= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA
Overview: This is a proposal for a LessWrong Pick Up Artist (PUA)-like sub-community; PUA without the PU (get it?)1. Members would focus on the deliberate practice of social artistry, but with non-mating goals. Origins and intent of the goal are discussed, possible topics for learning are listed, and suggestions for next steps are solicited.
Origins:
The PUA Community began decades ago with men that wanted to learn how to get better at seducing women. As I understand it, they simply began posting their (initially) awkward attempts at love online. Over the years, they appear to have amassed a fairly impressive set of practical knowledge and skills in this domain.
I admire and applaud this effort. However, my ability to meet women is not currently a limiting factor in my life satisfaction. In reading some of the PUA literature, I was struck how often different authors remarked on the unintended side benefits of their training: better relationships at work, better interviewing skills, more effective negotiations, more non-pickup social fun, better male friendships, more confidence, etc. These guys were able to make major strides in areas that I've struggled to improve at all in... without even bloody intending to! This struck me as an something worth taking very seriously!
I find it alarming that such a valuable resource would be monopolized in pursuit of orgasm; it's rather as if a planet were to burn up its hydrocarbons instead of using them to make useful polymers. PUA ought to be a special case of a more general skill set, and it's being wasted. I say that my goals are noble, and as such I should have the opportunity to sharpen my skills to at least the keenness of a PUA master!
Statement of Purpose:
The purpose of this post is to open discussion on how to construct a community of developing social artisans, modeled after the useful components2 of the PUA community. If there is sufficient mass, the next goals are probably sussing out learning methods and logistics.
The mission of the hypothetical community will probably need to be fleshed out more explicitly (and I don't want to be too prescriptive), but pretty much what I was thinking was expressed well by Scott Adams:
...I think technical people, and engineers in particular, will always have good job prospects. But what if you don't have the aptitude or personality to follow a technical path? How do you prepare for the future?
I'd like to see a college major focusing on the various skills of human persuasion. That's the sort of skillset that the marketplace will always value and the Internet is unlikely to replace. The persuasion coursework might include...
- Sales methods
- Psychology of persuasion
- Human Interface design
- How to organize information for influence
- Propaganda
- Hypnosis
- Cults
- Art (specifically design)
- Debate
- Public speaking
- Appearance (hair, makeup, clothes)
- Negotiations
- Managing difficult personalities
- Management theory
- Voice coaching
- Networking
- How to entertain
- Golf and tennis
- Conversation
You can imagine a few more classes that would be relevant. The idea is to create people who can enter any room and make it their bitch. [emphasis added]
Colleges are unlikely to offer this sort of major because society is afraid and appalled by anything that can be labeled "manipulation," which isn't even a real thing.
Manipulation isn't real because almost every human social or business activity has as its major or minor objective the influence of others. You can tell yourself that you dress the way you do because it makes you happy, but the real purpose of managing your appearance is to influence how others view you.
Humans actively sell themselves every minute they are interacting with anyone else. Selling yourself, which sounds almost noble, is little more than manipulating other people to do what is good for you but might not be so good for others. All I'm suggesting is that people could learn to be more effective at the things they are already trying to do all day long.
Word! [EDIT: We need not be bound by this exact list. For instance, there is no way I'm going to be doing any golfing.]
I've met people who were shockingly, seemingly preternaturally adept in social settings. Of course this is not magic. Like anything else, it can be reduced to a set of constituent steps and learned. We just need to figure out how.
Next steps:
I have a rather long list of ideas ready to go, but they made this post kind of awkward. Plus, Scott Adam's post says much of what I was trying to get at. Let's just start the conversation.
So, what do you think?
1 I have nothing whatsoever against the majority of the PUAers with whom I've had encounters, and the title is just meant to be funny. No offense!
2 The mention of PUA drags along several associations that I want to disavow (think anything obviously "Dark Arts"). I considered omitting the fact that much of the intellectual heritage of this idea is the PUAers to avoid these associations, but I couldn't think of another way to tie it together. This idea owes its genesis to the PUA community, but the product is not intended to be its exact replica. Undesirable elements need not be ported from the old system to the new.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (616)
As you mention in your second footnote, the idea of a 'pickup artist' carries unfortunate connotations. I'd suggest you change your headline to something that you won't have to explain "it's not really what you thought when you first heard it".
Perhaps "Optimizing interaction techniques for social enjoyment"? This has the benefit that while the pickup artist is perceived as interested in social engagement as a means to orgasm, practitioners of the techniques you discuss would be perceived as interested in social engagement as an end in itself.
"Leadership skills"?
That's even more concise, but I think a bit too narrow.
I still think the title expresses my intent pretty well. I don't think it would have been easy to get my idea across without mentioning pick-up, but you're right it's going to get tedious explaining that I'm not a con artist wannabe. I originally had something like the second footnote at the very beginning, but it didn't read well.
I like your suggestion though, it's appropriately LessWrongian!
How to Win Friends and Influence People..?
I'd be in.
You can dismiss the shitstorm associated with the phrase PUA by just calling it social skills or charisma.
Some thoughts and anticipated difficulties:
Should this be a forum, a blog, or a LW-style "community blog"? I think the LW structure might actually be optimal: there are top-level articles (which would contain advice) and long threaded discussions (which would contain personal experiences.)
What do you do about different levels? Some people need what I'd think of as "basic" advice (wear a clean suit to a job interview) and some people want something "advanced" (how can I make people think my ideas are awesome?)
A major challenge, I think, is when you can't tell how you appear to others, or when you get too caught up in the moment to remember to make a good impression. Most social-skills advice is along the lines of "remember to do X, Y, and Z" -- but how do you remember to remember? Someone who has cognitive insights could be very helpful here.
Scott Adams' list is very corporate-focused. We might need to poll people to see how many of us actually need golf, tennis, and management techniques.
Scott Aaronson once began a series of posts called "Geek Self-Help," though unfortunately he never followed up. The idea is that intelligent people have a strong tendency to discount motivational platitudes and self-help books, because those sound (and often are) stupid. But there is such a thing as healthy thinking -- the opposite of self-destructive thinking. It's just that you have to communicate it in a way that sounds insightful instead of lame. If anyone has insights of this kind, this would be a good place to share them.
I could, but every time I've tried to describe this without mentioning PUA people tell me to go to Toastmaster's or take a leadership class. It's the community + field-tests + feedback + iteration that I want. Shitstorm notwithstanding, I think this gets my intention across best. If the PUA part becomes too much of a distraction I might re-label it.
I have my own list topics/problems/thoughts that I cut from this just before posting. I'll bring these up if no one else does.
Joining the toastmasters is actually a good idea for some of the items on your list. I did so in 2006, and it helped. But of course it is not a concept for all of it.
What do you think of the content on LW so far? There are great posts about Akrasia and Luminosity and other items.
If you have, i would like to see your recommended reading list.
I'm still on the fence about Toastmasters, I've heard mixed things.
There's a chapter at my work holding an open house this week, I may go and give them a second chance.
I have some books in mind, but I don't think this is the type of thing where any major gains will come from reading. Many of the authors I like (Cialdini, Carnegie) have already come up in this thread.
Groups differ alot! If you live in a big US city, you have many to choose from. If you decide it is not useful, I would like to understand why. It is - as was noted earlier - extensive practice.
It's practice, but it's non-field practice of a subset of the skills I'm interested in. It might have potential as one among several methods, but I don't think it's sufficient for what I'm after.
Inter-group variability in quality is a good point, I should be more careful to qualify my experience as particular to a single group and not Toastmasters in general.
As a side note it might be interesting to note when a group has important study points that you have already ingrained. TM is a point where some people learn to hold and structure meetings, which might or might not be something one already can do.
For the training of abilities I do not think that field experience is the only thing that counts. I would suggest to develop an accurate model of how to learn behavioral changes effectively, because so far there are way to many contradicting ideas.
For reference: http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=33
Actually, the proportion of "actually stupid" to "just sounds stupid" is very, very low. The problem is that what you might call "action skills" and "satisfaction skills" do not operate using the same parts of the brain that "intelligent" (i.e. analytical) people are accustomed to using.
So, if you evaluate a statement using the machinery you're most accustomed to thinking with, the sayings sound stupid, even when they're not also phrased in new-agey or pseudoscientific ways.
I've found that most of my advances in personal development came after I realized that my intellectual bullshit-detectors were filtering out everything that was useful in the self-help field, simply because it wasn't true.
IOW, if you ignore the truthiness of a piece of advice, and simply attempt to adopt the state of mind and mental/physical behaviors given, you will very often find that the stupidest, most nonsensical theories are shielding you from some incredibly useful practical advice.
...which means what someone really needs to write is something that presents all the true/useful parts without a bullshit theory behind them? Even if that means just saying "I have no idea why this works but it does"?
FWIW, PJ Eby has attempted to do this, somewhat:
http://dirtsimple.org/
http://naturallysuccessful.com/
http://themindhackersguild.com/
I was once told "Believe in yourself" -- yes, in those words -- by a person I respect.
Knowing him, I know he must mean something genuine by it: there's some kind of behavior that he figured out how to do that he thinks would help me. But how the hell do you "believe in yourself"? That phrase is opaque to me.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. It's not that I'm a condescending asshole who always thinks advice-givers are stupid. In fact, I know this particular guy is very bright. It's just that you'd need to phrase it some other way before I'd understand "Oh! That's what he means! I'll just do that now!"
I take it to mean something like "The time for a lucid appraisal of your own abilities is prior to action, not in the middle of it. Once you find yourself engaged in real-time application of some skill or other, act as if your mastery of that skill isn't at issue at all, rather than let yourself be distracted by assessments of the likelihood of failure, because they are likely to be self-fulfilling prophecies."
You can see why people prefer the short version.
Yes -- I agree strongly with this analysis.
Loehr talks about Real Self and Performer Self, that the goal in performance state is high positive energy, whereas in recovery mode one should, for example, acknowledge hunger and eat, acknowledge thirst and sleep, acknowledge exhaustion and nap....
I like this. It's true that performing (not just socially; also music or sports) usually involves an unsustainable level of effort - reserves are tapped.
Also,
:)
Morendil's given one meaning that's useful; another one is, "assume that you'll be able to handle the (likely) worst-case results of your actions, so that your decision making isn't paralyzed by implicit fears."
Btw, I used to think that doing these sorts of translations were all that was needed for self-help to be usable by geeks, but that's not actually the case: being able to understand a piece of advice (like this one or Morendil's variant) is not at all the same as being able to implement it.
In practical terms, the advice I've just given usually requires one to let go of many existing beliefs or fears, while the one Morendil gave is a skill that requires practice, and may also require letting go of the same beliefs or fears. In neither case is the mere understanding remotely sufficient to accomplish anything except a feeling of having insight. ;-)
(Btw, in general, when self-help advice says to "believe" in something, it actually means refraining from disbelief, i.e., you do not have to convince yourself of something that isn't true, but merely refrain from questioning it, just like one doesn't question the premise of a movie while enjoying it. Or, another way of looking at it, is that "belief" consists of thinking and acting "as if" that thing were true, i.e, "What would I anticipate and/or do, if I assumed that this were true?" Most other meanings of "believe" are irrelevant to implementing the advice.)
There's a book, "59 Seconds" by psychologist Richard Wiseman, which examines a lot of common self-help claims by looking at actual studies. He shows how many are wrong or are actively harmful. However, the book also has quick tidbits of actually productive things one can do that are comparatively minor. People interested in these issues should read the book.
I'll see if I can get a copy...
In regards to 1, while I think a sub-lesswrong would work alright, I do think you'd either want separate karma scores for the sites, or to have a separate site based on the same architecture. I don't think it's too controversial to suggest that people can do well on less wrong without having great social skills, likewise the advice of people who are accomplished socially might not carry over into great less wrong advice.
A quick point on 3, it seems like a general rule of learning can handle this fairly well. More specifically the idea of using your conscious mind to direct your attention to conscious practice of one thing at a time. It would be much more trying to remember 3 things to do than one. If a person can remember just one, then they can practice that item deliberately until it becomes more unconscious. There's always room to improve, but at some point it becomes more natural to do X than to not do X, and that leaves you free to focus on incorporating Y. Advice to "remember to do X, Y, and Z" might be better interpreted as "ultimately you'll want to be doing X, Y, and Z."
Not to say it's not difficult to remember to practice things once I actually get into social skills. I usually forget to practice anything at all, but when I do remember to practice I usually learn something (I should consider making at a habit to ask myself if there's anything I want to practice as I go into a social situation). Practicing with assistance is great as people can point things out and be sure to remind you, but "going solo" can also be very productive.
I'd be in.
Among other things, I'm interested in how social skills can be used to get people to genuinely consider new ideas.
I would argue that much of the time it's actually impossible to get people to consider your ideas without some social slickness. Not here, of course.
I have some preliminary thoughts on that subject here. I discovered Cialdini through pickup.
Why not just call it Personal Development? There is a lot one can learn. The skillsets you describe are widely known, an much material has been written on them. You just need to filter out the good. Reading recommendation: Richard Wiseman 0:59.
Does Personal Development work? To a degree that people who haven't taken it up find astonishing? Does it do this repeatedly in a diverse group of people?
No. That is the point. I am aware that there's lots of information out there, but it doesn't seem to work consistently. I want an effective deliver mechanism, so I'm trying to copy something similar that seems to work.
PS - 59 Seconds looks neat, thanks!
You make a mistake in putting to much meaning in a label. PD and PUA are great for a few people, decent for many and flat out not effective many many more. But that is not a problem with the concepts. Both are containers for ideas that are sometimes contradictory, sometimes BS, and sometimes amazing tid bits. Maybe make up your own term before you go with 'PU without chicks'. The label is not really that important, if you know what content you want! One starting point mentioned a few times was Dale Carnegies: how to make friends and influence people. Some of the more sciency books have also been mentioned. I am really curious with what you come up with, but please let us work on content, and not on labels or comparisons to other clusters.
To bad that 'personal development for smart people' is already taken.
Actually, I don't think it's just arguing about labels (although I agree that that's pointless, and I also agree with everything else you wrote).
I want to steal the PUA model, so I don't think I can avoid mentioning it here. I could be wrong though, and either way it might be better to coin a new name eventually. If the discussion turns out to be all about labels I might just suck it up and take all mention of PUA out.
What /is/ the PUA model you refer too? I am not sure if you use that term for the magic ingredient that PUAs seem to have to get successes or if you have a complete model of some method that only PUAs devised and no-one else has copied yet.
In either cases I have some bad news.
But now I sound all critiqy in my comments, instead I should just lean back and check back in a while what develops. I like the general idea. Everything with practical application sounds and a chance to improve ones live sounds good to me.
The distinctive thing about the PUA approach is the amount of experimentation.
You've got my support.
Sorry to continue the unfortunate trend of the comments so far to focus on labeling, but I just thought I'd throw this out there: You want to capture the framework and emphasis on testable results from PUA, but lose the sex and focus on social adeptness. Many aspects of which we refer to as "clicking" with people.
I hesitate to suggest this, since if someone else did I dunno if I'd laugh or cover my face in shame, but what about "Click Up Artist"?
That's almost too good to pass up!
I've studied pickup for many years, and I can confirm that in areas of life aside from mating. I have skills in about half the items in Scott Adams' list that I wouldn't have if I hadn't studied pickup.
Many PUAs are already applying the pickup framework to be successful in other areas of their life; as you observe, PUAs talk about this all the time. Yet while I think it's useful to take the mating component out of pickup, the mating component may actually a big part of how PUAs develop skills in non-mating areas.
If you are a beginning PUA, then you have a lot of areas that you need improvement in. You will probably need to work on your voice, fix your body language, get over shyness, become a lot more confident, and improve your fashion sense. Most normal self-improvement focuses on any one of those areas as its entire goal.
It may be that a big part of what makes pickup work for self development is that you are focusing on improvement in so many areas at the same time that tie together and mutually reinforce each other, and you do it all in service of a greater superordinate goal of mating.
Many people struggle with a goal like getting over shyness or insecurity on its own. But when you have an even bigger superordinate goal that depends on those goals, they seem comparatively less hairy, and you can't afford to fail at them.
I'm not sure whether having mating as a superordinate goal is special, or whether any other big superordinate goal will do.
I really like the idea of your project, but I'd like you to talk a bit more about the ideas in the seduction community that you think will be most relevant (I have some ideas, which I will share at some point).
I'm not sold on the idea of explicitly associating what you are doing with pickup, and least not in the title. Actually, I'm not sold on calling pickup itself "pickup." I see contemporary pickup as merely the systemization and extrapolation of what socially and sexually successful men are already doing.
Right on. To summarize: PUAs succeed because they have something to protect (or rather conquer). The same reason Eliezer succeeded in inventing something new in the Sequences - he had a big external goal (AI) that was more important than intellectual pleasure. (Incidentally, the same goal motivated many people to create many wonderful things, e.g. Lisp.) Here's a quote from his post that could just as well have come from a creepy lonely man setting out to invent PUA:
hmmm... so do you think we would need a common big external goal? Could it work if people just import whatever goals they're working with anyway, and see this as purely instrumental training?
Goal setting/discovery seems like it could even be a possible topic/subtopic of study. I don't imagine we could find a single unifying goal like the PUAs have.
For example mine's easy: I work in a bureaucracy, and I work on stuff I think is important to do right. Being in a position to ensure things get done right takes more social smarts than I currently have. Ergo, I need to get better at this shit, which does not at all come naturally to me.
I imagine most people have something like this, but they might be too idiosyncratic to focus the necessary collective efforts. Something like Existential (or at least Big- Ass) Risk Mitigation maybe?
Well said!
I like how you phrase the "superordinate goals" bit. It captures two potential problems that I had considered:
PUA's have outcomes ("closes"), which makes it possible to do tests and measure success. What are our outcomes?
Motivational power of sex might be necessary and irreplaceable.
I'm still not sure if these are surmountable, but I think it's worth trying.
I'll share my thoughts soon, but someone like you probably has more insight. I have far from comprehensive knowledge of the seduction community's efforts.
Looking forward to hearing more, I'm really encouraged by the quality of the comments so far!
Maybe consider an another term, PUA as a term can drag many shitstorms and divide community even if you are trying to avoid dark arts.
The whole "happiness limited by shyness/social awkwardness which results in no dates" stereotype does not apply to many people here.
e.g. I consider job interviews much more terrifying than finding new people (which seems mostly limited by the amount of free time).
How's that?
Because some people are in happy long term relationships, where picking new people up or dating new people are not very important.
There was a poll a while back, I seem to recall that most LWers were single males in their twenties.
There may have been a demographic shift since.
I think Violet meant "there are many people to whom it doesn't apply', not "there are not many people to whom it applies".
I was having trouble figuring out which of those two parsings was the intended one.
It does to at least one.
I'm all for this. I've gotten sort of lucky by wandering into a path where I can be professionally and financially successful without needing social skills beyond not saying blatantly inappropriate things. But developing those skills would provide many more options, and give me a much better shot at making an actual impact on the world.
And yes, being involuntarily single for years is neither enjoyable nor conducive to productivity.
Intriguing.
I do believe that the discussion should take place off LW. The LW karma system creates biases and would be muddied by the pursuit of a different goal.
What particular biases are you worried about karma affecting? At first thought, I see more reasons why karma would be benficial than not. For instance, someone who proposes many ideas that don't work, and won't update on that evidence would be expected to get a low karma. New people to the community can see at a glance that following their advice is substantially less likely to be valuable than following the advice of someone else. Indeed, following particularly poor advice could easily be harmful, so having a warning would be very important.
My concern is that the LW standards of communication and goal of rationality do not correspond to PUA methods. Rewarding a user for advancing a PUA discussion does not reward rational discussion but instead rewards the ability to teach social interaction.
As teaching social interaction is not a subset of rational behavior, so PUA discussion is not a subset of LW discussion. The difference lies in the approach to subconscious stimuli; PUA exploits where LW illuminates.
I reject your premise.
Please elaborate.
I accidentally pronounced the 'PU' in the title as 'poo' and surprisingly it made even more sense.
Some PUAs pronounce it "pooh-ah." I don't.
PUA relies heavily on demonstration that is better suited to video than text. An LW approach to the exploration and explanation of PUA would be good, but I think the information lends itself to a more visual format.
Has anyone thoughts on video clips? While finding public domain video examples may be fun, it might not be practical.
Provisions might even be made to share recorded webcam sessions of participants for feedback.
Any particular reason, or just a limiting belief you happen to have?
Offhand I can think of several reasons golfing is a good idea: you're outside breathing big air; the walking and the exercise are good for you; it makes for a relaxed setting in which to have conversations with like-minded people.
The main reason people like me don't golf is... that people who golf typically don't golf with people like me. But that's precisely the kind of reason which wouldn't stand, any longer, if this discussion leads somewhere useful.
ETA: count me in, and upvoted. My first recommendation is a book, "Why should extroverts make all the money: networking made easy for the introvert".
Fair enough. If we're ever in the same part of the world I'll take you up on a round and see if it takes.
Golf is expensive, isn't it? (It's certainly more expensive than WoW...)
It does have a reputation for being expensive, which is part of the reason people like me don't think of it as their kind of game. As for the reality... From what I know, it's not exactly cheap. But I'm not sure it's much more expensive than some other forms of exercise people routinely spend money on.
It's pretty expensive, and only mediocre exercise. It also demands quite a bit of training before you're good enough to have much fun (so it seems to me).
I spend a reasonable amount of money on staying fit (about $2K a year), but most what I pay for is intended to bind my future self to hard work (team sports, fitness camp, kettle-bell course, etc.). Golf doesn't qualify.
del
Mating is important to most people.
However, I agree that there is an art of encouraging people to respect you and enjoy your company, which just so happens to be useful in attracting a romantic partner. It might be best to discuss it (or develop it) while denying that such a use is the primary motivation (as it likely will be for many people). But if people are avoiding talking or thinking about the concrete goal they have that motivates their efforts, or aren't practicing their ideas in a way that gives very clear success/failure feedback, then you can expect them to "learn" a lot of nonsense. That's the only reason I would hesitate to avoid talking about mating.
If it's just a question of branding and stated-purpose, but there is no actual taboo, then I support an explicitly application-independent group.
Sounds great.
I think the ideal scenario would be if we coordinated with Tricycle so that we could use our existing logins on the new site, but we had fresh karma scores or none at all.
Especially interesting would be a series of "sub-LWs" that one could be subscribed to in a way similar to subreddits. Other potential subLWs: posts that use math; posts on fighting akrasia (e.g. take caffeine pills at 6 AM and you'll wake naturally at 8 AM. That sort of thing.) Maybe even one for software development?
Is there a typo here? Otherwise you seem to be suggesting either taking pills whilst asleep or sleeping for only 2 hours...
Something that I have used with some effectiveness is setting an alarm, taking caffeine and modafinil upon awaking then returning to sleep until I wake up 'naturally'. This is far less psychologically draining than relying on multiple alarms and willpower.
That could work actually. I've done the caffeine-nap thing (slam a coffee + immediately take a nap = wake 30 minutes later feeling doubly refreshed), and it seems to do the trick.
The problem with a lot of personal development stuff is that people read it but never really change their behavior.
PUA has the advantage of making the way you practice relatively straightforward. You go to a club and approach girls. If you do dozens of approaches per week, sooner or later you will develop skills.
It's not complicated to plan to spent time in deliberate practice. It requires some confidence to overcome approach anxiety but you know what you have to do.
If you don't what to do at some step you can go and read a PUA article that explains a method in detail. It's all about removing barriers that stand in the way of deliberate practice.
When it comes to a skill like being good at job interviews than it's a lot harder to create an environment that allows you to spent hours of deliberate practice per week.
A while ago Socrates made an argument against books. The problem with a book is that it tells the same to everyone.
Today with dynamic websites that doesn't have to true anymore. Dynamic websites can show different people different exercises depending on their previous skills. If something isn't quite clear and the lack of clearness stops the user from taking action than the user can ask for more clarity.
A dynamic website can also allow the user to report results for the exercises. Over time that allows optimization of the exercises. Multivariate tests could be used to optimize exercises.
Exercises that don't work can be kicked out.
Some of the exercises could be two people exercises that can be done via a webcam. The website could connect two users who want to do the exercise and let each of them rate the other afterwards.
It would take skilled people to design the architecture of such a system and program it. If someone would however willing to put in the effort I think the payoff would be a lot higher than by simply using the Reddit software for a new community.
i wrote a little bit about looking at pick up artistry as a model for scientific inquiry here:
http://michaelkenny.blogspot.com/2010/09/pickup-artists-and-prussiangerman.html
A quote:
"Pickup artists and the military men of Weimar Germany, and probably before, in Prussia, both seem half nerdy intellectual, half man of action.
"I could see both communities being a good example of what intellectuals should aim for--they should be trying to be practical, as well as being engaged in theory. I guess I'm saying I think intellectuals should be more pragmatic. They can go for this wild theory, and it's super fun to speculate about things, but it's also super fun to test out your ideas and see how they work out."
also, to clarify, i'll repost a comment i wrote at http://patrissimo.livejournal.com/1387816.html regarding the same quoted material as what i quoted above:
"Look at Hans von Seeckt in the Truppenamt, the institution of the General Staff, the war games played by the Prussian and German military simulating war conditions, the debates of the Militär Wochenblatt. To me this seems a culture friendly to the half nerd, half man of action, or the nerd working with the man of action. The history to me seems to be of a military that was intellectually engaged and also practiced ideas to see what worked and what didn't, and had spectacular battlefield success in the second half of the nineteenth century and twentieth century compared to its enemies (see A Genius for War, Dupuy). Let me be clear that I am not speaking of Nazi bully boys. I am also speaking of their efficacy on the tactical and operational level and not the strategic."
Count me in as well - I've gained a great deal of useful knowledge from the PUA community despite having found it while in a fine, and still ongoing, long term relationship.
For a smart person it is relatively easy to take PUA advice and gain utility for non pick-up activities.
Same here.
Also are there any existing google study or self improvement groups from Less Wrong? I would be really interested in joining those.
There should be such a thing, but I don't think that there is. There is a semi-active book club that's currently working its way through PTTLOS.
I swear I'm not trying to turn LW into reddit, but they have some great ideas. University of LessWrong, anyone?
Mating is good. I am somewhat baffled as to why the "PUA" discussion has had a strong negative connotation. As you say, there's a ton of benefits for everyone involved, and it serves as a successful, easy-to-test model for many related skill sets. Personally I think the hesitancy to talk about mating and mating development is likely no more than a sort of vestigial organ of society's ancient associations with religion. It still seems "improper" in ordinary society to talk about how to get into someone's pants. But I see no reason why the sort of thing like "pick-up-artistry" must be unethical or wrong.
There's at least two groups of people who potentially stand to lose from widespread discussion of PUA: women, who may fear that they will be duped into choosing low quality mates by males emulating the behaviours they use to identify high quality mates and men who are already successful with women who may fear increased competition.
These sources of antipathy to PUA are rarely consciously expressed but given how crucial mate selection has been to reproductive success throughout evolutionary history you might expect strong negative reactions from those who sense a threat to their interests. Much of the strong reaction to PUA seems to me to stem from this.
PUA is hardly ever defined and explained as being in women's best interest. It's more likely to appear alongside evo-psych stories that play up the zero-sum aspects of mating. Taking PUA writers at their word, their methods are bad for women -- and by design. So of course women wouldn't like it.
I actually think that it would be a net gain for straight women if social skills and sexiness improved across the male population. It gives us a broader pool of appealing people to choose from. But that's looking at benign behaviors; I wouldn't be so cheerful about behaviors designed to put women at a disadvantage.
Not all such writers; for example, on this page, scroll down to "Here's What Women Have to Say About AMP".
Of course, the AMP people don't talk evo-psych at all in their sales materials or training; the closest thing to zero-sum logic I've heard them use was when they commented on the idea that a man feels most loved when his woman can give him the freedom to be with other women... and that she in turn feels most loved if he doesn't feel the need to actually use that freedom.
(Even there, though, they were talking about it from the perspective of transcending the zero-sum aspect, so as to get both people's needs met, rather than taking it for granted that it means somebody has to "lose" for the other to "win.)
This is not really true. There's obviously a spectrum of writers and they don't all agree but generally they are advocating emulating the behaviours and traits that women use to identify high value mates. 'Fake it until you make it' is a common idea in self help and it is often claimed that emulating the signals associated with certain desirable traits can ultimately help to make those underlying traits real. To the extent that desirable traits are genuinely developed rather than falsely signaled these methods need not be bad for women.
There are also traits that women find attractive which may not be in their own considered best interests in a mate. The classic 'bad-boy' or 'dark triad' personality traits for example. If it is possible to emulate the attractive behaviours associated with these traits without developing the underlying traits 'for real' you could argue that this is actually good for women.
Thanks for the link to AMP -- I'd definitely only seen the darker side of the spectrum. (Stuff disturbing enough that I don't want to name or link it.) But this seems perfectly fine. Making yourself into a person that women like better -- not acting like a creep, dweeb, or dull nice guy -- is good for women as well. I didn't know there were actually programs that helped you do this, straightforwardly, and it actually sounds great. I almost wish there were a women's or unisex version.
My attitude to PUA comes from reading things that I actually have good reason to dislike. Planning to wrest back domination of the West from ugly feminazis is... not really in women's best interests. Neither is encouraging guys not to talk to women unless they plan to fuck them, to consider women over the age of 23 damaged goods, to keep their wives and girlfriends subservient, to resent women's right to vote, etc.
Ah, you've run into Roissy, or people inspired by him, haven't you? No wonder you have such a low opinion of the motives of PUAs.
Roissy started a network of blogs combining pickup with conservative (and often misogynistic) gender politics (for instance, he seems to condone slapping women). Although Roissy has succeeded in repackaging common pickup advice for mass consumption, he is not an important figure in the seduction community. While there is enough pickup theory in his writing that I can't say that he isn't a pickup artist, he and the community around him are not representative of PUAs in general. I'm not going to say that you won't easily find misogynistic beliefs among PUAs, but it's just not typical for PUAs to resent women's right to vote, for instance. There are plenty of liberal-leaning PUAs.
This is good to hear. Some links here would be great!
Roissy insn't really conservative. Social conservatives often cast him as a dangerous, hedonistic nihilist. Which he will be the first to admit he is.
He is a odd and quite honestly interesting if for many people scary new breed of reactionary who doesn't take his tips from a old geezer in the sky but from good old allegorical god of biomechanics (http://roissy.wordpress.com/category/biomechanics-is-god/). This goes for everything from gender all the way to class and even race relations.
I took a couple classes in biomechanics, and what I think of as "biomechanics" is not at all relevant to these articles.
Is there a meaning of this term that neither I nor wikipedia is aware of?
Yup. Robin Hanson wrote something to this effect about why no one sympathizes with beta males.
I agree, the negative connotation is generally unfair. As long as the PUA in question likes women and relationships, I'm a fan. Plus in general the more (safe, sober) sex people have the better.
I was definitely cheering for Neil Strauss by the end of "The Game"!
I can assure you that there are plenty of reasons to find PUA objectionable that don't fall into either of these two categories. In general, just the arms race, negative-sum-gameness of it. Also, there's the fact that a lot of what is passed off as PUA wisdom is just plain wrong, which is certainly good reason to dislike it on purely that-which-can-be-destroyed-by-the-truth grounds.
There are multiple levels of duping.
Now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak and the PUA game is well known, I've found that many women are actually surprisingly interested in it. To the extent that PUA skills increase unconscious signals that women find attractive, it may have a net benefit for women by upping the typical attractiveness of the dating pool, as Sarah points out. It could have an effect like tasty but safe artificial sweeteners, or widespread effective invisible makeup and cosmetic surgery.
That level of false signaling is probably harmless and even net benefit for women, but the aspect that many women rightly dislike or hate is the darker side to PUA which focuses solely on manipulating women into one night stands using whatever techniques work - which mainly includes alot of bullshit and dishonesty.
So it depends on what exactly is being faked and to what extent. As we all know men have less risk with casual sex, have higher net demand for it than women, and thus women have to be more choosy in finding mates. PUA 'dark art' persuasion techniques thus give women legitimate reasons for concern. (and reasons to be familiar with PUA game in general).
My reaction to this is positive-- my reaction to matthewnewport's fairly similar
is negative.
I think the difference is that matthew implies that there's one scale all women use for judging men, and it isn't at all about how men treat them.
Please, just Matt. Only my grandma calls me Matthew.
Sorry-- noted for future reference.
In real life the most common exposure to PUA is sadly men thinking that it is ok to lie to get into bed.
So this has created a situation where "more exposure to PUA locally" -> "more exposure to lying men" -> "less trust" -> negative externalities.
This is not to imply that PUA is all dark arts, just a perspective from the other side of the fence. There are probably lots of more ethical PUAs, but this is sadly the most visible part.
What exactly is the sort of lying that people think PUAs do? Which PUA gurus advocate lying? In my experience, the main lies that PUAs tell are in canned routines, such as saying "Did you see the fight outside?" when no fight occurred (and many PUAs don't use canned routines at all, including myself).
Telling a humorous fictional or anecdote to get a conversation rolling is a sort of a lie, but it seems to fall into the category of "white lie." It's not like PUAs are encouraging each other to lie to women about their jobs, income, or accomplishments.
I don't think PUAs do substantially more lying than your average human.
I think that much of the negative perception is largely that it's low-status to explicitly pursue the goal of getting laid... which of course is the goal underlying lots of human interaction. Hence homo hypocritus!
Yes, excellent point. But the reason is not, as you think, because PUAs are duping women. The reason that PUAs provide a net benefit for women is that over time, they actually grow into men who fulfills women's criteria. Although beginners start out with "fake it 'til you make it," experienced PUAs eventually do come to hold the qualities that large segments of women find attractive.
Wait a sec, what exactly is "false" signaling? And what's an example of it in pickup?
As I've argued in the past, you can't judge social reality by the standards of epistemic reality. In social reality, if you can get yourself and a bunch of other people to believe an assessment of yourself, and that assessment isn't based on blatant factual errors, then it becomes true.
PUAs indeed present themselves in a self-enhancing way, but they are late to that party. Everyone, except for perhaps some geeky people or non-neurotypical people, already does tons of signaling to make themselves look better. In fact, it has a name in psychology: impression management. Many PUAs are geeky guys who never got the memo that they were allowed to manage their impressions on others.
Of course, nobody likes to believe that they are engaging in impression management, and geeks think its stupid or dishonest. So when PUAs try to verbalize and systematize what socially-successful people are already doing unconsciously, they suddenly sound like cynical, manipulative con-artists to both normally social people, and to geeky people.
In your view, what exactly are PUAs faking, and to what extent? What is the "bullshit and dishonesty" that they employ? Are we talking about canned routines about one's imaginary friend to makes oneself look cooler, or what?
And what exactly are those reasons for concern?
I don't see PUAs as being any worse choices for women to date than non-PUAs of the same level of attractiveness. Yes, many PUAs are only looking for casual sex (at least at this point in their lives)... but so are many non-PUAs. Yes, many women might find it challenging to date PUAs and start relationships with them, but that's mainly because skilled PUAs are very attractive to women and have a lot of choice... just like attractive non-PUA males. If you are a woman who likes exciting badboys, or masculine and high socially-skilled men, you are a in for a challenge whether you are dating PUAs or non-PUAs.
I'm with you, Hugh.
If more geeks could come across as "exciting badboys, or masculine and high socially-skilled" then women who are subconsciously attracted to that type could actually wind up with someone intelligent and decent, instead of the usual jerks. You're raising the average quality level of the socially successful man.
The one thing I still have a problem with is self-help courses that guarantee you success with women. Nothing can guarantee you that. You can do things that can make you statistically more likely to succeed, but in the end, when you have consensual social interactions, the other person could always rebuff you. It can get creepy when men think they're entitled to a quota of women, and that it's unfair when they get turned down. I worry about that driving men to violence. You can get better at attracting women, and that's great, but women are free to reject you.
If I may say so, there is something troubling about your third paragraph (edited, with emphasis added):
Try to imagine substituting other forms of consensual social interaction here, and seeing if the tone feels right. For example, right now the economy is bad in many places, and many people are unemployed. I can easily imagine that there are numerous self-help courses that teach people how to make themselves more attractive to employers, by teaching them how to behave during interviews, etc. Now obviously no such program can guarantee anyone a job. Imagine, however, that some poor soul -- let's make her a woman -- goes through these courses, does everything she can to improve her prospects, but still can't manage to secure a job. Presumably, a person in that position would naturally feel a sense of frustration; they may even feel that they are the victim of unfairness. Can you imagine applying a word like creepy to this -- general, unspecified, hypothetical -- woman's distress? ("Creepy" is about the strongest form of social condemnation that exists in near mode -- i.e. when we're not talking about distant political villains.) Would you feel the need to point out -- in a rather defensive-sounding way -- that employers are in fact free to reject those whom they regard as less-than-qualified candidates? It's unlikely you would worry too much about such a person turning to violence -- and to the extent you did, it would probably be in the standard sympathetic way in which thoughtful, liberal people usually discuss the relationship between poverty and crime.
I don't mean to single you out personally and question your motives, so please don't take what follows that way; but it seems to me that underlying remarks like these -- which I have seen and heard from many people in many places over the years -- is a fundamentally inadequate level of sympathy for "unattractive" men. I wonder if it's time someone made the bound-to-be-controversial suggestion that women in modern society are excessively conservative when it comes to granting sexual favors. There is apparently no greater female nightmare scenario than mating with a less-than-optimally-attractive male. The Darwinian reasons why this should be the case are too obvious to be worth stating; but it should be equally obvious that such behavior is less than rational in our modern era of contraception: sex simply doesn't have the same dangers that it did in the ancestral environment.
(I would guess that the analogously irrational male behavior is probably sexual jealousy.)
That's as silly as suggesting that men should be more conservative in granting those favors.
I rather liked the rest of your comment (even though I likely would find your hypothetical job seeker a bit creepy), but this part struck me as nonsensical... why suggest that any group of people modify their tastes to suit some other group of people? (I suppose racism and sexism might be exceptions, but even so... it still seems the appropriate solution to such things is just to find people with better taste!)
OTOH, if what you really meant was, "people (of either gender) should be more sympathetic/less judgmental to the plight of the unattractive (of either gender)", then sure, that makes sense.
Sexual relationships are far more personal, and decided on far more idiosyncratic criteria, than employment relationships. There are fairly explicit and well-defined understandings of what constitutes qualification for a job that do not depend strongly on the personality of the hiring manager. If Human Resources is looking for a new shelf stocker or a new receptionist or a new medical transcriptionist and turn down our heroine as you describe, and they can be shown to be doing it for certain prohibited reasons, they are breaking the law.
Sex is qualitatively different from everything else. Pretend I repeated that a couple dozen times, because I think this concept might be the barrier to understanding in conversations like these.
You realize that it's not just made up that sometimes desire for sex turns into violence, right? Let's hear your priors on how likely it is for there to be a victim of sexual harrassment or assault reading this thread, and how likely it is for there to be someone who was stalked or attacked by a rejected job applicant reading this thread. I am concerned about sexual violence because I have friends who were raped or molested. I am concerned about sexual violence because I have a history providing me with direct empirical evidence that it exists. I am concerned about sexual violence because I live in a society that takes care to remind me, constantly, that I am not safe, that if certain things happen to me it will be because I wasn't careful enough, that it is eminently reasonable for me to draw the design of my life within circumscribed lines to protect myself from such danger and the stigma of victimization.
I have met you. I know that you are not an awful (or even creepy) person. I still can't read this charitably. I'm hoping you've just been primed by reading too much Hanson or something. Dude: People are not entitled to get things for free from people who don't want to give them, even if you think their reasons for not wanting to give are dumb. It is not acceptable to criticize women for inadequate generosity because they are not as promiscuous as would be convenient for straight men.
To the extent that sex is like a gift, you have to be in a relationship with someone that warrants the exchange of such gifts. I don't expect birthday presents from people who aren't in a birthday-present-exchanging relationship with me. To the extent that sex is like a commodity, guess what - it's for sale! No, you can't buy it from every person who might have it to offer, but not everybody who bakes cupcakes sells them either - you have to go to a cupcake store. If you want homemade cupcakes, you'll have to make friends with somebody who bakes.
It should also be obvious that eating large quantities of sugar is less rational in our era of processed food. Do you consume sweets? It should also be obvious that avoiding unnecessary physical activity is less rational in our era of labor-saving devices. Do you go to the gym as often as studies indicate you should? Women art godshatter too.
Some things I didn't get around to posting earlier-- Hanson is somewhat on my shit list because he's posted more than once about how the world would be a better place if women would have sex when they don't want to. He's a geek economist, so he gets to speculate about such things, but oddly enough, he doesn't consider the costs to women in such scenarios.
Consent and fear and all that: There was a previous discussion here about women giving out fake phone numbers, and there seemed to be no grasp of why a woman might do that instead of giving a straightforward refusal.
Imagine a world where all the socially acceptable partners for you are bigger, stronger, and probably more aggressive. You may prefer such yourself, but it's certainly the case that you'll take a status hit if you chose otherwise.
Furthermore, you've had niceness training-- it's hard work to directly contradict what someone else wants. Doing that amount of work is a gift which might not be bestowed on a spammer.
And you're not supposed to make the first move, for values of "not supposed to" which range from being blamed if you're raped to putting off potential partners if you do. I realize both of those vary according to who you happen to be around, and both may have faded somewhat in recent decades, but people do respond to potential risks.
None of this means that giving fake phone numbers is a wonderful thing, but there are actual human motivations for doing so which aren't just spite-- sometimes spite is involved, but the story isn't nearly that simple.
This is raw stuff, on all sides. I've been decently treated here, but some of the theorizing about women is enough to be a partial explanation for why this place is very high majority male.
I think a big component of sex dynamics is, as you said, physical strength. Since women are physically weaker than men, they can't rely on that to protect them from overly aggressive or hostile potential partners. The only thing keeping those overly aggressive or hostile potential partners in line are social norms against rape and abuse, which are already weak enough that, for example, rape apologism for famous athletes and victim blaming are common. Any talk that can potentially weaken those social norms then becomes a legitimate threat... unless the talk includes ways of subverting other social norms that balance its effect. For example, I think we could solve some problems by giving men "niceness training" instead of women.
A sidetrack: I think men's physical strength is a minor factor compared to their ability to organize for violence. If the organizational ability were reversed-- if men who seriously displeased women were mobbed by 4 or 5 armed and organized women and didn't have male back-up, the world would be very different.
This doesn't mean I want that world, but I find it interesting that males seem to almost reflexively organize for violence, and females pretty much never do. Information about girl gangs appreciated if I'm missing something.
"Niceness training" has some real problems-- it's being afraid to express strong desires which might be in conflict with other people's.
Kindness training-- encouraging people to actually treat each other well and having some skills for doing so-- would be a whole different thing, and a world where it was common is hard for me to imagine. It would be a world with little or no status enforcement.
Well...yes, as an empirical matter, that was the thesis of my comment! Wasn't it clear that I was questioning, as a normative matter, whether that ought to be the case?
Just what is your uncharitable interpretation, such that you would feel the need to make this kind of disclaimer?
Probably. I can't claim to have thought about this kind of thing much before Hanson brought it up.
First of all, the phrase "it is not acceptable to criticize..." is kind of an alarm bell. Secondly, yes, the issue is precisely at the level of "wanting". Obviously, given that someone already doesn't want to give something, then their giving it would be bad, all else being equal. The question is, what to do about this problem of their not wanting, since their lack of wanting causes pain for others.
(Some, but not very many, as it happens.) Yes, indeed, it is less rational to consume as much sugar as possible nowadays: it leads to bad health consequences.
Because it now is the case that sex is qualitatively different from everything else, attempts to make it be not so or create a norm that it be not so now impinge on the current, existent feelings of people (esp. women) who think about sex as how it now is.
In other words: Sexuality's differences from other things, if respected, are self-supporting. It opposes these features to try to alter them. Failing to respect sexual rules in these, among other, ways is Very Bad.
How about "it makes me afraid when people criticize"? Or is that irrelevant?
I am very good at getting people to give me presents. This ability is only targetable to a certain point, but it is partly under my control. Supposing, probably inaccurately, that I could scale up this capacity indefinitely - not stealing things I wanted, but just acting in such a way that encouraged people to give them to me significantly more than they'd otherwise be inclined - there are things it would be unethical for me to try to get in this way. I shouldn't encourage people to spend beyond their means, for example. I shouldn't encourage them to give me things that they need for themselves. I shouldn't encourage them to give me things that I only want a little bit that they have much stronger interests in. Even if their means are limited by choice, or their need for the needed object is evitable, or their reason for strongly valuing the prized possession is really stupid. If I find myself tempted to seek gifts of such things, the correct place to solve the "problem" is in my excessive interest in owning stuff that belongs to others.
This sounds suspicious to me -- a bit too Fully General. It seems that you could similarly Engrave In Stone For All Time any set of currently existing norms this way.
I'll have to think about this more to determine the extent to which I agree.
That's certainly better and more specific -- and would naturally prompt the followup: "afraid of what?"
Why is it then that the most vocal critics of pornography and prostitution are generally women? Women seem to treat porn stars and prostitutes (and to some extent 'sluts') as scabs. Ongoing efforts are made to make pornography and prostitution illegal for the same underlying reasons that any cartel attempts to use the government to increase individual members' profits by reducing competition.
Because both industries are full of abuse that is mostly directed at women, which fact has been turned into general condemnation of sex work instead of specific address of the factors that directly precipitate said abuse. "Horn effect" (opposite of halo effect) probably bears some responsibility for the extension of this criticism to harmless subtypes of porn/sex work, such as animated pornography which plausibly never leads to abuse of its (voice) actors.
It seems to me that when people advocate further criminalizing sex work on this basis they are either dissembling (in the way advocates for professional licensing dissemble that it is about 'protecting consumers' because it is more effective than admitting they are trying to protect their own interests) or simply horribly misguided in how best to address the (genuine) problems you describe.
What exactly do you mean by "full of abuse" and how do you quantify it?
I have some friends who worked in that industry, and it has more gender equality than most others - such as almost any of the high tech sectors. Female actresses are paid far more on average and women are fairly heavily involved in the business side now as well. It's not all peaches and roses of course. But I suspect that most of the image of 'women being abused' is based on some hard preconceptions one brings in - namely that pornography is inherently wrong in the first place. If you start with that assumption, it will only be reinforced.
I agree -- but also take note that it seems that a large portion of those advocating for sex workers' rights are women.
Well said. You nailed the point and gave me a good belly laugh.
I think people familiar with ev psych tend to over-estimate the actual differences between the sexes. They certainly exist, but cultural conditioning and supply and demand effects magnify them into gender roles.
I'm sympathetic, but I wonder if you're jumping to the "godshatter" conclusion too quickly in re: promiscuity.
"Godshatter" is a fairly strong claim to make about a piece of psychology; for one thing, it would seem to require human universality. But there are cultures with much more promiscuous female sexuality than the anglosphere.
It's a good point, but I stand by what I said.
I've heard anecdotes of disgruntled graduate students attacking their schools because they weren't given their degrees. (The example that comes to mind is of a woman who set explosives in a lab.) I definitely consider that creepy. I would start worrying about safety if an obviously unqualified student kept ranting about how she deserved her degree.
Charles Guiteau, who assassinated James Garfield, was chronically unemployed but convinced that the government owed him a high office (he wanted to be an ambassador.) I would consider his obsession with "deserving" a position far out of his reach was a warning sign for criminal behavior.
So it's not just about sex. "Creepiness" is something I associate with being convinced you deserve something that it's totally unreasonable (socially) for you to be granted. Most unemployed workers are disappointed, sure, but that's not the same thing.
This is certainly a fair reply. I take it, then, that you wouldn't consider the mere expression -- much less the mere feeling -- of disappointment to be creepy?
As a practical matter, I suspect we agree a fair amount on the sorts of actual behaviors that should be considered alarming -- whether in the case of sex or anything else. Rather than disagreeing on what is or isn't bad behavior, my aim was just to point out the problem of amorous disappointment (in the specific case of males, as I have the impression -- which should be corrected if false -- that there tend to be differences in the basic causes of rejection between the sexes).
On reflection, though I do tend to think this aspect isn't discussed enough (edit: what I mean here is that the taboo level is too high), it probably wasn't especially useful for me to add my voice to this particular controversy. Perhaps I should indeed leave this kind of thing for the Robin Hansons of the world.
Sure, no, I don't have a problem with disappointment.
It does seem that men have more of a problem with amorous disappointment than women do. That definitely is "something wrong" and I'm not on board with women who basically think that men are in the wrong whenever they express desire.
TvTropes does have plenty of examples of women who don't handle it well, so at least it's something that exists in the popular imagination.
Reading this thread has inspired an interesting definition. Creepiness is an approximate estimate of how far someone would have to be pushed in order to do something evil. A history of criminal behavior is extremely creepy, because it's strong evidence of bad character. Physical deformity is creepy because it correlates well with mental illness, but it stops being creepy once it's understood well enough to rule out that possibility. Violating social norms can be creepy, or not, depending on what's known about why it was violated and the nature of the norm. And horror movie villains, of course, peg the creepiness scale, merely by being in that role, regardless of what other features they have.
By this definition, refusing to accept a disappointment that won't go away is very creepy, because the only real options for dealing with disappointment are to accept it, to work harder towards fixing the source of the disappointment, or to escalate. Escalating would be bad, and working harder has a limit that, in the case of the disgruntled student, has probably already been reached or nearly reached.
Not really-- there's a sort of creepiness which is about distaste at least as much as fear.
And I don't think creepiness is a reliable signal of dangerousness-- there are people who are very dangerous who aren't creepy, and it's my impression that there are a great many creepy people who don't do anything awful.
I will tentatively suggest that that some kinds of creepiness are some sort of off-key or out-of-sync body language (not necessarily on the Asberger's spectrum).
A story from one of John Malloy's Dress for Success books: He realized that one of his subordinates had done some very good work for him, and took the chance of offering the subordinate (who had disastrous body language) some consultations.
The subordinate looked distressed, and Malloy was worried that he'd said the wrong thing, but then the subordinate explained that some of his sons had the same body language and were running into similar social problems.
These seem like importantly different categories that merely happen to share some mental machinery.
True, but I suspect that's just because many things that used to be useful signals, aren't anymore. Strange body language, for example, may be a signal of distant origin (to the extent that body language differs from place to place).
There's some sort of ambiguity in the word "deserve". I would say that every harmless person deserves to be loved, or deserves an enjoyable job, but that doesn't mean anyone owes anyone anything. The world is the way it is.
A job applicant who seems likely to resent being turned down will appear creepy to potential employers.
Men do the same sort of thing. Really. Hunt around a little for examples of fat-bashing.
The only gender difference I can see is that a significant proportion of men [1] are apt to verbally attack unattractive women just for existing, while women are more apt to wait for a pass to be made by an unattractive man.
Is there anything in PUA about what sets off the "creepy guy-- I don't want to be anywhere near him" response as distinct from mere "not sexually interested"? I'm not talking about "less than optimally attractive", and your phrasing it that way strikes me as dishonest arguing. The vast majority of women have children with less than optimally attractive men.
[1] It may well be under 5% of men who do that sort of thing-- it's still apt to be quite a buzz-kill for women on the receiving end of it.
I think this is actually an example of the sort of double standard that komponisto is talking about.
It's a pretty mainstream view that the fact that men find overweight women unattractive is either a problem with individual men's judgement (excessive focus on physical appearance over other attributes, unrealistic expectations for a partner's physical appearance etc.) or some kind of wider problem with society focusing on unrealistic or unrepresentative examples of physical beauty ('anorexic' models and actresses etc.).
While probably not a majority view, it seems to me that it is far more common to see this view expressed and this issue discussed in the media than the view that men who are generally perceived as unattractive by women are victims of either a problem with the judgement of individual women or a problem with the ideals of male attractiveness promoted by society or the media.
This sounds like over-generalizing from personal experience to me. My memories of school are of the most hurtful verbal attacks coming from girls but without some statistical data I'm going to assume that both of us are biased by the salience of particular instances of verbal abuse we have observed.
It was rhetorical understatement, perhaps -- not quite the same thing as dishonest arguing. But note that what is meant here is "less than optimally attractive among their own options".
As for men and fat-bashing, etc., yes, that's also quite bad. However, I was under the impression that criticizing this was already far from taboo in elite circles
In any event, I don't want to deny any symmetry that may exist, and I don't think it would be fair to impute such a denial to me on the grounds that I specifically discussed only one side of the coin.
(And it's interesting how so far no one has noticed the parenthetical sentence at the end of my comment.)
The one about sexual jealousy? I thought it was foolish, but not in a way directly relevant to the part I was most motivated to critique, so I let it be. Women experience sexual jealousy too; implying that it's the special province of men has the weird consequence of implying that women would all rather be some flavor of poly, which is false.
It didn't imply that, any more than the earlier part implied that men never reject women.
The proposal was that male sexual jealously is analogous to female mate selectivity in the specific way I was discussing.
Also, really, I think "foolish" is unnecessarily hostile language. Wouldn't "incorrect" suffice?
Extremely short answer: Degree to which the unattractive male appears to submit to the social reality as she sees it.
Many "alpha" behaviours can be creepy.
Someone being submissive is not creepy.
This as a personal note, not as a general truth.
NancyLebovitz:
This is true if you judge people's speech and reactions by the usual standards of discourse in polite society, but not if you take into account their actual hurtfulness and the actual level of repugnance and scorn being manifested.
Men are indeed apt to appraise women's attractiveness explicitly in crude and vulgar terms, much more so than vice versa. However, the ways in which women talk about unattractive men might sound gentler and far more polite, but it's naive to think that unattractive men don't get the message, and that they don't get hurt just as much as unattractive women who get called by various explicit bad names. Moreover, whenever I hear girls damning some unattractive guy with faint praise, I always feel like it would be more honest if they just scorned and trashed him explicitly, considering the status they assign to him for all practical purposes.
Another thing is that even when stated in the most explicit and crude terms, men's usual complaints and negative appraisals about women tend to sound harsher and more vulgar than the other way around. It just happens that the words typically involved in the former have a much more politically incorrect and inflammatory impact, even though the latter are not any less harsh and damning by any reasonable standard.
Another difference is that (some) men also talk in crude and vulgar ways about attractive women too.
Very well said. I made similar points in two posts I made a while back.
Excerpt from #1
Excerpt from #2:
(These were acts of terrorism back then, too.)
Well said, I noticed that same bias cropping up. I suppressed the impulse to reply in this case because on this one extinction seems to be more effective. Well, that and because I didn't want to confess to caring about unsexy men - it's one of those things that is not always correctly identified as a counter-signal.
Is getting pregnant really the only danger? Sex can cause the release of mind altering drug that can cause you to pair bond (women more so than men). This can have a dramatic effect on your life if it is with the wrong person.
I don't have a link handy, but ISTR that one of AMP's promotional materials was a thing that showed several ways that inadvertently create "captured audience syndrome" via body language, conversation monopolizing, or other behaviors make a woman feel threatened or like she doesn't have the option of leaving.
If you happen to find it, I hope you post the link.
To rephrase komponisto's reply to this in a simpler manner, and minus the controversial bit:
I wish everyone would extend to the unattractive people of the world, of either sex, our right to feel bitter. This does not make us rapists. Thank you for your attention.
That's a good point.
It seems to be too easy to go from "Some bitter people are dangerous" to "Bitter people are dangerous"-- people make that sort of mistake anyway, and it's easier when there's some fear added.
Upvoted. But the right to feel bitter does not automatically imply the right to express bitterness. And even if you posit the right to express bitterness, expressing bitterness may still not be a rational response to the situation.
ETA: This probably-volatile comic-strip link suggests one reason why bitterness over one's own unattractiveness is often the result of a deficiency in epistemic rationality.
Only by an extremely strict definition of "guarantee" could this be construed as contravening any individual lady's autonomy.
You actually hint at this:
Sure, but the guarantee was never about individuals in the first place!
Consider each interaction a Bernoulli trial. If (pre-self help), the poor dude always strikes out [P(success) ~ 0], he will never have a successful interaction (however that's defined) unless he performs an enormous number of trials, which his poor self esteem won't allow. Say we raise his probability of success (through hypnotherapy and positive self-talk coaching), to 0.01. If our gentleman is so revved up that he then goes out and talks to 1000 women (performs 1000 trials), there's a >99.99% chance he'll have at least one success.
If this situation is typical, it would seem like an unreasonably restrictive use of language to balk the word "guarantee". Individuals always have unique characteristics, but that doesn't mean we can't make statements about averages.
Of course.
My point was about literal guarantees, and men who believe them. There are very stupid people in this world. It's easy to assume them away, but they do actually exist. George Sodini, I suspect, was a stupid man -- or, at least, deeply unrealistic. He had the Charles Guiteau attitude: fiercely convinced that he was owed something that would never have been likely. Being that unrealistic is dangerous to oneself and others.
I would guess that LW doesn't harbor so much of that, but I feel obligated to make these kinds of disclaimers because I do see people here who don't take social conventions for granted and who don't pick up cues very naturally.
To get back to the main issue, I think it's basically good to get better at picking up women, and even more generally good to build social/networking/charisma ability. I'm just inclined to be very careful about handing too much of an ideology to people who are high-risk for doing bad things with it.
The (fatal) flaw in your argument is that you multiplied probabilities without checking your model of reality for any obvious reasons to believe that the probabilities might be significantly dependent on each other.
In other words, if all we know about a man is that he is trying to mate, is the probability that he will succeed with woman #900 given that he struck out with #1 through #899 really the same as the probability that he will succeed with woman #1?
The general point still holds. P(at least one success) can be very large even if P(nth attempt succeeds) is small, for all n.
The independence assumption is implicit in my calling them Bernoulli trials, but you are correct that this may not be valid. Still, the general point stands. Good catch!
That's exactly what I was trying to get at.
Aside from hyperbolic marketing materials, what would make us think that PUAs believe that they are "guaranteed" success with women? What makes us think that they resist the notion that women are free to reject them?
Actually, by joining the seduction community, PUAs demonstrate a recognition that success with women is not guaranteed, and that they will only achieve it with a lot of work figuring out how to satisfy women's criteria.
PUAs call getting obsessed about any one particular woman "one-itis," which is one of the cardinal sins of pickup.
To understand the attitude that PUAs have towards rejection and towards the validity of women's preferences, let's take a look, not at the words of PUAs, but at the words of a man criticizing PUAs:
[...]
Basically, this writer recognizes and bashes PUAs for having an attitude towards women that "the customer is always right." Whenever you get rejected, you go back to the drawing board and try to figure out what you could have done differently. This attitude can be grueling on oneself... but it wins.
There are a few particular tactics in the seduction community that I do worry about pressuring women sexually. PUAs will sometimes persist through some forms of ambiguous resistance, or "token" resistance. For example, if a woman and a PUA are making out, and she says "we should stop soon" while continuing to vigorously make out, then the PUA will probably keep going until he gets a less ambiguous rejection. Similarly, if a woman says "we shouldn't do this" and then starts unbuttoning his shirt, the PUA will listen to her hands, not her words. If a woman does give an obvious "no," then the PUA might try initiating the same activity later if he has reason to believe she may have changed her mind.
I'm not quite sold on some of the ways that PUAs initiate with women who are conflicted about sex, yet even in these cases, PUAs will keep going not because they feel "entitled," but because they believe that the women involved will want them to keep going.
Just like everywhere else, PUAs are trying to fulfill what they perceive as the majority preferences of women, which may end marginalizing women with less-typical preferences. Unfortunately, it's a society-wide problem that many mainstream straight women seem to have trouble engaging in explicit verbal communication about sexuality and consent, which creates an incentive on men to make guesses, guesses which are sometimes wrong. More on that here.
While the attitude towards consent in the seduction community does leave some things to be desired, I don't think it's actually very far from the attitudes toward consent in the general culture, held by both men and women. It's another case where we bash the seduction community for merely verbalizing and copying what everyone else is already doing.
The rationality of negotiation over consent would be a great subject for discussion sometime.
For the most part, PUAs believe that they are fulfilling women's preferences, even though their measurement of women's preferences may sometimes be incorrect or biased (such as when assessing women who are experiencing conflict over their preferences). For the most part, PUAs butt out when they believe they have received an unambiguous rejection, and then try to examine where they "messed up."
That sounds psychologically unrealistic to me. Rapists tend to have more sex and more partners than average. Maybe violence comes from a sense of desert, but that sense was not connected to "following the rules."
Similarly, I have heard lots of anecdotes of students becoming violent for being denied degrees, but have not been able to substantiate any of them.
Deliberating sending out signals that match women's unconscious detectors for high socioeconomic status is duping in a sense, in a similar sense that makeup is duping. You could say that the signals themselves are the criteria, but even a peacock's tail is a health indicator to a degree. I contrast that with actual active duping - bullshitting.
The socially reality a PUA constructs can be based on blatant factual errors, and this is exactly the duping of the second type that I was discussing.
A more novice PUA may use canned material and routines to fake a level of social status and charisma that the PUA does not actually possess. That is duping in the weaker sense of 'false signaling'.
Duping in the stronger sense is outright dishonesty. A PUA who spins amazing stories about being an independent film director and movies he has made blah blah but in fact is a dental assistant or something. PUA then convinces a women that he has a genuine interest in her. If she then later sleeps with him, it would be based largely on a false image and false pretense. That is the dark arts bullshit and dishonesty I was referring to. Obviously PUA-dom is a diverse and broad set of folks, and most aren't like that. But some are, and this is the aspect of PUA that women dislike.
A PUA's behavioral standard shouldn't change just because of the PUA label - a guy who engaged in the above would be generally considered a douchebag by most people - PUA or not.
I suspect it's a little more complex than that. A guy who is really into PUA is probably not at a LTR stage in his life. But of course not all women are looking for that either.
Not if you have high socioeconomic status (and I would guess PUAs are above average in this regard due to the prevalence of science/engineering/software types).
Not to mention all the extra options they have when it comes to advancing their careers - 'climbing the ladder' so to speak.
Fake charisma? That is a hair's breadth (or less) away from being an oxymoron.
Not really - the particular case would be a novice PUA who can fake charisma through 4 hours of prepared material, but thereafter just reverts to his normal geeky self.
Fake charisma.
That was the kind of case I was considering. Moreover, if someone can successfully have a 4 hour interaction with prepared material then that's a damn impressive achievement. Managing the flow of a conversation such that you can use that much canned material without the interaction being grossly stilted is extremely difficult and it is the presentation far more so than the material itself that conveys charisma.
The thing is, if you can have 4 hours of charismatic conversation, and do this several times, the self that you revert back to will slowly get more charismatic.
This is like putting on makeup that actually makes the face more beautiful when taken off.
I'm not so worried about this sort of faking, because it trains you to develop the real thing that you are faking.
PUAs are more interested in signaling high social status than specifically socioeconomic status. I disagree with the analogy between status signaling and makeup. It's a lot harder to assess the "truth" of a status signal than it is to assess how someone really looks.
Ok, then could you give me a specific example, other than one I've already stipulated (e.g. telling anecdotes about friends who don't exist during the first 10 minutes of conversation)? No, there isn't really a fight outside, and no, you don't really have a friend who is buying his girlfriend a cashmere sweater.
But can't we excuse such white lies in helping people learn to socialize? Once a guy gets some social experience under his belt, then he will have entertaining anecdotes about friends that are actually true, and he will be as cool as those canned stories make him seem.
I agree with wedrifid below. It's hard to assess the "falseness" of charisma, since so much of social reality is decided by perception.
There is a difference between duping someone in a way that will never be true, and trying to get people to believe something that will be true if you can get enough people to believe it. No matter how much makeup you use, it will not make the underlying face more beautiful. Yet many ways of supposed fakeness in social interaction actually can become real.
The mechanism I propose is biofeedback and the looking-glass self. Just like people holding pens in the teeth making them smile can make them feel happier, people acting charismatically (even the aid of scripts) can make them feel more charismatic, facilitating non-scripted charismatic behavior in the future. The theory of the looking-glass self is that people create their self-concepts based on feedback from others (i.e. seeing the reflection of their behavior in other people's reactions). So if you can get people to think you are charismatic, they will treat you like a charismatic person, and you will learn from them that you are charismatic, leading to more charismatic behavior in the future.
Except PUA don't advocate this sort of lie. If you think they do, we are not on the same page, and I'm wondering what sources you are basing these conclusions on.
I don't see a strong view in the seduction community advocating convincing a woman you are interested in her when it is false.
The closest is how Mystery points out that telling a woman that she has been on your mind can be potent for seducing her if said at the right time. Mystery says absolutely nothing about the truth value of the statement. Does that mean that he thinks it's OK to lie? I really don't know. I do know that Mystery believes that he often falls in love. So he might be saying these things truthfully (or at least, he can self-deceive himself into believing that he has feelings for women he is trying to seduce, such that he can feel that he is authentically expressing those feelings).
In contrast, a big component of Juggler's method is trying to get a woman to show you a quality that you genuinely like, and then rewarding her by expressing how you like that quality. Juggler does seem to believe that showing more-than-sexual interest should be genuine.
In general, most pickup methods don't actually use displays of platonic interest as a major part of seduction. It's viewed as too close to "nice guy" complimenting of women. PUAs are more likely to feign indifference than feign interest.
Yes, there is a subset of PUAs that engage in lying beyond inventing imaginary friends to get their foot in conversations. The point is that PUA literature in general doesn't advocate such behavior.
I think that PUAs engaging in impression management, or even using scripts as a temporary measure to learn social skills, are not in the same moral category as substantive deception (lying about accomplishments, career, and income) or the same moral category as deception on a permanent basis (makeup, push-up bras). I think women should recognize that the intention of PUAs is not to deceive women about how they measure in qualities that women use to evaluate them, but to actually develop those qualities over the long term.
Furthermore, even the use of canned routines for training purposes may demonstrate qualities that women find attractive: it shows a sort of resourcefulness and ambition. Even the choice of a canned routine requires a certain level of social savvy.
It's widely accepted that it's OK for women to deceive men about their physical attributes. Part of the reason it is acceptable is that we recognize that men have more restrictive preferences for looks than women do. By the same token, we should recognize that women are more selective about the personality traits and behaviors that men display.
Botwin and Buss (1997) found that:
When lesbian journalist Norah Vincent dressed up as a man for a book (I harvest some revealing quotes from her here, she was in for a rude awakening in the dating world:
Given the kind of challenges that men face matching up to the character appraisals that Vincent describes as "harsh," it may be justifiable for men to "fake it 'til they make it."
Except for the ones who are. Beginning PUAs often aren't ready for relationships, but since beginners are less attractive to women, there is less of a chance of women trying to have relationships with them. By the time a PUA reaches a significant level of attractiveness, I'm skeptical that PUAs are any less interested in relationships than other non-PUAs that the same women would be attracted to instead.
As I mention in the post, most of the pickup instructors I've met (who probably qualify as guys who are "really into" pickup) do relationships. It's just hard to date lots of women and not eventually run into one who you fancy for something a bit longer term.
Let me give an example of PUA manipulation that is not of the form "fake it till you make it." You seem to be taking the position that there's no such thing. I'm rather surprised by that, since I thought that you had rather mixed feelings about PUA. Maybe I'm confused about your position because you're only addressing the question of whether such manipulations are good for women; I will not judge this example, but it definitely comes across as manipulation and thus I expect provokes negative reactions, which is the question at the very top of the thread.
A common piece of advice is to take a girl to several different locations to create the illusion of having known each other long time to make the girl comfortable. If this were just the physical advice, it would probably elicit positive reactions ("how to show a girl a good time"). Even if we drop "create the illusion" and just say that this is more effective than compared to time than one might expect, such direct effort at internal state is called manipulation.
Its more than religion. It has components of gender and class memetic warfare not to mention just plain old signaling.
I myself would like to be part of such a community. But I wouldn't like colleges to offer courses in it, because it seems to be a negative-sum game. What would the world look like now if we had a million graduates of such a curricula in the US? I suspect most people taking the courses would do so in order to go into marketing or politics, and thus reduce the signal-to-noise ratio when choosing products or politicians even more.
How can you disavow Dark Arts? This is the Dark Arts.
I acknowledge that this appears to be on the Dark Side of the Arts Spectrum, but I'd like to keep it as light a gray as possible.
I just want to be effective at something that is important to achieving my goals. I'll do good with my powers, honest!
This wins the award for "comment I'd think was Clippy's if I had the anti-kibitzer turned on".
Thank you.
Influencing other humans is hugely beneficial to almost any goals a human can have. I don't think the techniques of effectively influencing people are Dark Arts. If you use them to make people believe falsehoods, or act against their own interests, that would be Dark. Otherwise, it's just Arts.
Your claim that most people who studied these Arts would use them in Dark ways seems likely to me. But, if I expect to master these Arts myself, I will still support their research by default. I don't know how to truly calculate the net utility here; I'm very interested in learning. What do you think?
This is a good point. To the extent that social competency is zero-sum, we want to learn an exclusive, secret art (I am sure it is not, taken as a whole, for the same reason that trade and cooperation aren't only zero-sum, but individual skills as actually employed may be).
The desire for powerful secrets biases us - for example, toward accepting nonsense from a cult leader. I'd rather instead include all the available similarly-minded smart people (who may occasional offer fresh insights), even though they would also be my most effective competition.
Then perhaps the focus should simply be on the skills that aren't zero sum? I doubt the majority of non-malicious social skills are zero sum, so...
So the worry is that if this community gains many adepts, most of them will use the Art in Dark ways, making the world a less pleasant place to live overall? Then perhaps the founder of such a community should take care to make the community as obscure and low-status as possible, to prevent it from gaining a wide following.
The problem with a small community is that it might not acquire sufficiently many clever ideas to become a useful tool for achieving any goals, Dark or otherwise. So it might make sense to become part of a larger community, whose goals are similar enough to be worth learning from, yet different enough that its adepts are not dangerous.
In short, it might make sense to disguise this community as PUA. Perhaps even become part of the existing PUA community, whose members, after all, seem to have improved success in other social arts as well.
Hmm. That doesn't optimize for "keeping the community obscure" to the degree that, I don't know, wearing clown suits might.
Or if you're really worried about that problem, fursuits.
But the clown-suit-wearing community isn't particularly likely to be a good setting for developing social arts.
If I ever start a real organization of supervillains we're going to dress up as LARPers and meet in the woods. No one will ever suspect....
You don't start an organization of supervillains! People who are up to no good will have too many conflicting goals and will not be sufficiently willing to trade and share and compromise. (Hell, even people who are up to good are usually not good enough at agreeing on how to do it.) You start an organization with yourself as the supervillain plus as many minions as you need. And you read the Evil Overlord List until you can recite it from memory.
Edit: Or, if you don't want to take on that much responsibility, you're welcome to be my minion.
Supervillains tend to be notoriously bad employers. Their employees also tend to be incompetent. I don't know which causes the other.
See also pjeby's Everything I Needed To Know About Life, I Learned From Supervillains.
Sure, an increased scientific understanding of our weaknesses could be used for negative purposes, but it could just as easily lead to societal improvements designed to prevent manipulation (i.e. laws banning the use of certain manipulative techniques in advertisements).
Sure, on average it's negative sum. But I have to guess that society as a whole suffers greatly from having many (most?) of its technically skilled citizens at the low end of the social-ability spectrum. The question would be whether you could design a set of institutions in this area which could have a net positive benefit on society. (Probably not something I'll solve on a Saturday afternoon...)
I disagree. This is Magic, perhaps, but at most a subset of this is the Dark Arts.
Taking the list as a starting point, seperate it into the first seven and then the remaining twelve. I would claim that the remaining twelve are all positive sum and I would prefer a world in which more people had those skills, although I wish we could move off of the golf equilibrium. I can also personally vouch for hypnosis.
The top part of the list is more troubling, no doubt, especially cults and propaganda which are clearly Dark. You can go too far. But it's a poor art that can't be turned Dark.
Adams' list is a jump-off point, and was included for illustrative purposes only. Cults and propaganda won't make the cut. I wouldn't think hypnosis would either (although I'd be interested hearing your anecdote).
"Dark Arts" on LessWrong has a specific meaning. The accusation has merit; this program intends to influence others based on factors other than rationality. However, I (and others) have argued that learning this type of material is:
I am quite fond of this idea.
I discovered pickup ten years ago and also found that it can have a considerable positive impact on one's life. I'd love to see a rational, generalized approach to socialization skills.
Echoing SarahC and KristianKI's comments, here are some thoughts:
Name: I also think this should have a better name than "Pick-Up Arts" - some possibilities: Charismatic Arts, Socialization Arts.
Focus: I agree with your core idea about moving the focus away from orgasm and dating, but I suspect this may be more difficult than anticipated. For most people, success in romantic relationships is the principle ends of success itself, and many of the positive side-effects stem directly from having more romantic success. If you over-generalize you just get Dale Carnegie. Perhaps the key is to focus on the means over the ends. The PUA community is overly and specifically focused on the particular ends of sexual conquest.
Behavioral Learning: The real fundamental difficulty of developing charismatic skills is their inherent non-intellectual nature. You can not develop charisma by reading about it anymore than you can become a master guitarist by reading about guitars.
As ChristianK said:
Part of the difficulty is the skills that you need must be integrated into the deep subconscious level, and that simply requires massive practice. However I suspect it is even considerably worse than that, because of the deep connection to mood and social regulators.
Perhaps the most important ingredient in PUA success or charisma is what they call "inner-game", a change in mood and inner psychology which comes only after initial successes initiate a snowballing chain of reinforcements.
I think that focusing more on changing inner game or psychology would better suit a means-focused charismatic skills program. This would probably include sifting through ideas from the self-help movement for gems that actually work, and applying a rationalist approach to modifying subconscious behaviors.
Community: The PUA communities I have participated in (such as the forums on mASF) leave much to be desired. There is often a general air of testosterone laden competitiveness which i find detrimental to the whole endeavor. The LW rationalist community already has a leg up in this respect. The LW structure would work well - top level posts about theory and techniques, threaded discussions for personal feedback, and so on.
Time Commitment: One of the big problems I've had with PUA is the apparent high time commitment. I'd love to see some way this could be improved, perhaps along the lines of refining and distilling the most successful techniques into a condensed and focused program. Perhaps it could even include some elements from the world of gaming and fun theory to help overcome akrasia.
This study points out that if you think about (or have) just a single episode of past success or failure, that it has the opposite effect you'd expect on future performance (i.e. what works in the direction you would expect is to reflect on a pattern of experience of failure or success, then you will have summarized/abstracted from the individual events and expect them to serve as the rule, not the exception).
That is, remembering a single failure made people perform better (I assume because they were able to avoid some of the mistakes, or simply try harder, without feeling completely helpless and likely to fail).
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but from the abstract it appears they compared general vs specific episodic memory, and do not reach the conclusion you claim.
The particular quote:
The study just shows that general memories have a more pronounced effect than specific memories - it doesn't show the effect of a specific memory alone.
The takeaway is that recalling a specific example of success is not a powerful self-hypnosis strategy. That is why you need the snowball effect - you need enough past successes to change your subconscious evaluations.
I assumed they had also shown some isolated improvement from a specific memory of failure alone, which was indeed surprising to me.
So my report of the article was correct. So, if what you say is true, then the article misrepresented the study (which I also have not read).
Yeah I started reading the article and then after a few paragraphs realized "this isn't a physics paper, it would be quicker to just read the original". If I wasn't busy/lazy, I'd read the full paper and comment on the article to point out that it misrepresents its source paper, but it's not a wikipedia article, so I don't care so much. Happens all the time.
Cool. The average quality of thinking on the blog (psychologytoday) is really low, so I should probably treat it like you do.
directly pursuing mating is low status, let us disguise it....
I'm engaged to a very nice lady, thanks.
What I would find most interesting about such a project is how people would identify and deal with cross cultural and personal transfers. Seems a rather hard rationality nut to crack- precisely this could make it a rewarding and enlightening endeavor.
I'm not sure I follow, could you elaborate?
Controlling for variables. Does this work for me because I have PhD? Perhaps this doesn't work for me because I'm too tall. Maybe this only works because its an interesting counter signal. Maybe copying the exact dress style of Mystery isn't a good idea for me.
As to cultural transfers. Winning friends in say rural Russia is a different endeavour than trying to influence a group of Cape Town teenage Goths.
Would a PUA - PU be able to find the equivalent of some of the principles of game that are nearly universal? Or would it just be a catalogue of culture specific hacks?
Many facial expressions, and many components of body language are human universal. Certain things are always signals of relative status or changes in status, certain things always assert dominance, etc.
People are also always universally interested in themselves, more than anything, and therefore respond greedily to a good listener. People universally want to be important themselves, and usually give off clues as to what ways they want to be made to feel important.
These are just some random social universals off the top of my head. (Universal to neurotypicals, at least, with subsets that still apply even to non-NT's.)
Konkvistador:
Observe the reactions that Hollywood movie stars get around the world. Can you think of an example where some Hollywood actor was perceived by women in some foreign culture as an unattractive loser based on the same on-screen behaviors that made him into a sex symbol in the U.S.?
Scott's recommendations seem in-line with a lot of the training upper-class sorts used to get as a matter of course, even in schools (as I understand it, 'nobility' and the uber-rich still get it). It seems like it's about time this sort of thing is getting to the masses.
It seems like the discussion taking place on Lw is not out-of-line, as it seems to relate to an important aspect of instrumental rationality, so long as most of the discussion is coming from a solid empirical foundation.
It could fork off Lw if someone wants to provide the hosting. If so, a name like "Less Socially Wrong" or "Less Awkward" seems called-for.
Nuts! I was going to suggest that one!
Am I the only one instincively thinking of Bourdieu's 'Cultural Capital' theory here?
Count me in. This sounds as though it would help both with people skills and with general efficacy, energy and developing "doing" as opposed to merely "thinking".
I think that's a too simplistic view of it, if all you want is an orgasm the fastest route would be using your hands.
Are you implying that a PUA who is just looking for sex has less noble goals?
Again you seem to be judging others here.
Unfortunately it seems that you are operating under the assumption that "men who are just looking for sex or superficial relationships are wrong/primitive/whatever". Men have this craving in them, I don't see anything wrong with them using science/intelligence in order to achieve their goals, that's what PU is all about.
It's fine if you want to improve other areas in your life aside from skills with women but why do you need to bash those who paved the road for you?
I was trying to preempt the fact that people were likely to impute their own assumptions about what I meant by "PUA-like". I may have gone too far in the opposite direction and come off as PUA-hating. Hope not, it would be a real foul up if I alienated the people I hope to emulate! For the record, I'm generally a fan of PUAs.
The comments you quote were meant to point out that I think the skills could have more important uses. I don't think that PUA goals are ignoble/wrong/primitive, but I do think that they're of trivial importance relative to many other goals (particularly the goals of this crowd).
I may have gone overboard with phrasing; one of many weaknesses in my writing. I'm working on it.
It is an interesting question why the psychological or sociological research community has not yet paid any serious attention (as far as I know) to the pick-up community.
I've been asking this question myself for, like, 5 years. If anyone wants to do some research, I'm happy to help.
The most attention I think it's gotten is by psychologist Paul Dobransky, and undergraduate feminist Elana Clift's honors thesis. Both are reasonably well-written, but I think they underestimate the interest of PUAs in relationships.
Dobransky portrays himself as a Moses-like figure bringing mature masculinity to the seduction community, yet many experienced guys in the community already hold the ideas about masculinity that he advocates. His piece has some good observations, but I also find it a bit condescending.
While there is a lot of support for men in the seduction community interested in one-night stands and short-term dating, and there are cynical ideas about relationships, there still is a lot of support for relationships (every large pickup forum has a relationships board).
Lots of guys in the seduction community have had either very little success with women, or are coming out of a bad relationships. Since the community is probably growing, the largest segments are probably newbies. Once these guys start getting women to notice them consistently, I think it's understandable that they want to date around a bit and feel that they are desirable and have options. Is it really the most mature thing for a beginning PUA to jump into a relationship with the first girl who is nice to him?
In my experience, once a PUA has a couple years experience and some success under his belt, then he is a lot more likely to be interested in relationships. It's the same process that other people go through, they just do it earlier in their social development, while the PUA was sitting on the sidelines.
Of the 10 or so guys with pickup experience I know well in real life (counting myself), here is the breakdown of how they are doing in relationships:
2 want to be in relationships specifically, but aren't yet very successful with women
5 have been going in and out of relationships that haven't worked out. They do casual dating or sometimes one-night stands in between finding people they like.
2 had fun with a bunch of women, and are now in long-term monogamous relationships.
1 slept with a few women once he found pickup, then met a woman he really liked, dated her for a year or so, then got married. Unfortunately, they aren't very happy, but I think that's mainly because they are both very busy, and they have different attachment and communication styles.
Of the pickup instructors that I've encountered, most of them do relationships.
Of course, my sample isn't representative, and I deliberately hang out with guys who I think are more mature. That's exactly why we need some empirical research on this subject.
I'm in support of this idea under the condition that all of its output be freely accessible to the public.
Deal.
And so the Noble House of Slytherin begins to take form.
Slytherin 2.0, after its triumphant remake following Draco's enlightenment!
The skills in question have appeal across the Houses:
I'm sorry if somebody else remarked upon that, but wouldn't the obviuos area of study for people on lw not be how to influence others (supposedly without their knowing), but how to avoid such influences or recognize the associated techniques?
I'll readily admit there is a certain overlap, but still.
The first thing that popped into my mind here was the old joke "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" But then it occurred to me that that I'd be making all sorts of type II errors with that approach...
It's a fair point. We could consider the less savory elements as "Defense against the Dark Arts" class.
However, unless you're a super-genius working on an universe-changing technology in your basement, you might well need to know how to use this stuff to get big things accomplished.
To each their own. I'm not here to preach ethics, but I'm assuming this crowd has enough of a moral compass not to turn into a pack of used car salesmen.
I'm very interested in this, and for some time have been working to improve social skills without a strong desire for sex. I almost wish I had more desire, because it seems to be a great motivator, and also provides tangible results, or tangible lack thereof.
IMO, Real Social Dynamics has some very good material for this kind of thing, especially their most recent video program, The Blueprint Decoded. Every time I've gone through even a fraction of my notes, I experience significant and immediate gains to confidence and social skill. (I still have a ways to go to fully incorporate all the material.) It's basically very general information and unifying theory to the majority of social interactions, distilled from their prior experience in the area. It's great for pick up as well, but the main ideas are very general. It's still sold as pick up material rather than general self-improvement because only as pickup material can they ask $600 for it. To say a little more about it, I can't recall any notably deceptive tactics, it's mostly about how to be confident, fun, and socially dominant (without needing to put anybody down). This isn't so much the appearance of what people are looking for as the substance of it. Also, Alicorn and AnnaSalamon have seen a little of it and thought it was good material for both genders. I suggest watching disc 5 first for the best idea of the type of material it is.