thinks she can trap you and steal your money… Or where a woman fucks you out of pity or for any reason other than physical lust for your penis.
P.S.
Let me let you in on a hint since you’re on a semantical crusade. Even though there was no “sexually attracted” in the text you read, you actually CAN probably find some evo -patch article that might have even said something like “humans sexually attract bla bla bla”…
In which case they’re again, talking about the process of obtaining sex from an ALREADY attracted individual. It is always pre-assumed that physical attraction is pre-existing.
The words are imprecise and quite rough… The challenge on this website by admin still remains, and is “arguing semantics” the best you have?
We only ask for ONE piece of evidence that you can make a woman desire you physically more by what you do and say. Not evidence that there are ways to increase your odds of fucking an ALREADY attracted woman (that’s called “flirting” or “courtship”)
Physical attractiveness is by definition your physical traits. I don’t know why you keep bringing in it up.
The article we were discussing, e.g. “Seduction Doesn’t Exist” says that we can’t create sexual attraction, at least not with language.
SIRC makes it clear that according to evolutionary psychologists, we use our complex language to attract sexual partners.
SIRC makes it clear that according to evolutionary psychologists, we use our complex language to attract sexual partners.
But you cannot draw the conclusion SIRC says you can “create” attraction. Language may have some influence when you have two guys who both match the girl’s criteria as far as facial features are concerned. In such case of course language and probably a thousand other factors may have some influence on her choice.
Do you honestly not know the difference between “sexual partner” and “sexually attracted”?
- I am sexually attracted to Angelina Jolie
- Angelina Jolie is not my sexual partner
If I met her, she could use actions and words to turn me into her sexual partner (she could hint and show signs of interest, trick Pitt to leave the room so that we’re alone and I can make the move, using innuendo to let me know shes interested etc)
Here’s the full sentence that you’re trying to interpret:
a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners
Do you know what courtship is Mayhem? Here’s the definition:
Courtship is the period in a couple’s relationship which precedes their engagement and marriage, or establishment of an agreed relationship of a more enduring kind.
You desperately try to say a person can create sexual attraction through words and actions by trying to stretch this sentence:
a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners
Do you honestly not know the difference between “sexual partner” and “sexually attracted”?
- I am sexually attracted to Angelina Jolie
– Angelina Jolie is not my sexual partner
hahahaha no comment : )
The above courtship definition was a longer one by Wikipedia, here are formal dictionary ones.
Dictionary
1. the wooing of one person by another
2. the period during which such wooing takes place
3. solicitation of favors, applause, etc.
4. behavior in animals that occurs before and during mating, often including elaborate displays
Thesaurus
Definition: dating, romance
Synonyms: courting, engagement, keeping company, love, lovemaking, pursuit, suit, wooing
Soooo… In order to stretch the sentence in the way you want you have to either redefine the meaning of courtship or the meaning of “sexual partners” – neither of which includes any notion of “creating sexual attraction where none existed”
Sigh…
- 1> So you have yet to provide any evidence of any study or anything anywhere that says “actions and words create sexual attraction
- 2> You’ve been desperately trying to stretch a little sentence into saying “sexually attract” which it doesn’t and it’s just made you look rather desperate really
I especially don’t understand why do that when you can already find some papers that might have even used the term “sexually attract”… Why embarrass yourself publicly by trying to re-define and stretch 5 words?
As I said, you can find some papers that even DO say “sexually attract”.
What you will however never find is anything that says “create sexual attraction using words and actions”.
Just simply doesn’t seem to exist…
The funny thing about how bad Mayhem argues is that I even tried to help him by hinting at materials that are closer to what he believes lol. Instead of Taking the hint, he keeps trying to rescue a claim he made based on dyslexia lol.
HINT MAYHEM there’s an entire entry on Wikipedia called “sexual attraction” and it Includes sentences that could suit YOUR perspective better.
I mean sure, it doesn’t say there you can create sexual attraction with word and actions, but it does have some vague sentences that you could use in your case. Sure they’re written by guys like you and cite nothing, but you’d at least have something to use instead of dyslexia.
Man, how much do you have to suck that your enemies have to donate ammo to you? Looool.
Have fun with the Wikipedia tip, I’ll leave you to admin.
Admin ill have to go for a month or so coz I just got a biz project to handle, but I shall be back. I think you’ll handle the déjà vus just fine.
Alek,
We will be awaiting your return. Good luck with the project!
I don’t see any contradiction here. Wasn’t it already said that between two men that are both her type, other factors come into play in chosing who she’s going to sleep with in the end? Everything else being equal, the guy with the better flirting skills gets the girl.
What you’re saying, however, is that we can use NLP or some other verbal “technique” to create sexual attraction in women whose type we’re not. There was nothing like that in the SIRC guide. You just took a paragraph and stretched it out of proportion to make it mean what you wanted it to mean.
Yes, that means that there could be applications for that stuff in competition against other males who are also her type, however this site’s scope is disproving that you can create sexual attraction out of nowhere with them.
I almost typed an analogy to make it easier on you, but that would mean I haven’t read the site. The above is pretty much what alek said, by the way. I don’t think I can dumb it down any more than that.
Note: RSS feed broken.
thanks! Working on it…
Well I guess not many people are going to read this seeing how many comments sit above this one, but I wanted to thank admin in the way of briefly sharing my story. I’m 22 y.o. having had only one gf (for 2 years) and a few short-lived encounters.
In the 2 years since that relationship did I got into pickup. The way I’d gotten to where the getting was good involved no skill, no method and really nothing other than being myself (in fact I dare say it would’ve been even better if I’d been more myself and unaware of David DeScamgelo). So instead of realizing I had a great girl by the virtue of being me, I figured I was extremely unlikely to ever get someone like her again if I didn’t “learn how to seduce women”.
I’d already read lightly some David DeAngelo stuff when I was 17 and tried applying that to no success whatsoever (of course). So I got more stuff to watch and read to “learn”. In hindsight it turns out I’m not a complete retard because I never really believed it deep-down. I never internalized nor applied any “routines” or “methods” which I’d read, but they’d always linger in the back of my mind. The net result was that I was obviously shut off from being myself and thus shut off from having real interactions with actual girls that liked me. In hindsight, there are about 10 situations all of which I could’ve easily turned into lays had I not either acted like a douchebag or done nothing at all. I’m pretty perceptive to the non-verbal cues but acting on them in the fashion in which I’d “learned” was too incongruent with my personality.
So I’ve been trying to get rid of this baggage for about 3 months now and I can say it’s very hard to “become a normal person” (especially considering I never was that normal to begin with of course). But this site in particular (next to a few others including puahate.com) have really helped me make tremendous progress in this area and it’s a huge weight off my shoulders to know that was I always subconsciously must have realized is not only true but also academically correct.
Now that I have a more factual and resonating rebuttal of all the PUA crap that occupied my thoughts I can finally start to act in the way evolution (or God or whatever) intended me to. A breakthrough that I wanted to let you know (Beta Dude) that you are to thank for for, amidst all the fucking retards on this page trying to desperately hold on to their retard witch doctors. I guess you can officially call me a recovering Pick Up Artist.
P.s. I never spent a dime on their shit btw, although before it started dawning upon me how retarded it all was I was considering saving up to go to a boot camp, lol.
It’s always nice to hear such stories : ) Gives me motivation to keep running this website!
It’s funny, PUA has the term rAFC for a recovering AFC. Now we’ve come full circle and invented the term rPUA. LOL
I need to say that the PUA scam has arrived to Latin Amerika too. There are more guys called themselves “gurus”. Unfortunately there is no web like this in Spanish and PUAS are selling products as well.
Is anybody have information about webs like this in Spanish?
We are thinking about new language versions for this website… including Spanish of course : )
Hey Beta Dude, I think you are overcompensating! I have been doing extensive work to rid myself of the PUA bullcrap infesting my mind and I think it’s mostly all gone now.
Now that it’s gone I can safely (without fearing this being influenced by PUA-retard ideas) go on to say that your statement that physique is the largest part of the attraction is WRONG. However that may be, your assumption that it is the genes that matter most is still exactly RIGHT. You are overcompensating because you say that women are attracted to you in the first three minutes, or not. This is true for the physical part of the attraction, but you seem to forget that the human brain is actually one big courtship device. Language itself evolved primarily as a courtship tool. Everything our minds do beyond the very basics (register primal emotions/feelings etc) is purely to attract mates (it has other societally useful purposes as well obviously).
Your studies don’t disprove this fact. Of course physical attraction plays a large part, but you can’t claim victory over social dynamics. I haven’t seen anything that actually disproves the existence of (sexual) attraction created by charm. Why would humans have the ability to charm (language/intelligence) at all if it wasn’t to get mates?
So where PUA is wrong is that even if you can get mates through charm, you still can’t “fake” charm if you don’t have the genes for it. PUA can however break people’s charm by infusing them with wrong ideas and blocking a natural development of these skills. Please note that charm is not “being alpha”, “preselection”, “negs” or anything even remotely like that. Charm is demonstrating your genes are of high cultural value and again, you cannot fake genes and women will smell that shit out of if you try. What PUAs are teaching is not charm in any case, and I wonder if charm can be taught (maybe) but most likely charm is like a physical skill which can only be acquired by activity.
Here’s some source material for my post: http://evolbiol.ru/large_files/miller_the_mating_mind.pdf
So the hypothesis I would like to put forward: “Not only physique but also in equal or greater parts charm plays a role in mate selection hence even physically unattractive mates who lucked out in the charm-genes department (artists/entrepreneurs/writers etc) are more likely to find someone with also good genes”
Please discuss!!
This actually reminds me of one episode of Keys to the VIP (or something) with that insanely ugly, awkward but very comic dude. That guy was obviously ugly, but he was also obviously very smart. He just radiated smarts and (some weird kind of) talent somehow. Needless to say I thought he was quite succesful and the girls were really into him.
@rPUA – you said;
“This actually reminds me of one episode of Keys to the VIP (or something) with that insanely ugly, awkward but very comic dude. That guy was obviously ugly, but he was also obviously very smart. He just radiated smarts and (some weird kind of) talent somehow. Needless to say I thought he was quite succesful and the girls were really into him.”
Exactly, for these girls, he simply was “their type” and it was physical attraction.
In this case, the women were attracted to him despite what he said.
Kind of like when the “V taper” quarterback/jock is talking to a giggling cheerleader – it doesn’t matter what he says because she is physically attracted to him (as he is “her type”).
The seduction community always tries to look for other factors determining what attracts a woman to a guy when physical attraction is the simplest and most rational conclusion!
“The seduction community always tries to look for other factors determining what attracts a woman to a guy when physical attraction is the simplest and most rational conclusion!”
It’s not the most rational conclusion. We would not have evolved to be such an intelligent (on the whole) species which is capable of science and fine cultural expressions if women didn’t prefer to mate with intelligent males over unintelligent ones.
rPUA – your logic is incorrect.
Who says the women weren’t PHYSICALLY attracted to the intelligent males?
Intelligent males and intelligent females can be good looking….
Straw man alert.
rPUA – you said;
“Here’s some source material for my post: http://evolbiol.ru/large_files/miller_the_mating_mind.pdf
So the hypothesis I would like to put forward: “Not only physique but also in equal or greater parts charm plays a role in mate selection hence even physically unattractive mates who lucked out in the charm-genes department (artists/entrepreneurs/writers etc) are more likely to find someone with also good genes”
I can see you are still influenced by the seduction community – the Mating Mind sounds like one of the books recommended by DYD if I recall….
One thing I always noticed about the seduction community is that the gurus always want to manipulate guys to downplay the importance of a man’s looks when it comes to influencing whether a woman will find them sexually attractive.
I ask you this – would you really want a woman sexually who you are not physically attracted to but at the same time you find charming?
Why would look for evidence for this in women?
Why not just go for the women who find you attractive and who you find attractive in return?
It seems so rational to me – I don’t understand the “gamer” mentality! LOL
Male => Female sexual attraction does not work the same way as Female => Male sexual attraction so it is very pointless to come up with examples of how men experience things.
I know many first-hand and countless second-hand stories where the woman was initially uninterested in a male (or at least not sexually) and later became sexually interested through the male’s display of superior charm.
Please note I am playing a bit of the devil’s advocate here, but I think there is a truth to the idea that charm (good social genes) will also get you laid.
Also if you think this book sounds like PUA material you clearly are a moron (sorry). This book was written by an actual scientist. The thing PUAs are saying is new-age “you control everything about your life” crap, he’s just explaining a few things about human evolution and mating preferences.
rPUA – you said;
“Also if you think this book sounds like PUA material you clearly are a moron (sorry). ”
Actually, guys like you seem to be morons to me – instead of focusing on enhancing their looks to be the best they can be, they want to find any other loop hole that will get them the “HB10″ (even though the said “HB10″ does not find them physically attractive or even know that they exist).
“Actually, guys like you seem to be morons to me – instead of focusing on enhancing their looks to be the best they can be, they want to find any other loop hole that will get them the “HB10″ (even though the said “HB10″ does not find them physically attractive or even know that they exist).”
I’m going to ignore whatever you post after this reply, because I wanted Beta Dude (or Alek Novy) to comment on this with solid insight. Your ramblings are doing exactly what I said, you are overcompensating your PUA history and are now saying it is ONLY physical attractiveness that matters and that there is zero influence from social conditions. I don’t think this can be right, either.
For the record I am very committed to maintaining (and whenever time permits improve) my appearance. I was *very* excited to find this site because I look good and I was glad I didn’t have to worry about seduction shit anymore. My point that charm genes may impact the equation too doesn’t impact that for me, because I happen to be quite blessed in that department as well (high IQ, great associative skills and so forth). Something that, based on your simplistic responses to my messages, cannot be said for you.
By the way, I’m not after “HB10″ and I’m not the one using PUA terms.
He didn’t say the book sounds like PUA material.
He meant that scouring Evo-psych books which you don’t even understand in order to find a secret loophole is PUA-like.
Make sense? That’s how the PUA community was born. Desperate insecure guys tryin to find loopholes everywhere they could, and if they couldn’t they’d just invent them by misinterpreting data or serious concepts that have nothing to do with pickup.
a) As someone with an actual education I have a reasonable understanding and am not as prone to jump to irrational conclusions as the PUA bunch.
b) I’m not trying to find loopholes. I’m trying to find out how this attraction thing actually works not in order to “game” it or find loopholes but in order to self-actualize (i.e. realize what my potential is and realize it).
“If you want hot girls become a fitness model” is, in my opinon, not getting my shit straight.
Strawman alert. Where has anyone said that?!?!
What was said is that…
A) the more short-term the interaction the more a woman looks into the physical
This includes your being her type, close to preferred height, being in ok shape etc. NOBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FUCKING PERFECTION being a “pre-requisite” — you are reading words that are not written on the fuckin page… Please read all clarifications made earlier by admin…
Nobody said anything about being a “perfect physique” nor being “perfectly handsome”, it’s obviously a fucking scale. In most cases just being in “ok shape” is enough if you’re her type otherwise.
The main non-negotiable is being her type.
- A handsome, perfectly physiqued guy who’s not her type will do nothing.
- A guy who’s in just ok shape and has ok looks but is her exact type, will do great.
- A guy who’s her exact type but morbidly obese will do nothing…
Make sense? It’s a fucking scale… Nobody said anything black and white like you imply.
Fashion & physique are the only things you can change… But that doesn’t mean you NEED PERFECT fucking fashion and physique… Nobody fucking ever said that… You’re literally reading words not written anywhere.
The fashion and physique are only a smaller part of your overall “looks” so even if you doubled them, overall they only make a small difference.
B) The longer term, the more she looks into non-physical traits
If she’s assessing you for a boyfriend, then she looks at things like personality etc…
There’s plenty of obese (rich) ugly short guys with hot girls YES YES YES YES YES YES YES…
What you won’t see happen is for that ugly short obese guy to go pick up a hot stranger for a hookup At all, like zero chance.
MAKE SENSE?
Don’t conflate long term and short term…
All right dude, chill out lol. I’m only trying to play devil’s advocate and I realize the part about “being her type” is true.
I won’t discuss it any further so as not to upset you lol, but I don’t think we can disregard social factors as much as you are saying, even for the short-term.
Dude nobody is upset if you merely “discuss” and disagree. You’re proactively lying and inventing things… That’s extremely disrespectful.
ANOTHER STRAWMAN
Nobody said to disregard social factors!!!!!!
Dude why do you comment so much on a site if you couldn’t be bothered to read all the previous posts and comments… Admin and others have clarified this before.
We are NOT saying that social factors play no role in your results…
We’re saying that they play no role in “attraction”…
Yes, there are things to do and say that increase the odds of converting an approach to a lay, date or relationship —> yes yes yes yes
But nobody has EVER proven that you can approach a chick who sees you as a 6 and have her see you as a 9 by the end of the conversation.
Do you understand? Admin has been begging people for proof for ages… Even one single small piece of evidence that it is possible.
There are a ton of social factors that influence whether you get results or not…
–> if she she sees you as a 6 and you look low-status, she might be apprehensive about hooking up with you, due to fear of what her girlfriends will think
–> if she she sees you as an 6 and you look high-status, she might be more willing to hook up with you, because hooking up with a rich guy is seen as a “success” among friends who won’t shame her for it
But in both cases she saw him as a six Make Sense?
- or if you’re charming vs. akward 6… The charming guy will better ease her worries of you not being a potential needy stalker
Do you understand the distinction? The charm doesn’t make you more attractive if you bang her 2 hours after meeting her in a club… It’s only “grease” that allows things to flow more smoothly
No one has said that… What has been said is that
- FOR SHORT TERM ATTRACTION all that matters is non-fake able honest signals like height, genotype, facial type, body shape, physique
Physique is merely the only one you have any control of
OF COURSE THERE ARE MORE FACTORS FOR LONG TERM ATTRACTION lol…
In fact, the book you reference is referring to “mate choice” whenever it talks about those other traits… Women do look at other traits (HUNDrEDS of traits web assessing someone for an ltr/provider role).
The confusion happens due to pump and dump scenarios… This is where you lead a woman on by pretending to be interested in a future with her, you fuck her and then dump her…
So yes, if you do “pump and dump” you’ve technically laid a chick usin your personality, status etc…
“Not only physique but also in equal or greater parts charm plays a role in mate selection hence even physically unattractive mates who lucked out in the charm-genes department (artists/entrepreneurs/writers etc) are more likely to find someone with also good genes”
This statement contradicts your next statement:
Charm is demonstrating your genes are of high cultural value and again, you cannot fake genes and women will smell that shit out of if you try.
So what did you mean by “physique” in the first quoted sentence? If in the second you admit charm depends on genes? I don’t get where are you going with this, unless you think that by “physique” I mean simply physical attractiveness. But I think I made the distinction “genes” vs “beauty” quite clear on this website.
Hence the following sentence is also not clear:
I haven’t seen anything that actually disproves the existence of (sexual) attraction created by charm.
But above you said charm is linked to genes. So basically you say that sexual attraction depends on genes, and that’s what I keep repeating all over this website!
Beta Dude, thank you for your responses. By physique I mean physical appearance. Let me rephrase my point entirely, I have been rethinking it and I don’t think I explained myself correctly and as you pointed out my wording implied several errors.
A lot of people on the comments and to some extent the content of this site seems to suggest that looks are very important. Not only genetic looks, but also cultivated looks (i.e. if you don’t work out you won’t have a good waist-to-shoulder ratio and this will make you less attractive) will help attract mates, however without saying that attractiveness will make women whose type you are not will suddenly become attracted. This, to some extent, explains why a woman will not be into both brothers, one fit the other obese, (sepperately judged, not just by virtue of the fit one being a better alternative). I think we are on the same page about the above.
However I am debating now whether this site’s content does its job (curing PUA’s of their problem with women). One major detail is being left out here which is that women really aren’t that good at assessing how good someone’s genes are so they use proxies.
The content of this site put me in a sorta “it doesn’t matter what you say or do as long as it’s not turn-off behaviour, it’s already pre-determined if a woman will be into you based on your looks”-attitude (even on a short-term (but >1 sexual encounter) basis this is simply WRONG except for pure ONS with club skanks but these things are normally unsatisfying for good biological reasons) and this is the part I think may be a harmful message for people who are trying to recover from PUA. Otoh it is an overcompensating message and this may be what is useful for getting back to the truth in the middle.
Not only physical exercise but also social exercise will make you a more desirable mate. Social exercise would be things like teamsports, expending effort to make friends etc. Thus my conclusion that the most basic premise of PUA is correct, being that you can improve your success with women by acquiring social skills. However, just as you cannot get an impressive waist-to-hip ratio by reading a book about exercise you cannot become charming by reading a book. At best, it will tell you which exercises you will need to perform, however this is where PUA goes horribly wrong because it doesn’t suggest exercises, it describes flawed methods. It’s like reading a book that says “Pick up a weight and lift 1, lift 2, lift 3 etc and shows you pictures of the guy lifting) and expecting your muscles to grow. Of course, this is folly.
The bottom line is that women are not good at assessing genes and thus it cannot be said that genes are the ultimate answer as you can still “cheat”. Women use social cues and physical cues to make an estimate of genetic material. Even a guy with awesomesauce genes can be fat and have no friends due to upbringing or social factors out of their control and he will be unattractive to the fit birds despite his ability to produce significantly better offspring than someone who spends 5 days a week at the gym. So it’s a combination of nature and nurture and I feel this site is steering its readers towards the following logical error:
“PUA intends to improve nurture part of attractiveness” (true)
“PUA is a scam and doesn’t work” (true)
=> “There is no such thing as the nurture part of attractiveness”
In hunter-gatherer societies this nurture part can be overlooked, because all participate in the same activities (hunting and gathering, lol) and there are no specialities which could make certain members more or less physically attractive than others (like a banker vs a professional dancer) so there is much less chance that those with good genes will be less attractive than those with lesser genes. In civilized societies this is not true, opening up options for someone with bad genes to overtake someone with good genes who makes no effort.
Now to wrap this up I’ll relate it to my own situation. I think my nurture-part on the social front is *severely* lacking due to my upbringing. I really was never socialized by neither parent (incapacity) nor friends (absense). It goes without saying really, because if this wasn’t the case I wouldn’t have been interested in PUA. So in order to fix this I plan on, for example, switching from individual sports to team sports and from doing tech projects individually to finding a job with colleagues
If I hadn’t kept thinking about it, the conclusion might still be that you cannot influence it at all and maybe I’d even have been a bigger asshole than I was already! But I think the most significant difference between civilized humans and animals is that we can consciously influence our attractiveness by working on our indicators of genetic fitness.
If anything here contradicts what I said before this overrides the previous posts. Thanks for reading.
You have completely misread everything on this site…
I am too busy to answer all the distortions you posted because
a) I’m busy
b) you either lack reading comprehension or you’re a PUA shill
I’m sure admin will respond to you anyway… And waste 10 minutes of his life. And I know it will be a waste because despite many clarifications directly to you and clarifications on the site in previous discussions, you still distort and STRAWMAN like crazy…
You are free to respond but this post wasn’t directed at you. I don’t like you, nor your responses to my previous posts. You sound just like a PUA, only with a different vision. I do like admin and his posts so if he wants to read it all and respond that would be nice, if not no harm done. I am happy with my conclusions, I wasn’t trying to convince anybody. I’m merely offering some points on how the content of this site could be improved.
I explained what the message this site conveyed to me was and then I explained how I disagree with that message. If the message is actually different than from how I understood it, then it is not necessarily my fault that I didn’t get it.
What it certainly is not is a straw man.
But I’m not going to because you’re an utter waste of time.
You completely distort what people answer you and what others have said, twist what they say…
This is what typically has happened between you and the commenters and admin on this site
commmenter: I think you just need to eat less calories the source of food is secondary
rPUA: why do you say that people need to force-feed themselves hamburgers and binge on ice cream?
commenter2: actually what commenter1 said is that you eat less calories of everything and not to obsess about ratios
rPUA: oh, well jus because you guys believe in raping little zebras as a way of burning calories, doesn’t mean that it’s right
admin: listen, what were saying is that it’s calories in and calories out, nobody said anything about zebra or hamburgers
rPUA: well you need to explain to me why you’re so convinced that fucking zebras is the only way to lose calories
So you’re either
A) A moron
B) A PUA shill who is actin dumb and confusing things on purpose and playing dumb
C) have the worst reading comprehension skills on the planet
Admin is used to people misunderstanding him once or twice, but you have shown a consistent and persistent drive to completely and utterly distort and misrepresent wha he says.
It is your fault because
1) we have told you several times to read previous discussions where people have misunderstood the same way and admin and others has clarified it for them – if you are so lazy that you won’t read what was written before, why do you expect admin to re-explain the same thing he has clarified 50 times before just because you’re lazy?
B) other commenters have tried clarifying it for you, and you completely distorted and misrepresented what they said too
ALSO, the articles themselves can’t cover every single possible rationalization and distortion that a brainwashed mind can come up with. The articles would have 100 pages of disclaimers and clarifications, and it would still not be enough… And as I said, not a single one of your distortions is original… Other brainwashed brains have come up with the exact same distortions… It’s how te human brain works when it tries to preserve belief in a cult… It distorts what the cult’s opponent says.
You literally completely make shit up that admin has never said. It is te way your brain is attempting to hold on to PUA beliefs…
Alek, you seem like a really angry person. I went over your blog and it has profanity all over the place and it just oozes with frustration. But for the sake of the discussion and because I’m not busy I’ll take one of your statements and will specifically reply to that (and related statements made on this site).
You say ” FOR SHORT TERM ATTRACTION all that matters is non-fake able honest signals like height, genotype, facial type, body shape, physique”
I disagree. You mention “genotype” in one breath with “body shape”. Next to that you don’t mention a lot of other things which matter for all encounters with a greater frequency than one. If you are such a knowledgeable person on the subject you will agree that ONS are quite “unnatural” and should be disregarded entirely in the attraction discussion. I don’t know any quality women who enjoy a ONS (that they know with certainty is a ONS in advance, they always hope for more). I know only one kind of woman who will have a single encounter with a man without any concern for future encounters.
That you call it “non-fakeable” and your use of “genotype” as an indicator implies to me some belief that people can smell genes. They can’t. We can only look at indicators of genes. As society has developed it has become relatively easy for someone who has mediocre genes to get better physical indicators than someone with good genes if (and only if) the mediocre person expends a lot more effort.
Next, even for short-term attraction, indicators that point to intelligence (and/or social adeptness) are likely to be just as important if not more important than indicators of physical fitness. Note that social indicators are MUCH more difficult to fake than physical ones, thus from an evolutionary pov it’s not a stretch to say that these indicators will be favoured as physical indicators become much less reliable.
I also disagree that women aren’t attracted (as in orgasm-inducing attracted) to material wealth or even ambition. These things are also much less fakeable indicators of good genes. But note that it is important what the source of the wealth is: I wouldn’t be surprised if women are not attracted to lottery winners by virtue of their wealth.
You can refer to the “her type” section, but it doesn’t explain away how women are often attracted to men with money, power or superior wit, next to looks.
Finally, the reason I don’t like you is because you seem like a negative person, constantly bullying people who disagree with you, calling them stupid and what not (I think PUA’s do this too…) furthermore you talk about things which are certainly not scientific fact as if they are (hm who else does this again?) and you misrepresent my point. I am trying to have a discussion about attraction while you’re being a cunty prick who’s just ranting aimlessly.
“But I’m not going to because you’re an utter waste of time.”
I guess we have different definitions of what a “response” entails.
That you call it “non-fakeable” and your use of “genotype” as an indicator implies to me some belief that people can smell genes. They can’t. We can only look at indicators of genes.
They can’t smell genes, but women CAN “read” them from your facial features. You can’t fake that (again “Her Type”). They can “read” types (matter both in LTR as in STR), but also beauty (matters principally in STR as Alek emphasized)
You can refer to the “her type” section, but it doesn’t explain away how women are often attracted to men with money, power or superior wit, next to looks.
What are you talking about? The notion about women falling for certain types, does NOT contradict the fact that other cues are important (depending on the priorities a particular woman has). In section “Her Type” I deliberately included the montage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana faces from Suzi Malin. So, yes sure Lady Di appreciated the fact that this guy is the Prince of Wales, but the striking similarity of their faces gives food for thought. In other words, it’s not like every English girl will be all over you, if you happen to be the Prince of Wales.
Basically what you’re saying is that women only get truely hot and bothered for males with superior physique but they’ll “put out” for men with practical benefits (money, power, social status).
This is not true. They’ll get sexually(!!) aroused over the latter category as well in the same way that men get aroused over a woman’s beauty.
Except nobody has EVER said that here on this site. You are MAKING SHIT up.
It was clarified for you 3 times by 3 different people and you keep inventing things.
In that case it’s not my reading comprehension, it’s your lack of writing skill. I repeat, you wrote:
“FOR SHORT TERM ATTRACTION all that matters is non-fake able honest signals like height, genotype, facial type, body shape, physique”
Rephrased more elegantly you say: “Exclusively physical signals generate short term attraction”.
If this is not what you meant then don’t use words like “all that matters” suggesting exclusivity and then proceed to give only physical examples.
If you’d put other examples in your list like intelligence or humor then we’d be on the same page.
By the way, English is not my first language so it’s quite impolite to be trying to insult me over my reading comprehension (even though you are wrong).
Basically what you’re saying is that women only get truely hot and bothered for males with superior physique but they’ll “put out” for men with practical benefits (money, power, social status).
your above statement DOES NOT equal the following Alek’s statement:
FOR SHORT TERM ATTRACTION all that matters is non-fake able honest signals like height, genotype, facial type, body shape, physique
What Alek is trying to explain is plain and simple:
in case of a short term relationships almost everything depends on physical attributes. This doesn’t imply that women can’t feel aroused for a fat guy they are in a long term relationship with, no one here implied that!
They can – that’s why “types” are essential to understand sexual attraction. But PUA morons ignore “types”, and just point to some guy going like “seeeee! seee! he is fat, he ain’t a millionaire, and this chick is genuinely attracted to him – PUAry proved!”
rPUA – you said;
“Alek, you seem like a really angry person. I went over your blog and it has profanity all over the place and it just oozes with frustration. But for the sake of the discussion and because I’m not busy I’ll take one of your statements and will specifically reply to that (and related statements made on this site).”
rPUA, it is obvious to me you are a seduction community shill.
The more you try to make others look bad the more you come off as a major loser!
Alek and Admin – this guy is worse than that “other” shill Mayhem! LOL
These quasi-intellectual seduction community shills are getting much too easy to spot and all they do is distort the CLEAR signal (ie. that a guy’s looks influence whether a woman will be sexually attracted to a guy) with a bunch of noise (just like Dr. Paul on a DYD DVD).
Alek and Admin – this guy is worse than that “other” shill Mayhem! LOL
I try not to jump into such conclusions… but you may be right, since I caught him – from his last post it is evident he didn’t even read the sections of that he was discussing with me.
lol! Feel free to delete my posts tbh, I’m not trying to do the PUA community any favours at all. I’ve already reached my conclusions, just trying to help you nuance yours.
I have not said anywhere that a guy’s looks don’t influence attraction. I’m simply saying it is not clear how much of an impact they have exactly compared to other relevant factors.
Must you embarrass yourself twice in a single day?
Google scholar For romantic attraction: (sometimes “love”)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Romantic+attraction&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on
Google scholar for sexual attraction: (sometimes “lust”)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Sexual+attraction+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Google scholar for interpersonal attraction:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Interpersonal+attraction&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
WEIRD! ALL THESE UNIVERSITIES ARE PART OF THE ANTI-PUA CONSPIRACY TOO?!?! Omg look at how they study these as 3 distinct areas!!! You said the first 2 are not even distinct – so all these scientists must be wrong?!?
.
.
.
.
============
P.S For anyone sane that might be reading this…
============
The way PUAs conflate the three types of attraction is simple, because all 3 tend to often co-exist and it’s sometimes hard for the uneducated to distinguish where one stops and another begins…
For example a successful marriage needs all three and most successful pickups also involve at least a little interpersonal attraction (because it helps to get the partner to feel safe in acting on their sexual attraction)…
In theory though, she could hate you as a person (no Interpersonal) and have zero romantic interest in you, but still fuck you She could have done it for money or for bragging rights or for social status (transactional sex), or she could do it out of lust. Yes, women can feel lust towards guys they dislike.
This is why PUAs can get away with taking a social trick that increases interpersonal attraction and claim that trick makes women want to fuck you…
Because…
A) that interpersonal-attraction boosting trick will cause women to give you more false positives (smiles, phone numbers, positive body language etc)
B) Some of these tricks do increase the odds the woman acts on her pre-existing attraction (part of flirting, I.E interest showing)
The woman wanted to screw you before you performed the trick, your trick just gave her the confidence to admit her pre-existing attraction.
Also, it doesn’t help that sometimes the term “sexual attraction” is used to mean “attracted to the idea of having sex with someone”… Which is why in some places they will say something like status being part of sexual attraction… They’re using the wider meaning of the phrase.
NarrowMeaning: Someone feeling lust for you on a primal level, wanting to fuck your brains out…
—Admin and his site use this narrow meaning—
Broader meaning: Someone mentally deciding to have sex with you
The trouble with the broader meaning is that it also means a prostitute is “sexually attracted to you”. She is attracted to the idea of having sex with you, not attracted to you.
This is why you will often see maybe something that talks about flirting “boosting or maintaining” sexual attraction… In such a case they’re using the broader meaning – they don’t actually mean that flirting created attraction where none existed, only that an already attracted person’s desire to act on it has increased.
In practice though, sexual attraction always assumes either transactional motives or physical (genetic) attraction being pre-existing.
Flirting btw is the process of reading and showing interest.
============
Back to the shill
============
Funny, I thought there was no distinction?!?!? All those evil encyclopedias are wrong to list them as three separate types of attraction too!!?!? Omg the mainstream conspiracy against PUAs is too evil!!!!
Here’s a further clarification about what admin is saying from earlier:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/#comment-2006
P.S this is all I can respond this week
You shills spout so much lies and bullshit, answering it would take someone to make it a full time job.
You had 7 things (including outright lies) I wanted to respond to, but I’m limiting myself to 15 mins per day. I wasted my quota, so next response is maybe a week from now. I did respond in order of priority responding to your biggest “distinction” blunder.
you embarrassed yourself twice today, by saying something doesn’t exist in science
-1) First you claimed people can’t read genetic makeup from physical cues
instead of admitting blunder on THAT POINT, after being given a dumbed down docu which shows many ways genes are read from the physical, you just moved on and made a bunch of new claims, including lies and distortions, but you never admit defeat on previous claims, you just pile new ones which would take someone a full job just to un-distort
-2) Then you claimed there’s no distinction between the types of attraction
which means that thousands of universities and encyclopedias are wrong… Or the shill is wrong
Dude, sorry but I stopped reading after this line:
One major detail is being left out here which is that women really aren’t that good at assessing how good someone’s genes are so they use proxies.
I stopped reading coz the rest of your post must be influenced by this idea, which is just plain wrong. It is well evidenced by evo-psy that YES WOMEN ARE DAMN GOOD AT IT. They have mastered this skills though Years of evolution. So women will “read” from your facial features both:
a) genetic compatibility (usually manifested by similarity of facial features, like I explain in “Her Type”, sometimes an ugly dude can be “compatible” to a hot girl, although they don’t match in terms of beauty
b) beauty (fineness of facial features)
If you don’t agree with me on this one, then why are you against PUAry? That’s the major mistake of those PUA freaks – they think they can “fool” nature with psychological tricks!
“It is well evidenced by evo-psy that YES WOMEN ARE DAMN GOOD AT IT. They have mastered this skills though Years of evolution. So women will “read” from your facial features”
haha, please. You seem to know for a fact that women can decide “genetic compatibility” from looking at a guy’s face, while this is very far from scientific fact.
According to me and evo psy people (both men and women) use several indicators, among which facial features, to subconsciously decide the value of a mate. Facial features is one of them, but it is certainly not scientific fact that it is “deciding” in any way. Other indicators are current achievements (sports for example, or wealth) as well as past achievements (stories) and character traits like eloquence or humor. None of these can be readily faked, not even stories because humans are hardwired to have tremendous difficulty with lieing about this kind of thing and good antennae for detection of lies.
You seem to know for a fact that women can decide “genetic compatibility” from looking at a guy’s face, while this is very far from scientific fact.
You are telling me that the studies I quote in “Reality Check” do not meet scientific criteria? How can you explain them differently then by concluding that women are able to subconsciously “read” men’s faces?
Secondly, as I stated on this website, I put much emphasis on facial features, coz as most men I am a visualizer. But I have never denied the existence of other cues – like tone of voice, smell.
Facial features is one of them, but it is certainly not scientific fact that it is “deciding” in any way
They are a decisive factor in the sense that they certainly beat such cues as eloquence or humor – those that can be learned, improved, those that I call “secondary factors”. You said “None of these can be readily faked”. I don’t want to dispute how much you can improve for ex. your sense of humor, but you must agree with me that it can be somehow improved contrary to for ex. facial features and other physical cues that are even more linked to prenatal hormones than the things you mentioned, though following dr Fisher I agree hormones have an impact even in case of personality. As for facial features someone could say “except plastic surgery”, but still it wouldn’t do the job 100%, since facial features are not only about shapes, but also for instance the thickness of all the facial bones or proportions of the face that are a lot more difficult to change than just the shape of your nose.
Finally, note that this is all connected – for instance sports achievements (on the professional level) are connected with prenatal hormone levels (prof. Manning studies about digit ratios), the same prenatal hormones that shape your facial features, and have massive influence on your personality type (Dr Fisher studies). In theory women could spend a lot more time analyzing the stuff you mentioned (past achievements, eloquence) instead of reading facial features, to eventually come to the same conclusion! So nature allowed them to take like a shortcut.
So yes, women will “read” your face and body, just as we read theirs.
So I see no contradiction between my standpoint and yours (at least from your last post). What I am trying to say is that all those other factors can be somehow changed – for ex. sports achievements are not 100% about hormones, Manning just showed a tendency, all the more if we talk about simply being fit and not professional athletes. But facial features are a so to say “direct indicator” of your hormonal and genetic type.
In this sense I see them as a decisive factor.
@Admin
Actually, women do smell genes lol
There’s plenty of studies where women can predict how attractive a guy is just by smelling guys’ t-shirts, and she can detect how likely the guy is to be her type… And all of this just by smelling his t-shirt and never meeting him. In fact, women can even detect how succesful a guy can be at athletics just using a guy’s smell and never meeting the guy.
As for the PUA shill who claims that evo-psychers claim the same as PUAs
On your site you currently have a pretty amateurish shill who keeps spreading lies about evo-psych. For example, he says that evo-psychers say that women use “signals of traits” even in the short-term in order to decide whom to be attracted to.
That’s a blatant lie. Women do use non-physical traits, but only due to logistical reasons “If he’s higher-status, there’s more of a chance I won’t be judged for fucking him 2 hours after knowing him” and “a guy that acts akward, I have no clear sense of his intentions, so I might get hurt”. In other words, things like charm and charisma, in the short-term only contribute by making the interaction between two *physically attracted* individuals getting together more easily. It doesn’t create actual LUST.
Here are two of the leading evo-psychers in the world saying the same thing you (seductionmyth) say:
===========
http://vimeo.com/19921928
The password is: hjernevask
==========
Here you have two of the leading evo-psychers in the world talking about how women primarily use physical traits (and not secondary indicators) for short-term attraction… And then there’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6nBS-KHEc&list=UUxbBh1alxJGtWK-bXlQaAcg&feature=plpp_play_all
Some Studies:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20evolutionary%20psychology%20of%20physical%20attractiveness:%20Sexual%20selection%20and%20human%20morphology&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Masculine+Somatotype+and+Hirsuteness+as+Determinants++of+Sexual+Attractiveness+to+Women&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on
As for “mating”
If you review these papers you will see two things:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=david+m+buss+women+use+physical+in+short-term&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
1) Physical looks and genetic matching is the primary factor that decides if people get together in both long term and short term
2) Most of the non-physical traits found in the studies are things we on this site have listed as “flirting skills” such as “agreeableness”, “sociability” etc…
In other words, all the non-physical traits only HELP two ATTRACTED people to get together. But they don’t “create attraction” per se
We have clarified a billion times on this site before that Yes, there are a ton of social skills that make it more likely you will get the date, the lay etc
Anyone claiming we are saying social skills play no factor is either a) a fucking pua shill b) a lier c) a retard
We have clarified many times before that all those skills are ONLY a factor in term of “logistics”, i.e. they influence how comfortable a partner is about ACTING on their pre-existing attraction. But I have yet to see a SINGLE PAPER that says “sociability makes people horny for a guy they just met” —> it just lets them act on pre-existing attraction which is entirely physical when it comes to short-term mating.
3) The more long-term the mating, the more people look at non-physical traits as a way of determining attraction, but that’s ROMANTIC attraction. Yes, non-physical traits play a bigger role in long-term mating, because yes, they do influence romantic attraction. But hookups are based only on physical attraction and logistics. With logistics being things like “If I fuck the hot popular guy, I won’t be judged as badly as fucking the hot nerd” –> which is why when women travel they fuck very different guys then they do back home.
On your site you currently have a pretty amateurish shill who keeps spreading lies about evo-psych.
Another Mayhem hein? Just don’t get why would they do that? (unless, they actually truly believe in that PUA delusion). There is a lot of PUA companies that wouldn’t like the message of this website, but loosing your time to do “damage control”. It must be an ideological dispute for them… like a fanatic of some ideology.
Nice papers you mentioned, quoted you on Alpha-Excuses : )
Ouch…
If I were you I’d be blushing in embarrassment right now. You just publicly humiliated yourself pretty bad.
Since you’re unqualified to read papers, here’s a documentary for you :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6nBS-KHEc&list=UUxbBh1alxJGtWK-bXlQaAcg&feature=plpp_play_all
@AlekNovy hahaha, please, you really have me lmao now. I agree with most of the stuff in that documentary, but it also says a woman’s view of a man’s attractiveness can change based on the car he drives. So I don’t see how you reconcile that with your views.
And don’t bring that shit up about “Sexual attraction” vs “Romantic attraction”. There is no evidence this distinction actually exists.
@admin No, the studies are scientific, but you are misinterpreting their conclusions. If you give people only pictures of faces obviously they will rate only the faces. The studies say nothing about what happens when you add additional attractiveness cues (like status or personality) what happens to the ratings. So you can’t say anything about the significance about facial attractiveness.
@admin No, the studies are scientific, but you are misinterpreting their conclusions. If you give people only pictures of faces obviously they will rate only the faces. The studies say nothing about what happens when you add additional attractiveness cues (like status or personality) what happens to the ratings. So you can’t say anything about the significance about facial attractiveness.
WTF are you talking about?? Now, you made me angry coz you just proved with your comment you have never read sections “Her Type” or “Genes and Personality Types”.
If you give people only pictures of faces obviously they will rate only the faces.
What pictures of faces??!! Those volunteers were REAL COUPLES – READ THE FREAKING SECTIONS.
when you add additional attractiveness cues (like status or personality) what happens to the ratings.
REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICE was examined. So of course other factors such as status or personality were included in the “equation”, those people actually chose each other IN REAL LIFE, no questions were asked, there were no ratings, there was no need for all that stuff
People who are couples IN REAL LIFE, have been found to have strikingly similar facial features (this is also confirmed by British painter Suzi Malin, although her book is not a scientific paper, but if you are not blind it’s difficult to ignore what she reported). These are Dr. Alvarez studies that brought the SSL theory. A theory confirmed by many other statistically significant studies – all quoted on “Her Type”.
Now, Dr Helen Fisher also examined REAL COUPLES, thousands of them. She found correlations between prenatal hormone levels and partner choice (the same hormones that shape facial features, hence the correlation with the SSLT). Again, all other factors that you mentioned must be less important than prenatal hormones or genes, coz otherwise… they couldn’t have been able to find those correlations. Is this so difficult to understand?
Why am I so stubborn about women having “their types”. Cause it’s the only way to understand how human mating actually works. If you stick to your theories about intelligence, eloquence and the forth, it still doesn’t explain much, as there are tons of guys in Hollywood who are not only socially skilled but also good looking, rich etc. Do you think they can have all the women??
If that was true, a guy like Paul Janka (read end of section “BS Created So Far”), could also have any woman. The truth is his phone number-to-lay ratio is less than 10%! But some PUAs or other seducers give excuses saying that “Janka’s approach is too aggressive, and that’s why he fails.” Yeah right, this guy with Harvard education who admits his number-to-lay ratio is only 9,8% is too stupid to get that if he only approached women differently his success would suddenly raise to like 50% (after excluding the taken women). Remember Janka approached thousands of women. One must be very naïve to believe such PUA excuses.
but it also says a woman’s view of a man’s attractiveness can change based on the car he drives.
OMG! again, it’s just a TENDENCY! It’s not like if you drive a great ride, you can have ANY woman you want (we are not discussing gold diggers and other prostitutes here). Read section “Alpha-Excuses” coz that’s what you are doing here. You take one finding that DOES NOT abolish the theories we rely on, and then you say “see! see! I found a hole in your argumentation”. No you didn’t.
If you are too lazy to read it (I already know you didn’t read “Her Type” section although you discussed it with me), here it is my argumentation IN A NUTSHELL:
Do you think none of the guys who were examined by Dr Fisher or Dr Alvarez had a great ride?? Some of them probably had, but the results still unveiled facial-genetic-hormonal resemblance (it’s all connected) in real life couples.
Where did I say that a great ride equals getting any girl? I said that a great ride raises the level of attraction (almost all) girls feel for you. If you start off way too low in other departments (like physical attraction) it still won’t raise attraction high enough for them to want you, obviously. Still a rich 6 could easily get a poor to modestly wealthy 8 without it being a problem in the least.
And there is no evidence that women who get wetter in the pants for a guy with money than one without are “gold diggers”. It is very explicable that women are more sexually attracted to men of means and many studies confirm that social status and resources are at least as important as physical cues . You can deny this and call it “romantic attraction” or whatever, but I disagree with that distinction as I said.
Again, you can’t fake having money or status, which is how I disagree with the PUAs. I don’t disagree that having status gets girls (who would otherwise be uninterested despite them maybe being physically into you).
Physical compatibility/attraction does not, by a long shot, equal the guy and the girl hook up.
Where did I say that a great ride equals getting any girl?
I know you didn’t, but the point is that if you follow your reasoning
I said that a great ride raises the level of attraction (almost all) girls feel for you
then you should rationally come to the conclusion that having a SUPERB ride like an Aston Martin SHOULD GET you almost any woman you want, no matter how you look like. But it doesn’t. Otherwise, rich actors would have banged all cute starlets that have just arrived in the industry. But they don’t (again we are not discussing Heidi Fleiss type of “girlfriend”).
Ask yourself why not? As you probably have guessed – because women “have their types.” I know, I know, I am gonna vomit if I repeat this saying one more time, but it is the only way to understand women’s approach to mating.
Moreover, if you really think about it, we men also have our types. Imagine you have to pick one chick to be with her for the rest of your life. Yes, this is purely hypothetical, but take your time and imagine it for a second. Would you pick simply the hottest you could find? I bet you wouldn’t. I bet most of us would choose a hot one, but also one that seems “compatible.” It’s not like all guys would answer “Megan Fox!” to the above hypothetical question. Now in case of women, this scenario is not hypothetical, since evolution programmed women to subconsciously look for a long-term commitment – why? Because women’s commitment is a lot more serious than men’s. They get pregnant, not we. Therefore this subconscious drive makes them go for “their types” in both LTR as in STR.
So you are wrong saying:
Still a rich 6 could easily get a poor to modestly wealthy 8 without it being a problem in the least.
Maybe yas, maybe no. If he was genetically compatible his Ferrari could make a difference – she would choose him instead of a 8 guy who is also her type (provided money is smth important to her when considering LTR). If he wasn’t compatible, that 8 chick would:
a) reject him right away
b) be flattered that a guy with a Ferrari is courting her, and simply meet him twice or once, just outta curiosity, just to sit in his Ferrari and tell her friends about it, nothing more (provided she is not a gold digger).
Physical compatibility/attraction does not, by a long shot, equal the guy and the girl hook up.
I have never ever claimed it does. Since there are secondary factors – such as status, education, social background, sense of humor, character (although this one is connected with genes, but you can somehow work on it). I am just repeating over and over
that genetic and hormonal compatibility is an essential condition for women in both long- and short-term relationships.
Don’t over interpret this statement.
Ask your female friends to tell you honestly whether they would fuck Brad Pitt. Some of them would, but NOT ALL. Now, ask your buddies whether they would nail Angelina Jolie? All straight guys would have nothing against it, although some would say she is not ideal, others would say this is the new Marylin Monroe, tastes differ, but no one would reject her.
Right, “love” is not the same as “attraction”. I never mentioned love, I’m talking about pure simple sexual attraction. Girls can feel “attraction” for a guy’s status as much as they can for his face, at least, that is what your documentary points out.
Even worse, it points out girls rate a guy’s face lower if they know he’s poor and higher if they know he’s rich. That’s (sexual) “attraction” and not “love” or “romantic attraction” whatever you choose to call it. Fact remains that attraction is sparked by a variety of cues. I never denied that one of those cues is appearance, but it is not clear-cut because a girl can’t “read” compatibility in a fat guy’s face as well as she can in that guy five years later when he is fit (even though he still has the same genes).
By the way, your conversation style is (still) extremely unpleasant. Also please note that I still believe believe you can’t “fake” status or “trick nature”. You can’t make women believe you have status when you don’t.
rPUA – you said;
“I don’t disagree that having status gets girls (who would otherwise be uninterested despite them maybe being physically into you).”
I actually see the reverse of what you state – low status guys (or low status to what you or the seduction community mean), such as guys who work in a trade or a job such as a UPS driver sexually attracting and going out with women who are high status (ie. corporate or professional women).
Also, Oprah is considered a high status female but I have yet to find a guy who would be sexually attracted to her.
Funny how the seduction community wants guys to believe that attributes other than their physical (looks) are more important to influencing whether women are sexually attracted to them – especially when these same guys are so picky about a woman’s looks.
If women can have multiple orgasms, why shouldn’t we think that all they care about is whether or not they find a guy “hot”???
PS. You aren’t a very good shill. LOL
Girls can feel “attraction” for a guy’s status as much as they can for his face, at least, that is what your documentary points out.
No you cannot draw such conclusion. Remember they didn’t compare REAL COUPLES. They just asked HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS – what did you expect?? “No I prefer the guy in a 10 year Honda over the guy in the Ferrari” ???
But if you ask the same woman a specific question- would you swap your boyfriend for this guy here who drives a Ferrari? Most likely she would reject your offer. Unless, the guy in the Ferrari happens to be also genetically compatible to her (of course I exclude other factors here, like personality, although it is all connected, just to make my point easier). Plus, I will ask you again, what about Fisher’s or Alvarez studies, if what you claim was true, then there wouldn’t be any facial correlations – it would all be random, because you claim “Girls can feel “attraction” for a guy’s status as much as they can for his face”
If your version was true, Donald Trump’s wife would spend all day watching news, calculating the value of her husband’s portfolio, to be ready to leave him as soon as his millionaire neighbor’s portfolio rises above Trump’s. It doesn’t work like that.
Finally, for anyone reading this for the first time, I am not denying the conclusions of the documentary, I am just saying rPUA’s interpretation is false. You can combine the Self Seeking Like Theory with the status theories that were mentioned in the documentary. Status is merely a secondary factor that comes into play whenever a woman has to choose between various genetically matching guys.
Yeah, rPUA, but what does that have to do with attempts to “teach” attractiveness? Based on your own situation, you know it doesn’t work. By your logic, mPUAs need only teach guys to be smart, or to appear smart, and women will “naturally” gravitate to them.
We know this is NOT what PUA teaches and, by the same token, we know that the smartest guy in the room isn’t always the one attracting the females (even smart ones).
Take that same awkward guy from the Keys to the VIP and put him in MOST social settings and he will fail.
…and let’s also not forget that watching women “appearing to be into” a guy means absolutely nothing. I’ve seen guys “use NLP” and have women smiling and laughing and seemingly “into” the guys, but at the end of the day, all they had was a pleasant conversation and not much else.
Supporters of PUA like to say things like “see, he’s better than he was, cause he was able to talk to those girls”, and that may be true in an absolute sense of the word “better”. But PUA doesn’t promise to make you a “little” better than you might have been. Nor does it promise the other thing that so many supporters claim: just feeling better about oneself.
It promises it can teach men ways to magically or scientifically or evolutionarily how to make attractive women attractive to you, despite looks, money, height, etc…
It fails at that.
…and let’s also not forget that watching women “appearing to be into” a guy means absolutely nothing.
Good point Cooler: ) Therefore I even created the section “Women Tend to Be Nice.” Some studies show men have this tendency to confuse signs of politeness / personal attraction (l find someone cool, like to be around someone) with sexual interest.
rPUA – you said;
“For the record I am very committed to maintaining (and whenever time permits improve) my appearance. I was *very* excited to find this site because I look good and I was glad I didn’t have to worry about seduction shit anymore. My point that charm genes may impact the equation too doesn’t impact that for me, because I happen to be quite blessed in that department as well (high IQ, great associative skills and so forth). Something that, based on your simplistic responses to my messages, cannot be said for you.”
… ad hominem attacks when mentioning that a guy’s looks are an influence in attracting women – seems like deja vu
PS. Why did you follow the seduction community vs joining a Mensa society? Perhaps you could have found a woman to fall for your charm there?
Sorry about the personal attacks. Also, I wasn’t trying to brag about being smart, I am just trying to clarify I don’t feel I need to look for “loopholes” in order to weasel my way into an acceptable woman’s panties. This doesn’t mean I am in the top 2% IQ group, however. I also didn’t realise that weaseling through loopholes was what being a PUA was until recently (I naively thought that this was the genuine, good way for men to learn how to pickup women).
Clarification for anyone sane that happens to be reading this
Currently we have a PUA shill trying to introduce noise, so here are some clarifications…
- Women use things like status to judge you as a long-term mate. This is why if you’re rich, you can go from your physical 6 to an overall 9, just because you are rich
- In the short term however, women decide whether to mate with you only on traits that are genetic… If they never plan in seeing you again or marrying you (one night stand), they don’t give a fuck about your wealth (aside from safety issues)… All you need is physical attraction. If she needs a fuck-buddy for pure sexual pleasure, then physical attraction is all you need too, though interpersonal helps, I mean it makes things easier if you don’t dislike your FB looool
So this is where PUAs and their shills throw in noise and confusion
–1–> there do exist certain behaviors that are indicators you might be high status (social proof, confidence, dressing style, arrogance, etc etc)
–2–> If you perform these behaviors, a woman might be lead to believe you might be high status
–3–> and hence she will give you a chance and go out with you on a few dates to CHECK if you really are as high status as you pretended to be in the club… If it turns out you were fake high status, she will dump you… If she was looking for a high-status cat and you faked some of the symptoms of high status, all you did was postpone the rejection.
Not only can women not be tricked by “status indicating behaviors”, but they have specifically evolved against being duped this way… This is why women delay having sex with a guy they see as a long-term prospect. Plenty of papers on that.
If a chick only wants sexual pleasure from you (pure lust), then all she cares about is your genes.
What PUAs and their shills do is conflate 3 different things and muddy up the issue on purpose…
What this shill doesn’t mention is that the specific section on cars was about picking long-term mates, not for hookups. It was preceded by interviewing couples in love, and how the women were impressed by the expensive things their husbands owned (etc…)…
1) If chicks just want sexual pleasure (just want cock), all they care about is your genetics which they size up in seconds (well established in Evo psych and soc-psych)
2) If women want a father to their children, a “mate” they still primarily choose men based on genetics, but they will give preferential placing to men of means and status*
—> here’s the bait and switch done by PUAs and their shills <—
PUAs say that you can walk up to a random chick out of nowhere and by just changing how you talk and behave and fake the symptoms of a high status man, you can make said chick be more attracted to you and desire your cock more right there and then, she’d be wetting her panties just coz you faked the symptoms of high status
What really happens is that if you walk up to a chick faking high status symptoms is that you are just leading her on… If she’s looking for a long-term high status mate*… She might even give you a chance she wouldn’t have otherwise given you as a low status guy and she might let you interact with her longer as she tries to figure out if you’re for real… But when she learns you’re a fake, she flakes, disappears etc… All you did was postpone the rejection
High-status only increases your attractiveness:
A) in the long-term (romantic attraction) over other men of equal genetic attractiveness, and among men who are her type
B) High status only works if it’s REAL…
There is no evidence you can fool a woman by merely mimicking the symptoms, because the papers specifically say that when women assess for status, they take longer to check if you’re for real and not faking it… She won’t bang you coz you talk like a rich guy… She’ll just give you a chance to prove you’re one.
If the shill’s “woulda, coulda, shoulda” daydream was right, and faking symptoms of long-term-attractive traits could boost short-term success, then we would see men who have better results than other men of equal looks. Why has not a single person on earth been found to have a higher success ratio in the short-term than is expected for a man of those looks? Not a single man even claims to or is willing to be tested they can achieve such a feat
*_obviously, all of this assumes you’re her type to begin with genetically… Things like status only come into play when she’s choosing between men of equal genetic attractiveness. If a woman has a ton of offers from men her type who are medium status, she will hold out for an offer from a high status guy of her type
Oh, if this PUA faking status strategy worked…. hmmm.. like you wrote before, I would try even furry hat retarded stuff LOL
Recently I saw this Internet meme, a guy in a black cowboy hat, dark outfit, boots n shit, in an office (!) flirting with the secretary, and some PUA moron summed it up with
“PEACOCKING – he is doing it right, are you?”
So apparently, you can’t exaggerate with the amount of fur on your hat LOL
@Beta Dude (admin);
“Oh, if this PUA faking status strategy worked…. hmmm.. like you wrote before, I would try even furry hat retarded stuff LOL
Recently I saw this Internet meme, a guy in a black cowboy hat, dark outfit, boots n shit, in an office (!) flirting with the secretary, and some PUA moron summed it up with
“PEACOCKING – he is doing it right, are you?”
So apparently, you can’t exaggerate with the amount of fur on your hat LOL”
Actually, unless he had the requisite aviator googles, he might not have been doing it right!
LOL
BTW, I am thinking of a business idea – what about a store like Pet Smart but it will be PUA Smart – this store will have one stop shopping for all PUA accessories cartering to PUA’s – aviator googles (even a “signature series” signed by Mystery himself), black nail polish, fur hats, pink hair dye, DVD’s by Dr. Paul on all topics related to evo Pysch, key rings for Ferraris, BMW’s, Porches…..
LOL
I am in! PUA-gadgets.com LOL I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea worked….
MUST HAVE PUA GADGETS!!!
The BlackBeryy Bold 9700!!
Remember the old days where the big guru’s would talk about how the would carry a little note book and a pen so when the got a new routine or idea the could write it down and look like a no life nerd who is walking with a pen and paper at a fucking night club well those days are over!!
http://natural-pua.blogspot.com/2010/04/must-have-pua-gadgets.html
pathetic…
For all you retards who can’t read, I’ve never claimed that faking high status is going to promote attraction. I’m saying being high status is going to get attraction (from females who would otherwise not be into you), except for, as I said, one-night stands with club whores.
rPUA – you said;
“For all you retards who can’t read, I’ve never claimed that faking high status is going to promote attraction. I’m saying being high status is going to get attraction (from females who would otherwise not be into you), except for, as I said, one-night stands with club whores.”
If the females are not PHYSICALLY attracted because you are not “THEIR TYPE”, then the attraction is merely the same as that of a whore to the “John” or an escort to her “date”.
The woman will not be SEXUALLY attracted.
What pathetic guy wants this?
Let me understand…..guys want to pay…..$3000 to learn this???? WTF?
LOL!
rPUA – you can’t find any women who find you “their type”????
I thought you said in a previous post you are charming with high IQ.
I ask you this rPUA – have you ever had a long term girlfriend who was “into” you – were you able to give her multiple orgasms?
I guess you seduction community “gamers” must be pretty undersireable if you think a victory is when a woman is attracted to your car or PUA apartment vs. them finding you sexually attracted. LOL
That comments about faking high status were directed to PUAs visiting this website, not as a response to you…
I’m saying being high status is going to get attraction (from females who would otherwise not be into you), except for, as I said, one-night stands with club whores.
Again, if that was true guys with SUPER high status could have almost each and every woman they want to. It’s not the world we live in. In my last comments I gave you examples showing that this notion is a myth. I could go on for hours – for instance section “Money Only Changes the Odds.” Even Hollywood stars who are considered chick magnets get involved with women with remarkably similar facial features – see for yourself whosdatedwho.com. If that was true Suzi Malin, Dr Alvarez, Dr Fisher and others couldn’t have observed what they did (unless, you tell me the thousands of couples included only the ones where the guy was low status). Don’t you really think that Dr. Fisher would have reported that her studies about prenatal hormone levels correlations are relevant, except for guys with high status? If that was true EVERY US president would be a chick magnet (btw check out JFK’s and Marilyn Monroe’s facial similarities in Suzi Malin’s book), and so on and so on…
“I ask you this rPUA – have you ever had a long term girlfriend who was “into” you – were you able to give her multiple orgasms?”
Yeah, I most definitely have had that (she could never count how many exactly it was too much of a burden). Lots of women find me “their type”.
So anyway, why would we, as a species, have developed such a drive towards achievement and all that stuff if it wasn’t a way to attract mates? If high-achievement types were not the ones to procreate the best then we, as a species, would not value it so highly. It’s not like it helps us survive better as a species.
Of course I agree that being her type is a baseline requirement(!) for sexual attraction, but it is maybe 10%-20% of the total equation of attraction (including whether you can give her good orgasms). I mean, there is even research that shows that women have better and more orgasms in relationships with rich men than with poor men. Even a beggar is multiple women’s type, but they are not going to feel attracted to him in the slightest. If Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp were destitute they would not get laid very much at all even though they are seemingly irresistable to a lot of women when they have a certain societal role.
And again, before you start calling me a PUA again: YOU CANNOT FAKE STATUS THROUGH LEARNED BEHAVIOUR UNLESS YOU ARE A SOCIOPATH!
By the way, this discussion serves no practical purpose imo because if you want to fuck lots of women then being high status is helpful whether it makes them more attracted or not: high status people have more sex because they are more visible to women whose type they are and they will be more likely to meet these women.
Being high status helps (A LOT), period. So if you want to pick up lots of chicks you should focus on achievement regardless of whether you believe it will generate attraction or not and on being of acceptable physical fitness.
That’s WE have been saying all along lol.
Right. Regardless of our views on the underlying process (in which we differ) the practical application is still the same: Self-actualizing through becoming better looking and having an achievement-oriented lifestyle will help you get chicks and reading books on how to get chicks will not help you get them.
Very simple. I don’t think it serves any point to discuss it any further (and it served no purpose to discuss it in the first place) because in the end it doesn’t really matter what your “views” on the topic are in terms of evo psych or whatever other underlying philosophy.
rPUA – you said
“Being high status helps (A LOT), period. So if you want to pick up lots of chicks you should focus on achievement regardless of whether you believe it will generate attraction or not and on being of acceptable physical fitness.”
See, this is where my major disagreement is with you and why I see you as a seduction community shill.
I think being PHYSICALLY a woman’s type BLOWS away status for attracting women SEXUALLY.
Rationally, to my mind (from a holistic perspective) it makes sense to;
1) Go to the gym.
2) Stay out of the sun.
3) Eat healthy foods.
4) Reduce stress.
5) Many more things I can’t think of right now as I write RAW (in that I don’t try to sound like an intellectual).
On the other hand, from my perspective, achieving high status means doing everything to be perceived better in other’s eyes (essentially the “Bread and Butter” of Real Social Dynamics INC. aka RSD).
High status from my perspective, means more stress, less free time to enjoy my authentic interests, working long hours, acquiring expensive items, ect. All bs to me….
In (my) real life, I see a HUGE correlation with a guy’s looks in influencing women to be attracted to them.
For high status individuals, when they are not attractive, I don’t see them with the type of woman I find attractive – further more, when a high status guy is with a “hot” woman (or a woman I find hot), I always suspect that it is the pool boy who gives her the multiple orgasms. I don’t see the women that are with these high status men as being into them (you can tell – the women look around at other guys they find to be “their type”).
Looking back at my envolvement with a seduction lair, I recall high status and unattractive guys had this “entitlement” aura about them (for a lack of a better description) – as if they thought that they should have first dibs on the hotties vs the hotties going for the guys they find physically attractive (and yes, these guys are often AFC’s and low status guys [low status in your opinion where you claim to be of high IQ]
The bottom line, just do what interests you authentically in life and then you can find a woman who finds you “her type” (maybe she will even claim to like your fancy car but secretly she just wants your cock) – don’t waste valuable time pursuing high status in other’s eyes (what RSD tells us to do).
I think the best way to view these things is to say genetics “create attraction”, whereas status only improves your odds of banging women who are already attracted to you.
Mike you point out very well that there is a danger of putting your focus on status.
It might seem to some people like arguing semantics, but it’s not.
If you believe status is involved in the primary (primal) attraction, you fall into the trap of believing you can make non-attracted women be attracted to you.
In fact, like admin points out, if status could be used to create attraction, the logical end conclusion is that a guy could exist who attracts 100% of women LOL if he only built enough status LOL!!!
If you realize that some of the women out there are attracted to your type, and you just need to identify them and let them know there’s mutual interest, that’s far healthier… You’re looking for them, instead of trying to create them.
And then, you use things like status, working out (etc) only as tools to boost the odds of getting the women who already are attracted to you.
The end execution might look similar between these two perspectives, but it’s not. The first one is what eventually leads to you doing and studying kooky crap and being obsessive. The second one is mentally healthy.
@Betamike 1.4
“Working out” is not “genetics” and is therefore also a form of status building, wouldn’t you say? Most (i.e. average) guys can get in very decent shape with effort while only some guys can’t and only some guys can become fitness models. However, being in very decent shape is still going to get you more attracted women and is also a form of status like I said.
I think where we’re going in different directions is that you guys seem to place such a high value on this genetic attraction thing. I disagree that having this genetic attraction with a woman is going to get you anywhere other than to get a foot in the door. The way you guys are talking seems to assume that “Base sexual attraction = high likelihood of a lay” and there is no evidence of this and I disagree in the practical sense (unless the woman is desperate or whoring around).
The fact remains a low status guy has a very low chance of getting with a high status girl unless she is whoring around. Mind that working on your physical shape is also a form of status building because how in-shape you are is not genetic (your potential may be, but then again so very few people reach their genetic potential even if it is low, so it doesn’t really matter).
So, there really is no point whatsoever in knowing or talking about this genetic attraction thing because you can’t do anything at all with it. Approaching lots of women is still not the answer because you are still going to get rejected due to low status by the ones you are compatible to if you are out of shape and/or have no job nor money and/or have no friends and/or so forth.
The genetic attraction thing only serves to help you when you get rejected by an equal-or-lower status woman to remind yourself that it was bad luck and not “lack of pick up skills” or somesuch but other than that it does not merit any attention.
To clarify, Brad Pitt probably gets 100% of the girls he is genetically compatible with while a random beggar gets 0.001% of the girls he is genetically compatible with.
I never claimed that Brad Pitt could get any girl at all. I also think we are mostly on the same page, but you guys are hammering way too much on this genetic attraction thing while really it is quite insignificant from a practical pov.
To clarify, Brad Pitt probably gets 100% of the girls he is genetically compatible with while a random beggar gets 0.001% of the girls he is genetically compatible with.
Bravo genius! That’s what I mean when I mention “secondary factors” – status and the forth !
But you just admitted Brad Pitt only gets the girls he is compatible to! Before you claimed status is MORE important than genetic compatibility!
So, now you agree with me ??!! Coz that’s what I am talking about all the time. But than on your next comment you say smth retarded about waist to shoulder ratio that “points into a direction” that is allegedly against my theory. You just fucking admitted above you believe in genetic compatibility! I really give up discussing with you, coz you will say just any bullshit, you will switch your statements like a 100 times…
but you guys are hammering way too much on this genetic attraction thing while really it is quite insignificant from a practical pov.
Last thing, yes we are hammering on genetic attraction, precisely coz it is very significant to maintain a healthy perspective.
3 main reasons why understanding genetic / hormonal compatibility IS important from the practical point of view:
1. There are tons of guys like you out there who think status is all that matters. They ignore genetic / hormonal compatibility (although you changed your mind recently I suppose). So when they get rejected buy some chick, and than they see another guy of equal status to their own getting her… guess happens in their minds? Frustration, self-doubt …
2. Furthermore, such guys often try too hard courting some girl who in theory is in their league. So they reason that if they are persistent enough maybe she will give them a chance. No, she won’t. You are not her type. period.
3. They also get very confused when they see a low status guy with a really hot girlfriend. In case of long commitments sometimes it does happen, very rarely but it does. And that’s where PUAs come in messing with other dudes minds, saying “See this guy is neither rich nor good looking, check out his hot girlfriend. It must have been game that worked for him!”
That said, (just for anyone reading this for the first time): yes, if you can, you probably should try to raise your status or bodily attractiveness …
By the way I just stumbled upon something that might interest you guys. Apparently women rate the faces of men with high waist-to-shoulder ratios as more attractive than men with low ratios. Quite interesting. It doesn’t prove that faces get more attractive when waist-to-shoulder ratio goes up, of course, but it does point in that direction. If this were to be the case that would disprove a rather large part of admin’s point that women can “read genetics” from faces and go a long way towards mine that they can “read cues”.
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep06469479.pdf
rPUA – you said;
“I think where we’re going in different directions is that you guys seem to place such a high value on this genetic attraction thing. I disagree that having this genetic attraction with a woman is going to get you anywhere other than to get a foot in the door. The way you guys are talking seems to assume that “Base sexual attraction = high likelihood of a lay” and there is no evidence of this and I disagree in the practical sense (unless the woman is desperate or whoring around).”
The guy with the high status will still be limited to SEXUALLY ATTRACTING only the women who find him to be “THEIR TYPE”.
If he gets with a woman who does not find him sexually attractive by using his high status (ie. money, social position, etc), she won’t be into him when they have sex.
For me, this would be a show stopper but for other guys (high status guys with ample hubris), they would claim victory because maybe they get a trophy wife or girlfriend thinking the woman is all into them.
BTW, your view on status correlates quite highly with certain cultures (where high achievement is everything and individual expression is frowned upon). Your view of status also reminds of everything I viewed as highly manipulative by DYD and especially RSD.
PS. There is a term DHV (Demonstrate Higher Value) that comes from the seduction community – you seem very hung up on the whole status thing and again, it seems you are a shill to me.
I will give you 10,000$ if you can show anyone here ever having said.
Stop making stuff up.
Well, I never really watched much by RSD except some of Tyler’s conference videos because he is such a retard it is funny.
The part where I differ from RSD is that RSD says “Faking status = more lays” where I say that is totally false but “Having status = more lays”. There is a big difference and I am not manipulative in any way. Status is not fakeable in the same way that looking good is not fakeable (girls can put on makeup but when the guy finds out she doesn’t look so good without it is exit anyhow).
So Alek, if you don’t believe genetic attraction is what causes high odds of getting laid then why bash people who believe status is very important? In the end genetic attraction and social attraction are the only kinds of attraction and you focus on the first while I focus on the second (while acknowledging that you need the first to get into the door and you need to be weary of bad women who will have sex with you exclusively on account of your status).
Wasnt rPUAs original point about how personality and social skills can make women more attracted to you sexually? How did it become only about status? And wasnt it that status makes women more attracted to you – why is it now only about status *equals more lays*?
In any event, having status does not necessarily equal having more lays, as we all know from the public sphere high status guys who dont seem to do well with women, and there are many.
But then, having money and spending it on prostitutes equals having more lays.
Being efficient at finding the girls who likes your type equals having more lays.
Being socially normal, etc.
So what?
Lots of things will equal having more lays that do not affect the number of women that are attracted to you – it is just that few things will affect how attracted women are to you sexually. And that is the point.
And the kind of status needed to MAYBE have more lays is a LOT of status -we are not talking about the successful lawyer or doctor who makes a few hundred thousand a year. The kind of status we are talking about is not within the reach of most guys, so why even talk about it?
I just dumped everything that isn’t your facial features/hair colour/eyes/etc into the category “status” so this also includes your physical shape and everything else which may “increase your odds”.
Yes he has changed the narrative a few times.
- First he claimed mere indicators of status can create attraction
- Then he softened it to saying having high status creates attraction
- And now it’s “well status increases results” with including everything and anything under the umbrella under “status”… For example he tried to put physique under status, and I’m sure he’ll soon attempt to saying that flirting skills and social skills are status
In essence he’s flown full circle to saying the same thing admin is, just in roundabout way.
P.S
Your other point about the level of status needed to make a difference is magnificent. Yes, discussing status is quite a moot and unproductive point, because it’s only a big factor if you have tons of it. It doesn’t work in a linear fashion.
It’s not like you increase your status by 10% and you get 10% more results lol… You literally have to be a famous surgeon, millionaire or at least a semi-celebrity for it to make any noticeable difference.
Improvements in your social skills and flirting skills however seem to be linear. Double those two and you double results overnight.
Oh I don’t know about that linearity thing to be honest.
If you are a geeky WoW-player with no friends and so forth you will probably more than double results if you quit WoW and start playing a cool team sport and/or join a fraternity and/or find some other hobby that enables you to meet people while looking cool. I don’t think you need to go from a WoW-player to being a millionaire surgeon to have any status-related improvements in your results.
rPUA – you said;
”
If you are a geeky WoW-player with no friends and so forth you will probably more than double results if you quit WoW and start playing a cool team sport and/or join a fraternity and/or find some other hobby that enables you to meet people while looking cool. I don’t think you need to go from a WoW-player to being a millionaire surgeon to have any status-related improvements in your results.
”
Ah yes – it is all about looking “cool”.
I don’t see any difference from what you just wrote to what RSD aka Real Social Dynamics preaches.
RSD boot camps try to teach guys to be “cool” thinking that somehow knowing a bouncer, sitting in a roped off VIP section, telling “cool” scripted stories will enable you to pull the hotties.
Actually, by trying to “look cool” you come off as being low status vs a good looking guy who can just be himself to SEXUALLY attract a woman.
PS. When is your boot camp on how to be high status starting – maybe guys should be saving up to come up with $3000 (plus $100 for a fur hat).
No, you’re right! I should just go play WoW and be a nerd (again) and it won’t matter at all!
Idiot. You can’t learn “how to not play WoW all day” in a bootcamp, you can only just not do it and do cool stuff.
And I keep telling you this, there is a difference between pretending you are cool (this is what a bootcamp may teach you) and being cool. Being cool means you are doing cool things, which is what I am saying is a very big factor.
Also I’ve seen plenty of good looking WoW players who do not attract women by “being themselves”. You’re exactly one of those idiots who thinks that things will just naturally come to you if only you look good. Let me know how it works out!
rPUA – you said;
“Also I’ve seen plenty of good looking WoW players who do not attract women by “being themselves”. You’re exactly one of those idiots who thinks that things will just naturally come to you if only you look good. Let me know how it works out!’”
You are sooooo caught up in seeking status that in one of your first posts on this site was informing us that you are charming with a high IQ!!! LOL
That is essentially what status seekers do – they let people know “they are cool”, “they are smart”, rich, popular, etc. – often within minutes of meeting them.
These people come off as losers/low status to the rest of the population (as people who take RSD boot camps later find out when they get countless rejections from trying to be what they are not).
Good looking guys (ie. in that they are a woman’s “type” as mentioned on this site) who are natural with women give off a chill vibe – women don’t even care about their status because it is irrevelent – the women are SEXUALLY attracted and that is all that matters.
Get it?
Do you see where I am going with this – I can tell you are one of those fucking seduction community retards thinking that status will be a substitute for creating SEXUAL attraction when a guy in not in the “looks category” of the women he desires (example is a rich businessman with wrinkles/ugly face hitting on a Hooters waitress thinking he is in her league just because he has a Platinum Visa credit card.
rPUA – you said;
“No, you’re right! I should just go play WoW and be a nerd (again) and it won’t matter at all!”
You just proved to me that you are a loser as I suspected right from your first post.
You give up your authentic interests/self to pursue status (in other’s eyes giving women all the power over you).
Winners do what they want in life and they get the women that find them “their type” because they want women that find them SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Man up and drop the little boy thinking.
You will double your results because you *went outside*, as you put it, and before you were a *social recluse*. Yes, talking to girls will *double* your results as opposed to being a social recluse. Is that even a point that needs to be made? THAT is the essence of your point this whole time? OKkkkkkkk…..
You just baited and switched. You started your paragraph by 1) Describing a guy who is a social recluse 2) You then said he would get more girls if he stopped being a social recluse 3) You then suggested that the reason he would get more girls is because he now does things that *look cool*.
3 obviously does not follow from 2. The nerd with no friends who goes out and makes friends will get more girls because he is no longer a social recluse, not because he changed his hobbies from video games to sports, lol.
Your claim that him playing a cool team sport and looking cool is what is responsible for his getting more girls is not supported by the logic of your own example. So no, the *status increase* (lol) of going from playing WoW to playing a *cool* sport will have zero impact on how sexually attractive women will see you. Those simply are not the relevant factors.
If you 1) Are social, 2) Dress decently and are in shape, there is no reason to think that playing WoW will have any impact. You think a girl will not sleep with a guy who is her physical type, is in good shape and dresses decently, and is hitting on her in a competent (normal) social way, because he does not play some *cool* team sport but instead plays lots of WoW? Yeahhhhhhh…….
Or a girl will be like *hmmmm, this guy is my type physically, he dresses well and is in great shape, he is being normal and cool with me, I wanna get laid tonight…. but nahhhhh, I am not gonna sleep with him….but wait! He plays a cool team sport! Well that changes everything! Suddenly he is so sexy! I am not even the sort of girl who likes athletics. I like artist types – but hey, I am just biologically wired to be sexually turned on by status, even though evo-psyche theory denies the existence of such biological wiring and no study has shown that such factors affect purely sexual attraction!*
Wishful thinking, my friend.
Now, even for long-term, playing some cool team sport also wont make a difference, because plenty of girls dont like athletic types, they like intellectual types, or artistic types, or skinny rocker types, or even nerdy types (my sis does, for one)
Sooooooo…..according to the logic of your own example, you do not show that a supposed *status increase* will have any impact on how purely attractive you are to women. The factors that matter are you being social, and your appearance.
BetaMike, you certainly have me all figured out. Good for you!
Furthermore, I really don’t see why I am still discussing this topic on the internet. You guys are all right and I am totally wrong in every way. Congratulations, you win!
changing his standpoint all the time + lying about the content of this website + saying smth that has been said like a 100 times before = PUA shill for sure
@ Alek – you said;
“What really happens is that if you walk up to a chick faking high status symptoms is that you are just leading her on… If she’s looking for a long-term high status mate*… She might even give you a chance she wouldn’t have otherwise given you as a low status guy and she might let you interact with her longer as she tries to figure out if you’re for real… But when she learns you’re a fake, she flakes, disappears etc… All you did was postpone the rejection”
Exactly – the rejection is just postponed.
Too bad guys who take the seduction community boot camps find this out after spending $3000.
I suppose $3000 is the price they pay for their ignorance
The price I paid for my ignorance back in the days when I was into seduction, was about two months of wasted time in my life. Luckily for me I quickly noticed I sometimes could pick up an 8 or even 9 and than get rejected by a 6 at the same party. Than I started noticing facial resemblance, when I looked back at the photos of each and every 8 or 9 I have ever picked up (the vast majority were casual hook ups…) – although I was worried whether it’s not my imagination 
Eventually, I stumbled upon Suzi Malin’s “Love At First Sight” and started looking for scientific justifications of this pattern in mating, and read about the SSLT.
Hey guys,
It seems to me that some guys posting on this site just don’t get what is meant when a woman is sexually attracted to a guy.
Somehow, society (especialy the seduction community it seems) “programs”/manipulates guys into thinking that women don’t like sex!
Instead, guys think women are attracted by a guy’s status, a guy’s car, a guy’s house, a guy’s IQ, a guy’s shoes, a guy’s watch, by a guy sitting in a roped off VIP section in a night club, etc.
Anything it seems except for the obvious which is that women are attracted to a guy’s looks in that they are “her type”.
This type of disinformation about what attracts women to men seems to be a favorite topic for seduction community shills on this site!!
To offset this disinformation, here is a short clip from YouTube – it comically shows what some of us know by life experience and deeply understand – that is, that women are sexual beings who in turn, want guys who they find physically attractive;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7fz0jpuLkM
BTW, women & guys who get laid nornally will automatically “get” this clip but seduction community “gamers” will dismiss it entirely.
LOL, that was a funny video!
Gamers simply dont want to ACCEPT that something as irrevocable as your physical appearance can determine your success with women – there is something hugely comforting about the fiction that you can learn a set of tricks to make women like you, or just gather wealth and achieve status (more difficult, but still in the realm of possibility).
Many guys cherish the fantasy of being attractive on a primal, physical, level to women, and so long as this is the case – and it will always be the case
– the fantasy of being able to overcome our biological limitations and do things to ignite that primal spark in women will be compelling to many men. They will always search for some way, however desperate, however tenuous, to avoid having to come to terms with this painful truth.
Game offers something that strikes at the very root of male fantasy and wishful thinking – the only thing that can counteract this is having a personality that is even more interested in reality and truth (a very skeptical bent, which is rare), or in having repeatedly experienced the painful reality that game does not work, which also requires some degree of honesty as you stop being a keyboard jockey and actually go out into the real world and apply game concepts literally and consistently, and are honest with yourself about what you are doing.
or in having repeatedly experienced the painful reality that game does not work, which also requires some degree of honesty as you stop being a keyboard jockey and actually go out into the real world and apply game concepts literally and consistently, and are honest with yourself about what you are doing.
Oh yes! The guys that recover from this PUA wishful thinking are paradoxically the ones that really make an effort to try out these techniques. I think Alek noted it somewhere here before. Most guys believe the alpha-dominance crap, but when they get signs of clear disinterest they instinctively withdraw. Than they give themselves excuses, and still keep talking alpha-male bullshit with their friends. While those most persistent, the ones that really try out those absurd strategies, very soon realized it has nothing to do with real life.
Hey everybody. Want to see the latest “In-field footage” from RSD? Here it is:
Papa Gets Engaged to Be Married on Valentine’s Day (In-Field Video)
http://www.rsdnation.com/papa/blog/papa-gets-engaged-be-married-valentine%E2%80%99s-day-field-video
How pathetic is this shit? Does this girl strike you as being attracted to her slave to be? Check out the peck he gets and then the hug.
And they call it “in field footage.” That had me literally laughing out loud and I just had to share this laugh with someone. It gives me some kind of a perverted pleasure to see both Tyler and Papa (and Mystery?) saddled with “partners for life.”
And he did it on fucking VALENTINES day. hahahahahaha!!! I love this shit.
And in another video below he admits that this was his first LTR and it resulted in him getting engaged. And now he wants to share the lessons… hahahahaha
I have tears coming out of my eyes.
Though I think it’s too soon for sharing the lessons. Those are better shared after the divorce. Sad but true.
Another piece of advice from Papa: have you “business game” down. This truly made my day. hahahaha
Final comments. I did not read(nor have I yet) all 624 posts before commenting and all of the associated studies and everything on the website. Forgive me, I guess I have better things to do. I have read some of the posts that lead me to believe surprisingly(sarcasm) that in the 624 posts my ideas have been covered already. Working off the assumption that the point of this website is 100% correct(and I do accept the idea that genes and biology have a major role in sexual attraction). I still consider the advice on here to be pua advice. After all pua just means pick up artist and you are just saying if you want to pick up women don’t worry about sexual attraction because science has decided that. The way to increase your lays is by looking for genetically matched women and then focus on logistics. You even give advice about how fish for interested women and then work the logistics. As long as your talking about the subject of getting more lays that still falls under pua(in my opinion, although I’m sure you’ll have a solid argument for why it’s not and then proceed to call me a pua shill). I will agree that it is different from the major pua philosophies but you’re still discussing picking up women. Lastly the negative tone and name calling and enormous effort to support your belief and criticize those that bring up counterpoints and attempts to humiliate them for having a healthy debate on the subject strikes me as just as unhealthy as a lot of the shit I’ve seen inside the “conventional” pua community. Your ideas are good and interesting but your attitudes and discourse are shitty and it’s obvious you are full of hate. I’m guessing that hate stems from negative experiences with the pua community and you direct it at anyone you see still associated with the pua scene. I hope you all work through that! I could have seen myself visiting this site on a more frequent basis as I find the ideas to be thought provoking but reading some of the comments has really left a negative impression on me.
As long as your talking about the subject of getting more lays that still falls under pua
Why? your definition of a pua is anyone who wants to figure out how to get more lays? (that would be most of the single guys on this planet LOL) This broadens the subject a lot, it’s like saying that a car is anything that moves on wheels. Moreover, this website wasn’t designed as a guide to get lays, it sort of came out in the process, after discussing the subject with some guys here. “Boys will be boys” so this subject came up naturally. But the starting point was simply understanding human mating, and criticizing ignorant pua philosophy.
but your attitudes and discourse are shitty and it’s obvious you are full of hate.
Let me ask you a question: what difference does it make? Even if I was “full of hate” (although I emphasized I hate only lack of respect for reason) , does it have any influence on the accuracy of my opinions?
I am not calling you a pua shill, but a common trick of puas is to change the subject and discuss the opponent’s attitude instead OF HIS IDEAS.
Apparently there is a lot of amateur psychologists among puas LOL
@tyler – you said;
“but your attitudes and discourse are shitty and it’s obvious you are full of hate.”
Back when I was in the seduction community, I recall meeting Tyler Durden of RSD (aka Real Social Dynamics) when he gave a free talk to a seduction lair.
I pointed out to TD aka Tyler Durden that I felt that a guy’s looks were a major influence in (sexually) attracting women.
Talk about hate!!!!!
Tyler Durden then proceeded to ad hominem attacks on me through his talk (ie. my dress style, that older guys don’t learn PU as well as young guys, etc.).
Talk about shitty discourse.
Also, take into the fact that the seduction community cult is ruining people’s lives – don’t expect any kindness from me if you are a “gamer” and promote the seduction comminity ideas (especially the dogmas that a guy’s looks don’t matter in influencing whether a woman will be attracted and that a guy has to feign “high status”.
PS. We have some pretty good shit….err, I mean shill detectors on this site
Check this out. It’s a thorough explanation of how PUA teachings mess you up. The response comments are especially interesting. If the comments are for real and not a joke or exaggeration then PUAs are more screwed up than even you already thought yet think they’re winning.
http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-4/
thanks Randy,
I particularly enjoyed the following part about the concept of a Fool’s mate, the Marx quote in the end is beautiful. It sums up so well PUA mindset:
This about this dynamic for a second…if a woman likes you too soon, something must be wrong with her. For a woman to be worth it, there has to be a certain amount of difficulty involved. If she likes you too much, surely there must be something defective about her. She must be drunk. She must have low self-esteem. She must be a slut who sleeps with everyone if she sleeps with me that easily. It brings to mind the old Groucho Marx quote “I wouldn’t want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.
On the flip side, I cannot agree with the part when the author says that PUA advice is not totally useless. I guess this website and the comments below reveal that it is indeed completely useless. Unless, you want to use mainstream psychology, and call it PUAry. It’s like using chemistry and calling it magic.
Now if you are a guy who is enlightened enough and has done enough inner work to internalize the Laws of the True Self (or Enlightened Superiority), you could go through the list of laws DeAngelo has listed, picking out the good ones and reinterpreting them into the right frame, or eliminating the bad ones because they’re incapable of being put into the right frame, and moving on like that.
So that’s why I say PUA advice isn’t totally useless with the right mindframe.
Those lists of laws DeAngelo mentioned are just pseudo-intellectual new age crap.
A major problem with the PUA stuff is that it attacks the symptoms of one’s disease and not the actual disease itself.
This is probably true. Yet it’s not the biggest drawback of the community. My main accusation is that PUAs misinterpret the very core of human mating, the main mechanism responsible for attraction. They reason you can practice picking up women just as you train some sports discipline. That’s very shallow wishful thinking. So every sane man should stay away from it as far as possible.
@ Admin – you said:
“Those lists of laws DeAngelo mentioned is just pseudo-intellectual new age crap. ”
Agreed.
DeAngelo is a master of disinformation – its “all good” when it comes to selling PUA material it seems – there is a sucker to buy each product!!!
For instance, he sells a product called “Cocky Comedy” and then another “On Being a Man Who Naturally Attracts Women”.
Hmm….if you are acting out a comedy routine to pick up a woman, how is that natural…. LOL!!!
I am not surprised that he is tapping into the New Age market to attract people who will buy into that (key word is “buy”).
BTW, on one of the DeAngelo interviews, he interviewed the guy from Ideagasms (talk about New Age nut cases LOL);
http://www.ideagasms.net/ideagasms-products/
Yes, all sane men need to stay away from the PUA community.
@BetaAdmin
Did you get my last email? I made a small request of you for a certain quick edit so I’m assuming you haven’t seen the email or gotten around to the edit.
Thanks.
Sorry for the delay, i ve been traveling during this week…
That’s one of the problems with non-gamers.
Unlike gamers, most of us have a life, and we won’t invest anywhere near as much effort into dismantling game, as game-believers will in pushing game.
They have all the time in the world, they have no life, lol.
Speaking of these weirdos, I am just having here a massive attack of strange comments from facebook profiles. The say a few words of their own, acting like they wanna discuss smth here. Than I see some repetitions of my exact sentences from this website or my comments. I don’t think it’s computer generated, coz the posts make some sense. But the end result looks like Mayhem’s posts.
Is this common that these shills use facebook profiles?
I just started a blog sharing my experience with PUA. Hopefully, some people here find it useful to read – http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com/
@Johnny – I started reading your blog and got to the “PUA wierdness” point – I agree completely!!!
Thanks for putting up the link for the blog and sharing your experience.
Good job Johnny
mentioned your blog on my front page
Then, success ratio. Somehow this never gets mentioned on any PUA website. It is a very important factor. For a guy like me who works a hectic job and has some hobbies as well, I can’t possible go out 3 nights a week and approach every girl crazily just to get a one-night stand. There has to be a higher return on investment for me.
Yeah, they say they are the shiznit, but somehow no one wants to reveal his success rate LOL See end of section “BS Created So Far”, this guy Paul Janka is at least honest enough to reveal his true success rate…
First, looks don’t matter. Again beaten to death by now, but the effects of this were very clear. I decided to get a fashion consulting session. Got a new wardrobe, started maintaining my facial hair, better grooming, new haircut. Results were blatantly obvious. I could now notice girls blatantly check me out sometimes.
It’s good that it has been beaten to death coz it’s where the puas get human mating all wrong. You should also mention body here. Read Alek’s insight on body proportions. It does really make a difference.
Thanks for the referral! I did not mention physique because I don’t have a good physique yet, so in spite of the fact that I am sure a good physique makes a HUGE difference, I won’t write about it unless I experience it for myself.
I wanted to only write about things on my blog which I have experienced myself, keeping the theory and advice to a bare minimum.
Tyler Dyrden responds to my youtube comment here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWrFgIR6CU
TylerSays:
In other words, ignore what facts say, spend 5 years hitting on random chicks, before you are allowed to say anything about looks
The irony is I’ve been “in the field” for many years, but I guess he mistook me for some newbie and thought he could manipulate me into buying a workshop with them.
@ Alek – I watched the video and noticed the comments addressed to you.
It is clear to me that many guys out there still idolize Tyler Durden and he is very good at manipulating people with words (I guess it goes with his University education in Philosophy studying other past manipulators such as Plato, Kant who argued that our “senses” can’t tell us everything about the world).
Back when I met Tyler Durden as part of a free talk he gave, I instantly knew he was full of shit (especially when he did his famous “freeze out” tactic upon me mentioning that a guy’s looks are the most important factor when it comes to attracting women).
BTW, here is a link to a bunch of guys who took RSD workshops (including an RSD instructor) telling the truth about the RSD “cult”;
http://truthofrsd.dinstudio.com/
PS. Interesting thing….back when I was in the seduction community, many guys I knew with a very good education (I am talking master and PHD degrees) bought into the RSD philosophy despite it not helping them get women. LOL!!!
PS. Interesting thing….back when I was in the seduction community, many guys I knew with a very good education (I am talking master and PHD degrees) bought into the RSD philosophy despite it not helping them get women. LOL!!!
This doesn’t surprise me at all since the majority of degrees don’t train people to think for themselves but merely to accept whatever is presented to them as gospel. Rote-memorization usually is the key to getting a degree.
I am not PHD, but I am very scientifically oriented and critical thinker. All my senses told me that looks matter a great deal. Yet I was somehow able to convince myself otherwise.
Here’s the kicker: I am a good looking guy with an athletic body! I get hot girls! But I didn’t want the girls to like me for that. I wanted to have magic powers and put them under my spell. It was all about feeding the ego.
@ G – you said;
“Here’s the kicker: I am a good looking guy with an athletic body! I get hot girls! But I didn’t want the girls to like me for that. I wanted to have magic powers and put them under my spell. It was all about feeding the ego.”
I agree with the character “George Costanza” of Seinfield when he once said to Jerry that “I don’t care if a woman likes me as long as she thinks I am good looking”.
That quote stayed with me wayyyyyy back before there was even a seduction community and I could never buy into the looks don’t matter dogma of the seduction community cult.
For me, I just wanted to learn to find out which women were into me (IOI’s) and that was my reason for studying PUA.
The AI guys came up with a good term for this “Goal hijacking”. They were refering to the fitness industry, but it happens in PUA the same way.
People discover fitness advice looking for something simple as “how do I get and maintain a good looking beach body in an easy way?”
Overtime however they however start acquiring new ideals and goals, and eventually they become a gymrat who has 50 side-goals which he was never interested in. He loses sight of his original goal and becomes a “health nut” or a “bodybuilder” or “crossfit-er”.
Same with PUA – most people discover it having rather modest and common sense goals, but eventually they’re convinced to have different goals, and they lose track of the original goal.
Most people do not go into PUA with silly goals like “How do I get threesomes with 10s every night, despite me being an average-earning and average looking guy”
Educated ignorants are as common as lying politicians. Critical thinking is not something you learn in school.
There is a lot of people who just contemn scientific theories. PUA bullcrap appeals to them. They follow this notion that only practice matters, and scientific theories are for “nerdy scientists.” These ignorants can’t comprehend that those “nerdy scientists” formulated their theories after observing stuff in real life.
Well, in this case we’re not even discussing “Scientific theories”, but scientific data… for example how many men of type x have slept with how many women of type y.
The PUA/seduction community relies on technology (examples: computers, small video recorders, cell phones, etc.) that is developed by humans using critical thinking and their rational minds.
The PUA gurus use shaming tactics to make rational minded guys feel “uncool” and then promote themselves (via being a bootcamp instructor for example) as the epitome of achievement!
In my view, a boot camp instructor is a field losers get into because they have nothing valuable to give to offer society (and hence are true “second handers” living off people who achieve to move society forward [the guys they critique]).
Hey Aleknovy!
What what happened to your site?
How can i register and be able to continue reading it?
I don’t know you, so you can’t
So, only people who know you in real life can?
Kind of hard to get to know each other since we probably live in different continents.
Sad, cause i really enjoyed reading your blog.
PS: You mentioned “Any Women Anywhere”. I recently finished the book, but i can’t find the nerve to approach as the book says yet (i only ask for directions and the time, for now) and my conversation skills really suck. You seem to have a lot of experience about this.
Can you give some advice?
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/approach-guide/
*THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED – EXCESSIVE COMMENTS ON ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS WEBSITE*
Hmph. Well, I’ve studied pickup for a little over a year now, and I can attest to the fact that if I have success, usually the girl is into me from the get go..however, there are things that I’ve done that have screwed up my chances to get laid when the girl was sexually attracted to me.
You guys keep asking for a scientific study on building sexual attraction , that is kind of the core of Mystery Method. You mentioned Paul Janka, he is one of my favorites BECAUSE he comes from a place of treating game as a numbers game and focusing on being more efficient (which is what I try to do ).
….
My point is , that any study is going to be really weak as far as picking out one thing, (like a few certain lines the guy might say), and saying that got him laid or didn’t. Lets say you do a study with 200 guys and have them hit on 100 women, 2 control groups of 100 guys per group, one group gets a Mystery Method script or something, the other guys have to improvise.
There are sooo many variables. Maybe the placebo effect kicks in, and because the MM group had something to say and practice saying, they felt more confident. Maybe the other non-script group had wittier guys ….
You guys keep asking for a scientific study on building sexual attraction , that is kind of the core of Mystery Method.
What do you mean by that? Has mystery ever presented any evidence his students perform better than other dudes of similar physical attractiveness??
As for Paul Janka – you still didn’t reply to our MAIN argument. If this pua bullshit works, Janka’s success rate would be like 70-90% among single women! So the point is it doesn’t work. As you admit it pickup boils down to a numbers game. So why the alpha ideology? why seduction routines, negs etc. Why should anyone waste their time learning by heart all that crap, if no one ever proved it works better than “Hi how are you doing?”
There are sooo many variables.
If you read “Her Type” and “Genes and Personality Types” under “Reality Check” you will learn all those hundreds or even thousands of variables were eliminated in the studies described therein. They simply studied REAL couples, and found out correlations that are impossible to explain otherwise then by concluding that “women have their types.” Those types come down to genetic and hormonal compatibility.
Maybe the placebo effect kicks in, and because the MM group had something to say and practice saying, they felt more confident. Maybe the other non-script group had wittier guys.
Read section “the Experiment”, all those “maybes” are not an issue provided the study is carried out appropriately – i.e. lots of diversified volunteers randomly divided into…
@ Jaxxx – you said;
“You guys keep asking for a scientific study on building sexual attraction , that is kind of the core of Mystery Method. You mentioned Paul Janka, he is one of my favorites BECAUSE he comes from a place of treating game as a numbers game and focusing on being more efficient (which is what I try to do ).”
As mentioned several times in my various posts on this site, I used to study “game” and be a member in a seduction lair.
Looking back on those days, I made the assumption that learning “game” had to make you better with women and from that perspective, all my encounters with women lead me to believe that I was not doing gaming properly.
One thing “gamers” never consider when learning PUA is that perhaps using game can make you worse with women – many gamers don’t come from a past of getting women the normal way so can’t get out of this acting unnormal to get women loop to find the truth.
I have put the following link up in several places here – it is short youtube clip of top PUA “gurus” (ie. seduction boot camp teachers) gaming a reporter;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPlB71q9SwA
Notice that the hot reporter is not mean to them or anything – she just thinks of them as pathetic – just like you would treat a beach vendor who is trying to sell you junk you don’t want.
My prediction and we are seeing this today is that learning and using “game” will make guys worse with women than they could ever be just being normal approaching women as explained in the Approach Guide on this site. Women will be commenting to each other before they go out saying “I hope there are none of those seduction losers we seen on that show on TV”…
It’s funny. I found this website and at the same i stopped acting like a jerk and become just more social being myself and BAM. Not that i’m picking woman, but this week i’ve met three new women and pottential ‘partners’. I don’t even need to think what to do, i just do it and if we like each other, cool, if don’t than i have a new friend and have expanded my social circle, thus i’ll meet more women.
It’s freaking fucking liberating to read this website. I couldn’t agree more, i was becoming a weirdo. It took away a huge load from my back. (Ok, that sounded weird)
And sorry for my english, i’m from South America. =)
@Cristhyano – you said;
“It’s freaking fucking liberating to read this website. I couldn’t agree more, i was becoming a weirdo.”
I concur with this point 100%!!!
What the seduction community “gamers” fail to realize is that women get creeped out by weird guys – weird guys do the following weird tactics sanctioned by the seduction community;
- feign “alpha” body language
- hold their drinks to the side of their body vs holding them high (thank you RSD for this great tip)
- project their voices to be “alpha” and project a jerk vibe
- peacock in extremely feminine ways (ie. guyliner, pink high lights, fur hats) and reject their masculinity (misandry)
- sprawl out and take up space in night club lounges
ect.
PS. Your English is excellent – I understand your point.
You should make a forum. It will be much easier to follow track of the site and all the comments and talk that is going on.
Any news about the new approach guide?
I’ve got something special for you guys:
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.de/2012/04/dirty-secret-behind-boot-camp-number.html
@Aaron Sleazy – you put up the following link;
“I’ve got something special for you guys:
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.de/2012/04/dirty-secret-behind-boot-camp-number.html”
I just started reading this and have pulled out this section because finally the truth is starting to come out about the seduction community;
“Thus, so he sets up a couple of boot camps in the United States. Because he himself can’t demonstrate all that much, as he doesn’t want to piss off his wife, he enlists some “assistant coaches” from a local lair”
Back when I was in a seduction lair, I was shocked to discover that some of the guys WHO COULD’T GETTING LAID were working as temporary instructors for the boot camps that came into town.
Keep posting stuff like this because the truth needs to come out.
Hello!
This website is amazing and very helpful.
Over the years, so much crap from the seduction communities, being the only guides there were… It’s nice to see this alternative.
The seduction communities gave nothing to me. They have contempt, they rationalize… their methods didn’t work at all.
It feels great now that I know that everything is won or lost in advance and how it really works. In retrospect, genetic predisposition really did work for me.
Every time, it was won before the game even started, just needed a lil push.
Social standing doesn’t matter, personality doesn’t matter (that much), wealth doesn’t matter…
Feels really lighter now that I know how this really works.
I just have one question :
Would the “Paul Janka method” of going casually, as an average decent guy, work for me? I would feel confortable doing that. I would feel no pressure whatsoever and I’m fine being polite. I’m kinda staid/quiet. Going loud and joking and high energy always displeased me, and no other way was shown.
By the way… This information needs to make itself more known. I have a few acquaintances who are into the dating community, voicing their goal to be a PuA and basically eating the crap they’re being fed. Sure, it’s not my job to educate people, but maybe, just maybe…
Anyway, these guys only speak french. This website needs a french (and possibly other langages) version.
If you’re interested in having a translation made (but perhaps it is already at work, in which case disregard this) I’m french canadian and perfectly bilingual. Drop me a line!
Thanks for your great work!
Would the “Paul Janka method” of going casually, as an average decent guy, work for me?
It’s all in the approach guide section. Btw a new fuller version will be available soon!
Anyway, these guys only speak french. This website needs a french (and possibly other langages) version.
If you’re interested in having a translation made (but perhaps it is already at work, in which case disregard this) I’m french canadian and perfectly bilingual. Drop me a line!
You read my mind dude! I was discussing other language versions some days ago with other people involved in this website – but French version wasn’t an option (till now:) so I will let you know. It may take some time, coz first we gonna change the layout of this site a little.
But anyway if you want to help us you can start translating some sections already
Amazing!
I wanted to ask first, because, amongst other things, you may already have stuff in the work, and also, your work is copyrighted.
But now that I have your ok, I will start translating a few sections. The email that I have to write in order to reply is a working email. The @live.fr one.
Just tell me whenever you want them sent your way.
I’m not sure how much time translating everything is going to take; I’m not being paid, I don’t want to be paid, and I have work during the day, but I’ll work on it every now and then.
Thanks, I appreciate you effort!
We all have our own jobs/businesses. This site is more like a hobby. But I sure can give you credit for the French translation – if you want your name / nickname to be revealed ?
Sure, I’d like my name to be credited. I’ve started working on translating the pages already, but like I said it’s gonna take a while.
Anyway, I got something interesting for you guys.
There’s this french seduction community site called Art de Seduire. One recent article was the false time constraint.
Curious, I posted a comment posing as SAMUEL.
LEX, one of the big bosses of the site (he makes articles, so I suppose he’s considered a GOOD PUA. Two words that don’t go very well together).
French saavy people can read it on the screen cap, and I translated it below!
http://i40.tinypic.com/33vhukx.jpg
Translation:
Hello. I’m relatively new in the community but I’m ready to do everything I need to do to succeed.
There is something I’ve been wondering. I’m trying to take a rational approach to the methods taught here.
How many girls do you need to approach to sleep with one, whether it be with this tactic/method (false time constraint) or various other methods?
Lex replied:
About one to two hundreds. It depends of the day, luck, if you date… etc…
I have nothing more to say.
Have a nice day!
About one to two hundreds. It depends of the day, luck, if you date… etc…
Beautiful
Remember to send them a link to sections “BS Created So Far” or “Do Yourself a Favor” when your French translation will be ready….
“About one to two hundreds. It depends of the day, luck, if you date… etc…”
Not sure if I am missing something here – this statement itself sounds very legit to me. I am surprised a PUA is admitting that it takes him around 100-200 approaches to get one chick. Any sane person would realize on this statement that what he is teaching is not worth it.
You are not missing anything Johnny.
Any sane person would realize on this statement that what he is teaching is not worth it.
Precisely, these pua clowns admit expressly there is nothing remarkable in all the techniques they teach. It works as well as “Hi, how are you”, or even worse…. Only their students have never thought about it this way. They have never even considered analyzing success rates.
Hello again! It’s me with more news!
So, I posted a post on the french forum ArtDeSeduire with the screenshot. Lex immediatly came up and… well, he will
ban me but kindly let me a chance to explain myself and refute his arguments.
Here is a transcript of his posts (Post: http://forum-seduction.artdeseduire.com/302239-post66.html) (Thread:
http://forum-seduction.artdeseduire.com/debats/29382-les-techniques-de-seductions-sont-elles-vraiment-necessaires-
8.html#post302275 )
Ok, so Jibun, he’s out.
You would have posted as Jibun (in the comments nstead of samuel, it wouldn’t have changed anything.
These numbers (i.e the comment) is not my success rate. And when I say 200, I extrapolate. When you are a beginner, you
don’t know how to improvise, you used canned material; yes you can approach 200 girls and still not get laid.
My success rate is: Difficult to calculate. I don’t seek, or don’t seek much, to have sex (when I am not in a
relationship i.e single).
I seek only fun and pleasure. Sex is, in the end, easy to get. And my goal is not to sleep with thousands of girls, I
don’t have anything to prove. But if I can not get bored, that’s better.
BUT! I like to seduce, to convince, to push myself. I seduce my teachers/professors, my classmates, my parents, my
boss, everyone.
Sometimes, it leads to sex.
My diary (on Art de Seduire, a diary is a log kept of his best of moments in his journey, many members have them)
proves I’m a PUA, somehow, but it’s only a best of.
I speak with people every day. Once, I used a “Hello, shall we have sex” until it worked, just because I didn’t want to
fuck all that much, and it was all a laugh.
It worked, at one moment.
The “between one to two hundreds” is not my success rate. Know one thing: I always get what I want. At more or less
long term, my success rate is 100%.
I took your question as a general question.
EDIT: To me, you are just a negative individual.
We knew that people like you would come from overseas since last July, as te trend reached the USA (trend reached the
USA? I thought the seduction community made it’s way to France? I’m waiting for him to clarify that)
Abou your posts, you say: PUA, it’s shit, so is their methods.
When I see you say a stupid comment like: Being an alpha is decided in the womb, and you can’t change anything” ….
I’ll ban you, soon. I leave you the right to reply.
Sorry, I didn’t bold the transcript above. It starts with “Jibun, he’s out” under the links.
I hope he will come here to argue with us!
As proof, I:
None of my relationships had lasted more than six months, and I was ALWAYS getting dumped before finding the community. I was shy, everyone thought I was getting walked on. I went out with chicks by default. I failed my studies.
As of today: I went out with women who would make you fantasize about for months. I had three threesomes. I am in a happy couple. I have a much better lifestyle. I passed all my courses. The community has even taught me to shave, and put my face forward to look more imposing.
The face, no, it does not count. You dress better, choose your haircut, shave, for example, hide a receding chin with a goat, or save your jaw forward with a collar, yes, it counts.
You want good advice, and GOOD coaches? Look what you’re told here (on ADS), rather than going to the largest marketers then act surprised when it does not work.
On ADS, we try to act as humanly as possible.
Maxx handles everything for the site running. Selim takes care articles and videos, and I respond to everyone. All this: for free. And you’re set.
Just today, I coached someone by phone. The guy has paid for half an hour. I found it nice, his story touched me, we spent one ten on the phone, to arrange something to retrieve his girlfriend.
Did he pay twice? No. We, we take care of our own, and we do what we must so they succeed.
One last thing he said that was interesting:
I start with the mental state of talking to people for fun, but you see these as failed conquests. You do not understand the concept of meeting people for fun. You start with the fact that there is a point A, then a point B, and nothing else. You say: There is only black and white, I say there is gray.
Don’t think I was saying that to begin with. Anyway, I leave you the only judges.
Sorry to barge in and get you so much stuff at once. This thing is thrilling and interesting. See, according to Lex on another post, the Anti-PUA trend is still only on the state, and like the community, it’s slowly making it’s way to France. I guess I’m at fault, since I’ll most likely make the first french transcripts of articles too! Hahaha.
Anyway, I think having a french PUA (altough he doesn’t consider himself as such) coming on here, arguing. Fresh air, and plus, he puts up a good debate. I’m still only playing on the side and am not versed as you guys are in the matter, so I leave it to you, if you find it interesting enough.
I will now shut up and go translate stuff. Lex, je te lis si tu poste. Mais je suis un petit joueur, so admin et les autres seront de meilleurs adversaires si tu débats.
Are seduction techniques only really real social interactions formalised? Like, do they happen either way, or do they use techniques to make social interactions?
Hmmm not sure what you mean, but I think “How Come I Saw Seduction Working” brings the answer.
Also depends what kind of techniques. If you use twisted Ross Jeffries subliminal messages etc. you will be labeled as a weirdo. If you use DeAngelo’s stuff you can even be perceived as a cool guy – provided you don’t overdo it, you don’t repeat the exact lines he teaches etc. In either way it has nothing to do with ATTRACTION.
Lex replied. He replied in french. I can translate, but this post double posts. He can read english, but you guys could use Google Translate and copy paste his posts there: http://translate.google.com/ as it gives relatively accurate translations and I might not be here. Lex has a relatively interesting reasoning.
My problem is that the anti-PUA is as inhuman as the Basic PUA.
You think that all interactions are done in order to get sex, while the reality is that interactions serve only to help us grow. Sex is not an end in itself. For me, the real challenge is to find THE woman of your life. Sex for sex: when it’s for fun, of course! When it is to “up the numbers” or “prove yourself” there is a basic PUA at work.
I (and when I say I, I mean the whole team Art de Seduire, we rely on personal development. Be more interesting in society, happier in our lives, caring for our bodies: skin. facial hair, haircut, good clothing and color choices, accessories, manner of speech, intonation of voice, speech to behave in society, how to behave like a gentleman.
There is a difference between whistling a women to open her, or use a contextal opener and try his luck, right?
You like statistics: I’ll give you some:
Whistle to get her attention: 0% success.
Do not try his luck by shyness: 0% success.
Tries his luck with a memorized sentence, beginning: 10% Number making.
Tries his luck with a popup opener in beginner: 20% Number making.
Try his luck in being comfortable, well cared for, not stressed, with experience: 80% success rate (when the woman in question is not in love, married, things like that, of course.)
Ask questions. Traceur I’ll leave the translation French / English to you. I can read English without any problems.
To admin and the others: I think Art de Seduire is a pretty light site as far as PUA go and their goals are aimed to personal developpment. Recently, they are the ones who translated Mystery’s Revelations book to the people of France.
But I will leave you to make your opinion.
Lex, before I say something, I’ll make a point that it is not easy to talk through a language barrier and considering I can’t even read your site so of course, communication can get lost in translation.
Anyway, I would like to address your point about anti-pua. What a lot of us stand for is that basically we want to bring in some objectivity and realism to this whole thing. It is very very easy to sweep a lot of bullshit under the rug of “self-improvement”, “you are improving as a human being”, “becoming more of a man”, “alpha male” etc. which is exactly what a lot of the PUA community does by being super vague about everything.
The other part of it is exposing the PUA community for the scam it really is. Lets take your example. Your website’s name is Art of Seduction (excuse me if my french is not entirely correct) so as an average guy I am led to believe that you can help me learn how to seduce women. Then you say that you need to approach 100-200 women to get one girl. I think that hell, I can already do much better than that (and so can all my AFC friends) by just asking a bunch of women out directly in my current AFC way (just using the PUA term). Then you preach self-development and personal improvement. I think that I have seen too many guys who are far from being well rounded or interesting human beings or having good “inner-game” (another PUA term I hate) get lots of chicks, so I am not sure if it is really necessary or just a waste of time.
So as a guy who just wanted to improve my love-life, I am led to conclude that you are just as much of a scam as everyone else in the PUA community when it comes to how much you can help me in this regard. Please tell me how am I wrong?
Told him to reply to the above post ^
http://www.seductionmyth.com/#comment-3190 < this one.
He will have to google translate his stuff. Sorry for his bad english. he can read, though, and I think the google stuff is understandable.
Also, I made a comment at the bottom with all the stuff that has been said I'd like you guys to additionnally adress.
Try his luck in being comfortable, well cared for, not stressed, with experience: 80% success rate (when the woman in question is not in love, married, things like that, of course.)
Tell him that I think he is lying to our faces.
80% of all women he approaches? or just the ones who are giving him signs?
Coz if that’s the first option then all I can say is ….. Hahahah Tell this Lex guy that he should try to do that on TV with hidden cameras or something. Ask him Alek’s “riddle” that I put on the front page of this website:
WHY NO PUA COMPANY HAS EVER PROVED SUCH UNBELIEVABLE CLAIMS IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER? They should get a Nobel prize for this if that’s true. Not to mention the financial reward if they manage to prove it (thousands of new customers). Doesn’t make any sense.
Also tell him I didn’t approve his comment coz he didn’t take the time to answer even one of my arguments presented on this website. If he ignores my statements, why should I listen to his? Plus as always in case of PUA fans his comment is about lots of things that either don’t have anything to do with the subject or are about stuff explained 1000 times already.
In his defense he succeeded it with the woman in question is not in love, married, things like that, of course.
So he didn’t claim 80% of women he talks to. But his claim is still bullshit because there is no way to know if a woman is in love… It’s a nice way of reframing rejections though.
I ve noticed the reservation he made about women in love, married etc. Not only he is not able to detect it, but even assuming he was able to do that: how many encountered women are married? 50% (though I don’t know where he meets them) – fine, let’s assume 50% (in a club it would be rather 5%
. How many of the remaining 50% are in love?
So no matter how he frames it, claiming 80% minus [women in love, married etc] = he is still full of shit.
I think Lex you should tell us more about how you guys on ADS believe:
You can become an alpha male, it’s not decided in the womb.
Sexual attraction can be created from nothing and generated through the use of our techniques, as the articles on the main page of the site seem to imply.
You own success rate being 100% because you always get what you want.
How the community changed you, on over how much time, from being a girl less loser to a successfull academic who passed all his classes.
What you described is exactly one of the things that I hate so much about the PUA community. In fact after reading this, I don’t think I am going to bother replying to Lex because it is just not worth my time.
He said before the community he would fail all his courses, and now he passed all his classes. Why should this be there on a website called Art of Seduction is completely utterly beyond me. I would love to hear from Lex how this is related to getting chicks.
By this logic, I am sure Obama can say that one day he ate this wonderful ice-cream cone – since then he has gone on to become the president of United States.
What next are you going to say PUA community helps you with – hold your breath underwater, do unassisted flights, reverse the trend of global warming or maybe even cure the world of hunger and poverty? Coz dude, that would be awesome.
Seriously dude, don’t bother replying here. Save your time and effort. Go after guys who you can scam. Posting here and getting hammered for your 1st grader logic and exposure of your scam can only harm business.
If you learned anything from this site, then it is that we promote objectivity and rationality. The rational decision here for you would be to just shut the fuck up and run away.
What next are you going to say PUA community helps you with – hold your breath underwater, do unassisted flights, reverse the trend of global warming or maybe even cure the world of hunger and poverty? Coz dude, that would be awesome.
Laughed my ass off ! Now I understand why the fees for their pua bootcamps are not so exaggerated. Considering all the possibilities their techniques off offer, really modest prizes !
Did he even read the section about alpha males? I suppose he uses this term having in mind smth completely different than the scientific world.
I thought he would post here. Too bad he didn’t.
Anyway.
The thing I’m wondering is this. He says seduction to him is more like a way to be more social. Basically, learning skills to be more social. Art de seduire is about lifestyle, not only getting girls. I think it’s once again the trend of saying: PUAs are lame! Listen to us! Then put articles about how not to be a PUA and how the concept is ridiculous, then they put an article about false time constraints.
Anyhoo, I think that being more social can be done without seductions and the gimmicks.
Even if his goal is to have fun and be a better person; he succeeded through the community, so because of the community.
To him, seduce anyone, for fun, not aiming for sex. It’s just social play.
Even so, have you guys read psycho cybernetics? Changing your self image does wonders. And it’s a scientifically proven experiment. It’s cheap on Amazon. Or, there are other ways to get it cheaper…
Anyway. To him the community was a way to get out into the world. Ok. Me, it was psycho-cybernetics and NOT listening to the community.
I mean, every guy I see at school, they all have groups of friends. They all have contacts of some sort. I’m introverted and I tire easily, yet I have some acquaintances I chat with. I haven’t had a girl I regularly talked to in ages; just changing a little how I see myself, letting my personality out and stop fearing to be hurt, helped. Sure she’s always be just a friend. But it goes to show that you don’t need the community.
No need for techniques. I think this is a causality mistake.
Did the community make him so, or did going into the community made him do the necessary things unknowingly that made him so?
I think they are right in a sense: the community can wake up some individuals and teach them some basic skills. The problem is that it’s just a way amongst thousands of others: Psychiatric/psychologic help, workshops, self development books, etc… and that they over estimate it’s powers. Then, the issue is that they call those skills techniques, then see these techniques as superior tools.
Also, the odd circular argument:
Everybody uses techniques, albeit unknowingly.
Or we could also say: Techniques are derived from normal human behaviour you just don’t have, so you have to emulate it using techniques.
Because there are some dudes on ADS who still aim to be a PUA. That they come in here, just begin being more social, talk a little, and they say they feel like… knowing some secret, powerful driving force.
Tough luck.
It’s just normal human behaviour.
Sorry for the spam about Lex. Arguing on ADS with them made me ask myself some questions. They did had good points; the fact the community can serve as a kick in the ass. The problems come after. And other things can serve as a kick in the ass, too.
Ah, and I forgot.
He seems angry you deleted his posts.
He’s calling you guys not open to debate, afraid of debating, censoring anyone. Perhaps it is because he posts in french? He even took the time of google translating his stuff. Well, the dude has decent arguments I’d like you to address. They got me wondering too, and I think he deserves his chance.
I google translated it for you guys, because I lack time to do it by hand and correct the mistakes, but it’s understandable.
I pasted it here
http://pastebin.com/7Chv2sNV
in both english then french.
Thanks. If not for him, please do it for me. Sure, there’s no absolute in any debates, but still. These arguments are different than those in the other comments. Perhaps he adresses another optic, in which case, are we arguing about the same thing?
As you said, you don’t need the “community” for anything. The advice for most improving-your-life-with-women related aspects are very very basic.
If you feel you are an introvert and not social enough (I know because I have been there) – force yourself to go out a bit, try some hobbies, take some lessons, force yourself to do some improv or public speaking, take some classes where a large number of women turn up (dance classes, yoga), force yourself to go to activities where you are forced to speak up (acting, toastmasters, improv). Slowly you will start feeling comfortable in these environments, around people and with women in general. Over time, force yourself to just start simple conversations. Unlike what PUAs might tell you, Where are you from, what do you do, do you come here often etc – all this is fine. Slowly you will get comfortable talking to people.
@ Traceur
I explained why I deleted his post. Sorry, but I have enough experience with pua shills who keep repeating the same bullshit 1000 times ignoring everything we say on this website. Once I approve his comment, he will be able to post excessive comments here.
Tell him he can say whatever he wants as long as you post it – there is no censorship. You are a reasonable person, so problem solved.
Johnny’s reply is great. I will reply him myself next week when I manage to find some free time. From what I read so far, my reply could consist of asking him the simple question:
Do you believe PUA techniques work?
No – so we agree
Yes – prove it
To make it clear by “prove it” I mean using scientific methods, not by telling me stories about your own experience, “field testing” and other bullshit. Coz it is A FACT that we humans have very poor judging skills, so unless you track your approaches in excel, all your life experience means shit to me. Like all the life experience of people thinking they were abducted by aliens, attacked by vampires, people who saw their future in tarrot cards and other bullshit means also nothing to me.
One more think:
He says seduction to him is more like a way to be more social.
That’s lovely. It’s a pity that the definition of seduction he can find in any dictionary (with reference to sexual attraction of course – coz seduction has also other non-sexual meaning) is different. It’s like I say that “beating people to me is more like talking to them” LOL
To the ADS guys – firstly, thank you for bothering to reply. Second, google translate is clearly not a very good medium so of course things can get lost in translation. Lastly, since i am not able to read your website, I can’t understand exactly where you are coming from so I am just replying based on my impressions of what most PUAs/dating/seduction coaches are like AND your reply.
“to behave with people and you make yourself interesting, I do not see how it could reduce your chances of seducing someone. Or even not to increase. The question to ask is not so much whether the game is good or bad, useful or useless, but whether what you you want to do is compatible with it.”
Two issues here. First, there are few handful of things which give you most of the result. If you spend most of your time on these and very little on other stuff – great. If not, there is a problem. The second and a somewhat related point is the notion of a primary goal. If I go do a PhD at a good university, my primary focus is doing well in my research thesis. If the university tells me that you will be able to do all these other activities, make a lot of friends, travel the world on exchange programs etc. then my answer to that will be – that’s great but please tell me about the research. Same goes with seduction. I want to improve my love life with women. Everything else is secondary. Like a side dish but not the main course. So everything else is awesome, but if you can’t help me improve my life with women – help me get girlfriends, get me more women of the type I want, help me get over my sexual anxieties, help me get more sex – other things like becoming a more interesting person, becoming more funny etc. is not that important.
“We see what we believe (and not: We believe what we see). You, you think the attraction is not created because you think it is true, that’s it”.
Something which you should probably understand is that most of us (at least on seductionmyth) on this website are people who have been through this. We believed in all this voodoo, went out, approached lots and lots of women with every tool, technique imaginable. So I am definitely not someone who is all words and no action. So well, you won’t convince me of this voodoo stuff. I believe in focusing on reality. As an experiment, if you want to test this phenomenon out, try this – approach women who are significantly taller than you. Believe whatever you want, spend how much ever time and energy that you want, use whatever technique and tools that you want and let me know how it goes with them. Then repeat the same experiment with girls who are a few inches shorter than you. Lets see which has more real world impact – beliefs or having beliefs which actually mirror reality.
“I do not see the point of asking Lex to convince your sect seduction techniques if it is just to try to make you want and spread your poison on others who are the opposite of you.”
You are free to do what you want. Participate in the discussion or don’t if you don’t want to. It was an invitation to discuss your beliefs, techniques and participate in a discussion. If you don’t want to or don’t feel like it or whatever, you don’t have to. We all have our freedom. No one can force anyone to do anything.
“Seduction is not the art of success bedroom, it’s more than that. A shy able to talk to a woman and share a good time is a seducer. A man who managed to convince an audience of 500 people is seduction. A successful job interview is to seduction.”
I guess we are debating about different things then. We on this website are primarily focused on aspects to improve your life with women – feeling more comfortable around them, being able to express your personality, reducing your anxieties enough. If you are able to improve other aspects of your life in the process, great but the focus is on the primary goal. Also, we advocate a direct path to this without spending more time than really necessary because well, all of us jobs, social lives, hobbies and interests to attend to. This is just a portion of our lives and not our whole life.
“If you are a coward, you’re afraid of change, of losing friends: I will not recommend this route. But: if you wanna be happy, flourishing, and an Alpha, tell you they do not make an omelette without breaking eggs, and advance.”
See this is the other thing. I am not a fan of talking in a completely subjective language. This and a lot of other statements you made are at such a high level that they end up not meaning anything. Seen from a high enough level, even Mystery Method is gold. He can say, you will talk to a girl, both of you will start liking each other and then you will fall madly in love. If that is how we describe Mystery Method, then even that is perfectly legit.
In my experience, when people refuse to talk objectively and never want to get down to details, it usually points to people who don’t believe in themselves or what they are teaching – it is a huge red flag. And no, please do not give me the bullshit that you don’t understand beautiful things or art or anything similar. I am an accomplished dancer, painter and dabble in plenty of arts. Even some world renowned teachers I have learned from in different disciplines of art talk in details when communicating.
“The community has allowed me to succeed my degree, have a girlfriend, etc … Clearly, this is where I took confidence in me, that I began to think methodically and pragmatically. I completely let myself be carried away by my emotions, and this is also why they left me. I began to think long term. What to bring things to want a good life, rather than just fucked me this. Women, who were a priority for me, are becoming secondary, and it allowed me not only to no longer turn my world around my nana, boring thing that made me to die, but also to be able to concentrate in my studies.”
Good that you have started thinking long term. Good that you are focusing on what you really want in your life aside from just women. Good that you focused on your studies. Once again though, all this at best has very little to do with women. Sure if improving your life in general is what you want, yes, probably you should focus on that.
If improving your life with women is what you want, then it is a relatively straight forward process. Lets not make it more complicated that you really need to. You do not need to talk in all this poetic language to describe it, you do not need to go through a process where you experience epiphany after epiphany, you do not need to experience lots and lots of emotional ups and downs, you do not need to spend an enormous amount of time to improve this area of your life. It is fairly straight forward process where most of what you need can be described in less than 5 pages.
Thumbs up. Perfect.
If improving your life with women is what you want, then it is a relatively straight forward process. Lets not make it more complicated that you really need to.
Agree 100%. The thing is they NEED to make it more complicated than it is. Otherwise, they would have nothing to write about. Nothing to sell. Pseudo-intellectuals are everywhere around us – not only PUAs, but also some book authors, authors of many articles from women’s or men’s magazines.
“Sex sells” – it’s true. It sells even better when it is accompanied with super vague statements that appeal to everyone. In other words = bullshit sells
Here’s a link that deserves some attention:
http://www.venusianartscon.com/
It’s by some guy who got fleeced by Venusian Arts and wants to get back at them. He publishes emails, and describes their attempts at intimidating him. It’s quite fascinating.
I just discovered the seduction community five weeks ago when I found a copy of the Game in a used bookstore for three dollars. It looked interesting enough so I figured i’d give it a read. I thought it was a comedy–it was in the fiction section when I bought it. Then I found out it was real and couldn’t help but laugh even more. I couldn’t believe these people were serious, like they couldn’t find something better to do with your time. Anyways, I came to your site from a link from some Youtube video. I went through your site and agree with a lot of what you’re saying.
At least the gist. Attraction isn’t a choice, you’ll either be a woman’s type or you won’t, whatever causes that typing I don’t know. YOu have the facial matching, then you have genetic personality, there are a whole list around the science of attraction, there could be a lot. However, though, I get your site is to disprove seduction, so the science is to point out how little is in control, however, I don’t see it having any point outside of that.
The only things I disagree with on the site are your presumptions of Casanova–having read his entire journal all 3,500 plus pages in the original French I think he gives legitimate scenarios where he gets these women, and mind you, he mentions his constant pursuits. His patronage of the nobleman came when he washed the mercury ointment off that a doctor had put on a the nobleman who had suffered a stroke, than suggested a diet for which caused him to return to good health. A con man, not so much, more a man who simply had an understanding of other people. But that’s netiher here nor there. Claiming 133 women over a lifetime of traveling and attempting to have sex, is not a miraculous thing. There are sex addicts who are far uglier than the worst descriptions of Casanova who do that in a year.
The second thing I disagree with is the belief that physical appearance matters. It’s never been my experience. Aleknovoy says that your looks can often lead to women rejecting you harshly and Betamike often states that physical looks are the be all and end all. I’ve been with women in California, Florida, New York, England, France, Italy, Russia, Russia, and Russia (there is nothing like a Russian Beauty). I’ve approached them in streets, I’ve approached them in stores, I’ve approached them in clubs, I’ve approached them in campuses, in gathering , in rallies, and i’ve never gotten a sour response from a woman and got laid by a lot of them.
I was born in Russia, my mother died when I was young and my father took me to America. My father was a womanizer, he never missed an opportunity to drink or screw, he had a full faced beard, he had moppish brown hair, and spoke with the thickest accent you could ever believe, but at least three to four nights a week, I would go to sleep and wake up and there would be a different woman cooking me breakfast. When I became fourteen I weighed about 240 pounds and I was about 5’6, and it wasn’t muscle. I lost my virginity to a sixteen year old cheerleader and I took hers and she would go on to marry the Captian of the Football team in college. Throughout my four years in high school, I would sleep with 23 girls and take 8 virginities. In college I would weigh 270 or so pounds I think I hit 300 by the end, and I slept with 3 professors, my Russian Studies professor, my French professor, and my Philosophy Instructor, and too many women to count in college. I’m 30 now, i’m completely bald, and I weigh about 280 and I’m about 5’11, I have a huge beard, and a bigger stomach. I’m in a relationship with 3 women and I’ve slept with more than two dozen women since the beginning of the year. The three are all pretty beautiful, one a beauty pageant host and 5 time winner of beauty pageants throughout her teens. I’m not rich, I’m clearly not the most handsome man in the world, if physical attractiveness mattered, if “High Value” mattered, then I wouldn’t be getting laid as much as I do.
In my personal experience physical shape has never mattered and doesn’t continue to matter, whether for relationships or one-night-stands, or casual sex. Women like me because I make them feel understood and secure, as my father taught me. I think men are men, women are women, and everyone is looking to make a connection.
Thanks for the interesting comment.
“The only things I disagree with on the site are your presumptions of Casanova–having read his entire journal all 3,500 plus pages in the original French I think he gives legitimate scenarios where he gets these women, and mind you, he mentions his constant pursuits.”
Well, remember his journal is his version of the story. Historic facts tell us he promised his noble patrons unbelievable things in exchange for their favors, money, accommodation etc. There was a reason why he was frequently on the run, right?
“The second thing I disagree with is the belief that physical appearance matters. It’s never been my experience.”
Sorry, but you misunderstood Alek’s and my views in this matter. Studies mentioned in sections “Her Type” and “Genes and Personality Types” (also many quoted in the comments) prove looks have a massive impact on your mate choice. It is a scientifically established fact, even though some people may not notice it. Personal experience is meaningless. We humans have very poor judging skills.
Now, how women respond to your approaches is a completely different story. This is a very subjective matter.
“i’ve never gotten a sour response from a woman and got laid by a lot of them.”
Your observations somehow comply with section “Women Tend To Be Nice”.
“I’m not rich, I’m clearly not the most handsome man in the world, if physical attractiveness mattered, if “High Value” mattered, then I wouldn’t be getting laid as much as I do. “
As I emphasized numerous times assortative mating is about genetic compatibility manifested principally in “looks”, NOT beauty (in the sense of aesthetic appeal), quote from the main page:
“Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying average Joes cannot pick up hot babes. It happens sometimes.”
Hello!
I’ve been wondering… how do dating sites works with all this? I mean, clearly you have to write something nice to get a reply… is there a trick to it… or just write until someone likes what you write enough to meet you? Because there you don’t have the physical part to help you, aside from pictures.
Paradoxically the success of online dating websites shows how important looks are (not beauty – repeating this over and over for the new visitors who might be reading this:).
People say that most of what you say ain’t coming from your mouth. Body language communicates a lot more information than words. But in case of online dating there is no body language. So obviously your confidence does not play any role. Yes, the worshiped by playas confidence does not have any application in online dating. But somehow people meet and connect using those websites. And there is more and more of them.
So what is left? Vague words, pickup lines learned by heart, the usual “tell me about yourself” questions or cliche lines? Does anyone really believe this makes a difference? Of course apart from those more sophisticated websites such as Chemistry.com, that match partners according to algorithms based on assortative mating – read more in “Genes and Personality Types”. So apart from the bullshit you text, what is left? What REALLY makes the difference?? – the pictures! This corresponds to the experiment that is described in section “Her Type.” Dr Alvarez proved that volunteers were able to match photos of unknown persons in a way that they matched couples from real life, with far better probability than random guessing (!)
If a volunteer is able to do that, then the rational conclusion is people themselves also are able to pick their genetic matches after only seeing their photos (especially women, coz men focus on beauty…). This is what is happening in online dating world. This is the real attraction trigger – the pictures. Unless someone tells me that what really matters in online dating is the bullshit you text to some woman. In that case I see potential for a new retarded school of seduction. “Type this and that and any woman will be yours”, Shakespeare School of Seduction LOL
That’s not true at all. It’s scientifically proven that people with action pictures, pictures of them in exotic locales, doing exciting things (rock climbing, white river rafting, hiking, running in marathons), get far more results.
Displaying an exciting lifestyle through pictures is the key to online dating. It increases response 30%, so unless the random guys for which did this in studies were just automatically more shapely, creating an interesting, intriguing, and exciting life through gives people a better advantage over their looks.
@ John
yes I heard of similar studies, but I still don’t get what is not true in my post?
You sort of included the answer to your doubt in your post itself:
unless the random guys for which did this in studies were just automatically more shapely, creating an interesting, intriguing, and exciting life through gives people a better advantage over their looks.
I think it’s pretty obvious that people who live a more active life, are generally in better shape than those who sit all day on the couch. It’s not like an overweight keyboard jockey can upload pictures of him rock climbing (or rather posing in such sporty outfits;) and get better results than someone who is in shape, but posted a photo wearing a suit in the office LOL
Anyway, this is body shape. Facial features are A LOT more important. Otherwise muscular adventurous types could have like 99% matches in online dating.
Facial features ARE the most important attraction trigger, since they convey information about your genetic and hormonal type. I ve never said body shape has no relevance. Of course it does matter AS A SECONDARY FACTOR. It means that if you compare two guys of similar facial attractiveness and of the same genetic / hormonal type (again beauty is not the same as looks!) – the one with better body will be rated higher.
The same goes for hobbies, interests etc. These also fall into the category of secondary factors. You mentioned creating an interesting, intriguing, and exciting life. Yeah sure, it has some influence. But again genetic and hormonal compatibility is the crucial element. If not, why all the studies under tab “Reality Check” show what they show?
So when you said that creating an interesting live gives people a better advantage over their looks, you had in mind “beauty” NOT “looks.” That’s why I keep repeating over and over again the distinction between beauty and looks. For ex a girl who is into rock climbing will never ever choose another rock climbing passionate, if the guy is not “her type.” You think the people form the studies quoted in section “Her Type” had no interests, no hobbies? Sure they probably had, as most of us. But somehow they all picked their genetic types. This is also confirmed in section “Genes and Personality Types.” All Dr Fisher’s research is about hormonal matches that are far more important in mating than your current interests (although it is to some extent connected).
Moreover, I don’t know which particular studies are your referring to, but remember many of them are purely hypothetical. For instance: they show a group of women various photos of the same guy, and ask to rate them. The catch is that (considering the concept of assorative mating) chances are very low this particular volunteer is “their type.” At least it’s impossible that the guy is genetically compatible to ALL the female raters. So in most cases such studies are purely hypothetical. Coz in real life the women raters wouldn’t date this guy even if they met him on top of Mount Everest by accident. They are kinda forced by the scientist to make a choice. Imagine you like only strawberry ice cream, but in some test they ask you to choose between chocolate and vanilla. Than based on your choice someone claims most people prefer chocolate ice cream LOL
Good evening.
This post was very educational. It’s true, when you think about it, how much can you actually do with your writing? It’s still a number’s game depending on the person in front of you, about how they react to what you write- there can be guidelines, but even then… Even knowing that, in the end, the sexual attraction will depend on… genetics!
But, I digress.
How would one proceed more efficiently on dating sites? What kind of pictures would you need to take?
You know, I wouldn’t try to “trick” someone with your photos. You ‘ve probably seen those photos of chicks from dating websites in which they look superb. Pics that often turn out to be … a lie I must say. Women who shoot like a 100 photos. And than pick the one in which they look great – by accident. You know what I mean? for ex photos taken from a different angle to hide a big nose, stuff like that. Than they meet up with dudes met online. Guys who of course act like they are disappointed when they meet the “fake cute face” in person.
Don’t do anything like that. Pick a regular photo of yourself. Also I would suggest to pick a regular background. Smth that is not way different from who you are in real life. If you have a white collar job, you can upload a photo in a suit. If you are into extreme sports, it could be something in that style…
@John&Admin
It’s obvious you two are talking past each other, so let me help out here…
Admin is making the mistake of not recognizing that you’re new to this site, so he didn’t clarify something to you.
He is talking about ATTRACTION – the act of feeling physical want and lust toward another human being.
You John are giving examples of things that are involved in long-term interest.
OF COURSE PERSONALITY, WORDS AND ACTIONS matter when picking a boyfriend, girlfriend or friend. Make sense?
Almost all women on mainstream dating sites are there to find a future boyfriend/girlfriend… not casual sex.
They still look at your genes first though. And from the pool of men she’s physically attracted to, she then looks at their hobbies, writing, profile etc etc… Make sense?
If WHAT YOU WRITE IN YOUR PROFILE could be USED to create attraction (in the short-term) then someone could just write a computer program to split-test thousands of profiles until one has a 100% conversion rate lolololol. See how absurd the idea of profiles having to do with attraction are?
Yes, they matter in her CHOOSING to date A MAN out of the pool of men she IS already attracted to. Make sense John?
The first level of qualification/disqualification is your photo. From there on she looks at everything else to decide
-> how safe you are
-> how likely you are to be a good date
etc etc etc etc
Alek helped me out as always
Yep, I probably shouldn’t use the “types jargon” when discussing something with a new visitor. What Alek explained is exactly what I meant to say but with other words and other examples:
Yes, they [personality, words, actions] matter in her CHOOSING to date A MAN out of the pool of men she IS already attracted to. Make sense John?
This is like the essence of “secondary factors.” The said “pool of men” is strictly connected to genetic / hormonal compatibility that I always point at. To clarify the beauty vs looks distinction:
Handsomeness falls in the first category as a secondary factor. But “looks” (physical appearance) are one of various areas where your genetic and hormonal type is “displayed.” Others include your scent or tone of voice. For instance it is established that men with strong jaws were affected by more testosterone during prenatal life (hormonal factor) than the average. But it doesn’t have anything to do with beauty. There are good looking guys with prominent jaws, just as ugly guys with prominent jaws.
I’m having two issues right now.
The first one is with dating sites: sending a message, getting an answer is easy. I reply, then hear nothing. I reply with something normal, asking questions.
At some point, I cannot know what she want to hear: Therefore, I can only react to what she says. But I see to never reply correctly? But then again, is there a correct way to reply?
Can’t a normal way be fine?
______________
Like, she tells me how her friends aren’t very adventurous, that she is going on a short camping trip this weekend, that she lives near X place, that she wouln’t mind someone who would hop on a trip without second guessing and how (sport) is awesome but she is scared to get hurt.
So I reply (shortened version):
I’m doing good, thank you.
We are in the same situation, my friends aren’t very adventurous either, but I get them out of the hosue every now and then. You can see our trip to X place on my pics, we went there…
I totally understand the feeling of just packing up and going, to me it’s when it gets warmer, I got this urge of biking far away from home… I used to bike to X often when I lived at Y…
Your camping trip sounds fun, is it with a school group? I like (the place you’re going to) it’s one of my favorite spots for a short camping trip. Are you guys going to sleep in the wild, hunting your own food?
________________
But then nothing.
Nothing more. I got tons of examples. How can I improve?
Second issue is with meeting people IRL.
Number’s game is fine, I can deal with that. The issue is that where to go meet? At school (I’m in the “college” equivalent of Quebec, somewhat… we have various options.) wouldn’t it be harder since there are cliques, groups, and someone going in is sometimes awkward?
Also, reputation. At some point “it’s that annoying guy”.
So apart from school… where? Or is school good if done correctly?
Thank you, guys for your hard work.
@Traceur –
Regarding your experiences with online dating, this is pretty much a universal problem. There is nothing you can do about it as far I know.
My contact / to fuck ratio on plenty of fish was extremely low. Maybe 1% vs 5% from approaching chicks in the park. I also got lots of dropped conversations etc. And I’m a good looking athletic guy! Others have had similar experiences.
I think this is for two reasons:
1. It’s harder to be attracted to a two dimensional profile online than a three dimensional human being in real life.
2. Girls online get bombarded with so many messages that they get even more entitled than they normally are in our society.
By the way, when you finally meet a chick from online dating then there is a huge risk that she:
1. Outright deceived you and is 50lbs heavier in real life than in her pics.
2. Deceived you by taking a million pics and picking the best ones that doesn’t reflect how she actually looks in real life.
===
In the end, the process of writing to dozens of chicks just to get a date that will probably be disappointing is not fun. For me online dating is just not worth it. I prefer real life for three reasons:
1. You know what the girl looks like right away and you can “feel her vibe.”
2. You know where you stand pretty quickly.
3. Better odds than online dating.
BTW…
There is also a good chance that a chick you meet online is crazy. I am not kidding. I met a couple of girls that clearly had mental / behavioral issues.
@G,
Sorry to jump in here. My experience with online dating is the same. It is hard to figure out whether she is your match or not just by looking at her picture. Lot of time is wasted messaging back and forth. Most of the time girls do not reply because they feel more entitled. More messages you send more value she puts on herself. I have met few chicks from online who had faked their pictures or at least photoshopped the pic. One girl I had contacted clearly had done that. She looked beautiful in pic. We exchanged messages. I was excited but when we met I show that she was overweight. I didn’t feel attracted to her at all. Needless to say that after our meeting, I didn’t contact her again. Online dating is not worth the time and energy. It might have worked in few cases but clearly it was disappointing at least in my experience.
The harsh truth that people wish to ignore is this:
not everyone were meant to score hot babes any time they want.
If you are good looking and rich- you have a better shot at scoring hot babes- but even good looking rich guys don’t always score.
take Paul Janka for example:
He is good looking, intelligent, social and confident. And he said he has sex with 11% of the girls he gets numbers from! And he is an expert!
he also lives in a big city – NYC (that’s also an edge).
so if a good looking, intelligent, social confident guy has this success rates – what chances does the average guy have?
Not that much….
I mean, sure: an average guy can have some success anybody can have some success if you approach enough women and go on dates. But not everyone can lay top models at least not on regular basis…. The only ones who can are celebrities and they don’t need any game. They just show up and women are flaunting to them….
Agree with you Iceman – this is the harsh reality. But as you mentioned average guys sometimes (very rarely) do manage to pick up even a quite hot babe. The only rational explanation is the concept of assortative mating, to which this website is dedicated. Otherwise, those lucky “playas” could repeat that on a regular basis. Not to mention the Paul Jankas who also can’t pull that off as you noted…
One tiny correction to your post:
The only ones who can are celebrities and they don’t need any game.
No one needs game. Coz the truth is there is no game. “There is no spoon”
Mating is just a numbers game, nothin more. Hence millionaires have better chances. Their social circles enable them to meet more hot women than the average guy. It’s like you buy more lottery tickets.
*THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED – EXCESSIVE COMMENTS ON ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS WEBSITE*
Are you seriously suggesting you want a scientific study to prove to you that the choices you make socially make a difference to your overall attractiveness? Do you really think it doesn’t matter at all what you do with women… they’re just attracted or they are not? WTF? Even thousands of years past people knew that masculinity was attractive to women, and this is just a modern extension of that.
[and Jack continues with the good old ad hominem talk about my "typical beta guy behavior"]
No Jack !
I am seriously suggesting I want a scientific study proving that the guy using PUA techniques will have a better success rate THAN ANOTHER GUY OF SIMILAR LOOKS, SOCIAL SKILLS ETC. who does not use these lame techniques.
Will you gamers ever learn to read paying attention? Where on this website have I ever stated that “the choices you make socially make” have no impact on your overall attractiveness. Of course they do! I have never denied this.
The thing I keep denying is that PUA techniques will make any change to your overall attractiveness. So you have to compare SIMILAR groups of guys (the best would be including a control group to access the effect of placebo).
You PUA addicts simply start to hit on more women than ever before getting into this seduction delusion. No wonder you have the impression it worked. In reality what worked was simply the higher amount of women, you becoming more social. You opening new possibilities. BUT there is no manipulation or “seduction”going on! The women you picked up using PUAry were already into you. They would have been into you even if you approach ‘em saying “Hi what’s your name?” (read about assortative mating!) So your job is simply not to fuck it up. Your job is NOT to mind-fuck them, coz it’s impossible! It’s just like believing in black magic n stuff. All PUA delusion “works” like a placebo (“the Placebo Effect” section).
Admin – you commented below in regards to the PUA shill Jack Arthur’s post;
*THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED – EXCESSIVE COMMENTS ON ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS WEBSITE*
Thanks for the “noise reduction” – I think these shills just convince me even more that a guy’s looks are the most important factor that determine whether a woman will be sexually interested in him.
It is pathetic how the seduction community is sinking and becoming so mainstream yet there are still a few pro seduction community losers promoting their dogma.
Jack Arthur – you said;
“Even thousands of years past people knew that masculinity was attractive to women, and this is just a modern extension of that.”
I am confused – you seem to be a PUA shill for the seduction community, yet you are going against the seduction community by saying masculinity is important.
The seduction community advocates “Peacocking” and this is hardly masculine (actually, to me it seems like misandry).
Then there are guys like Neil Straus and David Deangelo – they are hardly masculine and come off as being effiminate.
Here is a youtube video of some guys learning seduction from a master PUA Vince and they hardly seem to be masculine;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-ECqsnzWA
I guess that is how the seduction community works – preach success with women and coach to failure.
Furthermore, any scientific study will tell you that “masculinity” is strictly connected with genes and hormones (principally testosterone). So when a pua points at masculinity theories to validate his claims, he in fact denies everything seduction is based on. Let me remind you Jack that seduction theories say only skills matter. This is smth you can learn, in contrast to hormone levels or genotypes that you are born with (read “Casanova’s Digit Ratio”, “Genes and Personality Types”, “Her Type”).
To avoid doubt: Mike used the term “masculinity” in the sense most people use it – with reference to clothes, lifestyle, overall image (btw I totally agree with Mike’s remark about peacocking). I used it in the anthropological sense, coz for instance a guy with a very masculine face and body could choose to wear effeminate clothes. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger peacocking LOL
I suppose you Jack used this word in the psychological sense. You probably had typically masculine behavior in mind. Sure you can change your behavior, BUT only to some extent. Character for instance is also connected to your prenatal hormone levels (“Genes and Personality Types”).
Again, “people knew that masculinity was attractive to women” is just a general statement. It doesn’t mean that if you copy such man like attitude you will get every girl LOL No study has ever proved that, precisely because other things you are born with are more relevant in the mating dance. I quote on this website a number of papers proving it. Also many comments include references to such studies
It’s just like if I told you that “people knew money was attractive to women“. Yes people knew that thousands years past. But again it’s just a general tendency it doesn’t mean that any time you compare a wealthy guy to any other guy, the rich one will always get the girl. It only means that if you compare two VERY similar in every aspect men, the female will most likely choose the rich one. Get it?
No study has ever confirmed that the girl will most likely choose the guy using pua techniques – when an “AFC” competes against a similar to him PUA. Therefore, money indeed is helpful, whereas PUAry is a myth.