henry i dont want to take the analogy too far, but instead of 2p2, consider a google search for poker. the commercialized hits for poker are about the same quality as the commercialized hits for PU.

Henry,

You pretty blatantly ignored most of what I said looking for small parts to disagree with. I explained explicitly I thought most of the free message boards were garbage, keep arguing against them if you like- no one is defending them. I will say one thing though:

"One that has been brought up as an example at least a half dozen times in this topic by different people. If it has come up here so many time how often do you think a girl has heard it? Using this basically is a give away that you are into PUA which automatically lowers your value."

I think your obsession with value is low value.

Enjoy being aloof.

It's extremely easy to come up with an idea that makes sense. And ultimately, many of those ideas are just false. Psychology as a field is largely a story of research destroying commonl held beliefs, showing that "common sense" errs, and establishing that our personal opinions and attitudes are a function of bias and not of reality.

And how many of those predicted reactions led to the woman in question fellating the "PUA?" 90%? 80%?

A common huckster trick is to take a known but unexplained phenomenon (ie "women react in x way to stimulus y") and come up with an imaginary explanation for it in order to appear insightful about human nature. Since there is no way to test the explanation, and yet the prediction seems effective, this creates a strong illusion of legitimacy. But in reality, it's backward - the scamster has taken an observed correlation and then constructed an explanation to "predict" it, not the other way around (which is how valid techniques work).

Most of the concrete stimulus-reaction patterns I've seen described in PUA material have been known for hundreds of years; this isn't valid prediction, it's just repackaging old knowledge and charging an arm and a leg for it

And do 95% of the women you approach go home with you? In fact, tell me exactly what proportion do go home with you, and we can compare whether it's higher or lower than the norm.

Look, if PUA really represented a comprehensive model of the human mind and of human behavior (or even just sexual behavior), you'd be able to achieve that kind of result. But we are only just beginning to understand human cognition and behavior; our best researchers are nowhere near the point of being able to engineer sexual encounters. Certainly a combination of intuition and social skill with knowledge of human psychology is helpful - but that's a reason to study psychology, not pickup.

These were not commercialized sites -- they were public forums. I was directed to one by someone on the pro side. If someone asked me about poker I'd send them to 2P2. The fact that a few weeks into this no one can direct me to anything better. If better existed I'd think someone would present it.

No. People present one thing and then when it gets torn down they agree that it is bad but not representative and they then present something else that is equally as bad. I took the time to read Juggler's How to Talk to Women on the Phone and I'm not impressed. It is the same combination of nothing mixed in with some bad advice.

Really? Women are naturally attracted to unreactive/aloof behavior, and it goes against your natural instincts to be unreactive/aloof? You're saying you evolved to be bad at getting laid?

Okay, what does "works" mean? How many hours, on average, does it take for you to go home with a woman? How many have you had sex with overall? How much time have you spent out there? If you approach 100 women, how many (on average) end up having sex with you?

If he could have pulled her without that knowledge, then the example suggests nothing about the knowledge and its validity.

Sure, and I'll take lessons on getting women from Scott Baio any day of the week.

I don't think you know what "scientific" means. Again, show me the numbers. The peer review process. Give me a breakdown of the methodology ("methodology" means a well-defined system of performing experiments and/or analyzing results and data, by the way). Give me a quick rundown of the major studies.

If they can prove it.

Oh, right. So mediums, psychics, homeopaths, multi-level marketers, and so on are are legit?

Okay, you just ruined your credibility. Most of the geniuses throughout history have been wrong about most of their ideas. But if your pal believes something, that means he's right? This is the least reliable source of information possible. It has been established for decades that anecdotal evidence is not valid. Scientists don't use it.

Let me know when Charlie Sheen starts taking Mystery's advice on picking up women.

Almost all poker books are ****. If you go into a large bookstore, you can find hundreds of poker books. Maybe 5 to 10 of them will be worthwhile. The rest will teach bad habits and misconceptions.

What does "do decent" mean? How often do you have sex with a new partner? How much time do you spend pursuing women? What proportion of women you approach do you go home with? Etc, etc, etc.

And of course, how did these numbers change after you studied PUA material?

Your personal experience has nothing to do with scientific validity. And no, in science mileage doesn't vary, results must be measurable and reproducible in order to be scientific. The claim that something is effective in improving performance with women is a testable, predictive claim. It can be verified. It's not about anyone's personal experience.

Funny, this isn't true for most successful people in most fields. In science there's plenty of free material - for example, there are numerous free physics courses online, lots of talks and lectures by top specialists in a variety of fields, and so on. Experts in legitimate fields usually want to spread their knowledge and understanding and give back to the community. Even businessmen often make quite a show of philanthropy. But scammers and marketers? Nah, not so much.

Yeah. And kitchen utensils, dietary supplements, porn movies... But not psychology textbooks. Last I checked.

If you're suggesting that it's more like poker than like psychology, then many of my objections go away (as long as you can admit PUA isn't science, we're getting somewhere). But there are still some incongruities. Legitimate goods usually do have some respected products that are universally recognized. Complete scam products such as homeopathic remedies, psychic services, and so on are another story.

Anyhow, most people who study poker remain losing players.

Red Queen and Sperm Wars just aren't that applicable.

Sure, this I agree with. The question is whether PUA is any help at all, and if so, whether it's the kind of help people need.

Well, that's not such a bad one. I think a general comfort with silence and an understanding that silence can be used (and that there is no requirement to always be talking) is an important part of social interaction in general.

Okay, and what makes this PUA instead of just general advice for guys? How does it reflect the general value of PUA?

Are you denying that Mystery and Style have had a large impact on what the PUA scene is all about? I mean, maybe you like Juggler and maybe he really is a decent guy, but it doesn't seem like he's representative of the PUA crowd.

Again, none of this sounds like the PUA that I know. But some insightful advice doesn't make a coherent body of knowledge or technique, which is what many in this thread are claiming PUA is. Do you deny the claim?

As far as I can see, no results are documented. If you're a psych major, you should understand how important it is to get some real controls in place. The number of biases potentially involved with self-reports of the effectiveness of these kinds of techniques is just staggering.

And no, the 3rd law of thermodynamics doesn't say the simplest explanation is always best. Occam's Razor suggests that, given two models that make exactly the same predictions, the model with fewer extraneous elements is more useful. That's often misinterpreted as "the simplest explanation is best." But in many cases (especially in psychology), that just isn't so. And I don't view PUA as especially "simple" anyhow.

Also, post-hoc explanations are basically always unreliable. Anecdotal evidence is just plain always unreliable. Even a detailed case study can never lead to conclusive results.

Using your reasoning, we would still be working with the four humours. Seriously, people were absolutely convinced that bloodletting worked. It wasn't until we actually started measuring outcomes and applying controls that we discovered it actually did harm. The patients were certain that it helped them, when in fact it was killing them. This is the power that treatments have on human beings, and psychological treatments are especially susceptible to these effects (the placebo effect can have a massive impact in many cases, and cognitive bias routinely results in subjects having misconceptions or even false memories).

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.

"Funny" is relative. For any joke you can give me, I can find you a whole subculture of women who hate it. Some highly general social skills are applicable across a range of situations, but the differences are huge. You aren't going to find a technique that is successful in a trendy hot spot, a leather bar, a goth club, a library, a church, a hip cafe, a political rally, a fitness center, an AA meeting, and an inner-city street. I'm sorry, but if you think there is a single technique that works in all of those venues, then you're kidding yourself.

Also I mentioned the differing objectives. If I'm looking for a one night stand, then my first priority is to find women who are open to one night stands. That's really all I need, if I can find women in a general setting who want to have anonymous sex, then I'm set.

And if I'm looking to have fun with an extremely attractive woman, it's a whole different ballgame. Now I need to understand how to establish rapport without being too forward too fast, I need to handle approaching women who get approached very often, etc.

I mean, the woman looking for a one night stand who is shy and would be considered a 4 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of attractiveness is going to respond very differently than a woman who is a 9 and is outgoing and looking for a relationship. Are you really suggesting that the same techniques should be applied in both situations?

M,

Not sure if I was arguing with you in my original post other than the point that it was more likely to be something else that is causing success. To be clear- I definately don't think "pick up" is a science. I don't think their is a formula that can be applied to work in all situations etc. Lets take the opening for example, you want to talk to a pretty girl at the bar, you have options

1. Mystery method- use an indirect opinion opener to conceal interest, use a false time constraint and rocking body language to make her think you could leave at any time and therefore have value- transition from canned opener to canned material tangentially linked to opener.

2. Ross jeffries speed seduction- basically hypnotize her somehow using patterns and get her to link memories of attractive situations to you

3. David deangelo- be cocky and funny, bust her balls, get her laughing

Those are different, but all relatively unidimensional. Jugglers point is to respond how you want to respond- he just tries to teach you the most effective way to do it. So lets say you say "who lies more men or women" and super savy girl has read the game and goes "oh my god, you are a pick up artist", now what do you do? how you react should be based on your personality and who you are, its not an act. If you are shy you may say "I know, you are totally right- i bought that book because I am shy and my friends said it would help me, but I will ignore it from now on because my friend Henry says it doesn't work on smart girls and you are clearly one of those." Now is it possible that this girl will TOTALLY blow you out and be mean? Yes it is, entirely. But think about it- do you want to be in a relationship with the kind of woman who would do something like that? I know I wouldn't. I want to date a girl who if she caught a shy guy trying to hit on her using a canned line and he owned up to it would be nice to him and not reinforce everything in the world that has beat him down into his current neurotic shyness by being mean. Now, is that post hoc rationalization for why the girl who was mean to me isn't my girlfriend now? I guess that is entirely possible, but I don't think its probable.

I do think, however, that when someone spends a lot of time studying it, and using the techniques, and the women they use the techniques on react better to them than women did before, that it is a stretch to say "gotta be something else".


"In science there's plenty of free material - for example, there are numerous free physics courses online, lots of talks and lectures by top specialists in a variety of fields, and so on."

I think this is false. There is free science knowledge out there, I don't think its the majority. And most scientists who give things away do so because they have a university job and are getting paid anyway. You pay to go to college, most books cost money. Yes some people give some things away, there is free stuff on the juggler cite. His post archive is hundreds of pages, everything in his ebook is in there. The ebook is basically the mac version of his post archives- its easier to use. He is also trying to make a living.

"But not psychology textbooks. Last I checked."

Psychoanalysis. Numerous others (rebirthing jumps to mind, hypnotherapy another as far as specific techniques) Not even saying i think these are all scams all the time, but many people do. Seriously I get your point, but you could not pick a worse example than psychology- which is still not considered a science by some, and until relatively recently was not considered a science by most.

I don't want to come off as some anti-science STS wacko, I am a firm believer in science. However, not all of my life decisions can be governed scientifically due to time constraints. I could set up experiments to figure out Gears of War tactics, but I don't. I just try my best to use pattern recognition to improve my play. So while in an ideal world we would get all these people who sell pua and run clinical trials, that will never happen. So I use what makes sense to me, and what seems to work. If rigid, formal scientific method is what you need to make a determination of "worth" than PUA fails.

"Okay, and what makes this PUA instead of just general advice for guy"

Most of the time people outside of it characterize it as PUA, not the sellers (though some do). Style calls it the male self improvement movement for example. I think in this thread we are just referring to any "product" packaged as a way to improve your ability to "get" women as PUA. I may be wrong.

I think that when you buy like the juggler e-book you are paying for
-the persons time who compiled all this insight
-them putting it in an easily digestible format
-a heuristic- a faster way to learn

"Are you denying that Mystery and Style have had a large impact on what the PUA scene is all about? I mean, maybe you like Juggler and maybe he really is a decent guy, but it doesn't seem like he's representative of the PUA crowd."

This is true, they have the most attention, and I cannot deny that they have made an impact. If we are trying to honestly assess is there some value, I think it is bad to use them as the litmus test just because they are the loudest. Also, if you read the game- style says he learns the most from juggler.

It's also a question of comparison and goals. If your goal is just to get laid, and you are a shut in, obviously following mystery method works better than what you are doing. I think it is beyond the scope of this thread to get into all the potential hypotheticals of who could need help and why and for what etc. I like juggler because i think for kind of the average american male who either would like to get women of a higher quality (determined by him) or would just like to be more social, i think it is most useful in terms of quality of material, ease of use, and general applicability.

"Again, none of this sounds like the PUA that I know. But some insightful advice doesn't make a coherent body of knowledge or technique, which is what many in this thread are claiming PUA is. Do you deny the claim?"

I do not think there is a monolithic PUA body of literature. I think a better example than poker might be MMA. There are many different styles, some fighters are unidimensional, some blend styles. Back in the day, many people had different schools they tried to brand like speed seduction, juggler method, real social dynamics etc. Much like at UFC 1 when people rolled in Boxer vs grappling. The better "pua" teachers changed and picked the best parts from various "styles".

I certainly understand the visceral "this is stupid" reaction from people who watch an ep. of the pickup artist. I have that same reaction when I watch it. I think it would be a shame though if someone who saw an avant garde d-bag masterbate into a piggy bank then went on to dismiss all art (not saying pick up is an "art" , just an analogy).

"As far as I can see, no results are documented. If you're a psych major, you should understand how important it is to get some real controls in place. The number of biases potentially involved with self-reports of the effectiveness of these kinds of techniques is just staggering..... Misconceptions".

I totally agree- if the question in the OP was "is their scientific proof PUA gets you layed/a wife" etc. I would have to say no. Anecdotal evidence is stupid as well- i agree. One thing that messes up any discussion of "pua" is that people mix in their badass internet persona and their is no real honest recounting of events. That does not mean it has to be that way, always was that way, or always has to be that way. There are a lot of pua formus that are private to avoid these kind of d-bags. They are better than like seduction 101, but they are far from perfect. And yes- the thermodynamics comment was a joke. There are a lot of people who know a lot of different pu biz and think it doesnt work, in this thread however most of the detractors are not very knowledgeable. When people have such firm convictions that they vehemently push on others I get suspicious.

I got into pua basically like this
Friend: i got this book on how to pick up girls
me: ahahahah ***
friend: no i think it will work
me: god you're an idiot
friend: well the thing is, i noticed the guy in the book says you should do XYZ, and these are things I've seen you do
me: .... go on

So i wasn't so much wow'ed by testimonials as i was intrigued. I read some stuff, thought it made sense. Read some more , tried it out, liked some of it, didn't like some of it. I think if you view PUA as a some kind of magic bullet (the blender not the metaphor) that you just buy and suddenly you have awesome frozen party drinks all the time that is clearly dumb. You aren't buying a magic trick, you are buying a guide on how to improve yourself by working hard.

One thing I do find funny that is kind of related, is almost every PUA thing has a section that is like "you won't change overnight, you need to work step by step" etc etc. And every guy i know gets the book, reads it and goes "ok see ya, i'm going to the bar to get laid" and totally ignores the part on how to learn. So I do think one thing that separates good pua from bad pua is how easy it is to learn and that is based on how good the teacher is. Even in mystery you can see at first he was just like"say this and this", now he at least tries to be like"say this, and that works because of XYZ", though xyz often does not make sense.

M,

I am puzzled by this "I mean, the woman looking for a one night stand who is shy and would be considered a 4 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of attractiveness is going to respond very differently than a woman who is a 9 and is outgoing and looking for a relationship. Are you really suggesting that the same techniques should be applied in both situations?"

In my original post I said I learned to change material based off audience, isn't this exactly what you are saying? I don't think i ever said anything that could be construed as "this one thing works in every circumstance".

Okay, well, that doesn't sound too bad. Maybe I'll look into Juggler. I know one of my major problems is with the "this is how you do it" approach, as opposed to the "how you do it depends on you and your situation, but here are some tools to help you develop yourself." If Juggler is more of the latter and less of the former, hopefully I won't have a problem with him.

I also agree about the last point. From what I've seen, much of the PUA seems like the dieting industry - nobody emphasizes the boring old hard work part, and everyone seems to promise the quick fix. Of course they always include in the fine print that the program is only guaranteed to work when combined with regular exercise.

I often roll my eyes at "dieting," but I think a focus on good nutrition is important. Maybe it's the same with pickup; the people who draw the most attention to it are often those who putting in the least effort.

I used to study alot of this stuff from I was 16 til 18. When my confidence was at the top and I felt comfortable interacting with hot women I just stopped using the stuff cause it's so unnatural and false. Now I just enjoy conversing with the girl, and if she interests me I have enough wits to be able to get her myself instead of running some awkward routines and setups.

What is the angle you are playing here pity? Trying to get girls to have sex with you because they feel sorry for you is not very effective. You open with canned material material -- get busted on it -- so the reaction is to go for pity and a complement that has no credibility.


You got busted as someone who studies PUA material which is generally viewed by a lot of women as being both manipulative and misogynistic -- why would you expect her to take any pity on you after she thinks you tried to play her?

A lot of girls would dismiss you automatically as that interaction comes off as pretty pathetic. The girls who would be somewhat sympathetic to a guy being socially awkward you manage to piss off. In the end you play is still one of pity which might lead to a few minutes of conversation but that is it. You don't get sex or GFs by making girls feel sorry for you.

Henry,

The "move" is honesty. Not every time you reveal a weakness to a woman is it you going for pity. You know a lot less about women, and people in general, than you think.