My hypothesis is that this is a "realist"/"idealist" divide.

I was thinking the same thing, when I insinuated that you were being idealistic ;) Whether this dichotomy makes sense is another question.

Similarly, I think most people who value PUA here value it because it works, and most people who oppose it do so on ethical or idealistic grounds. Ditto discussions of status.

I think this an excellent example of what the disagreements look like superficially. I think what is actually going on is more complex, such as differences of perception of empirical matters (underlying "what works"), and different moral philosophies.

For example, if you have a deontological prescription against acting "inauthentic," then certain strategies for learning social skills will appear unethical to you. If you are a virtue ethicist, then holding certain sorts of intentions may appear unethical, whereas a consequentialist would look more at the effects of the behavior.

Although I would get pegged on the "realist" side of the divide, I am actually very idealistic. I just (a) revise my values as my empirical understanding of the world changes, and (b) believe that empirical investigation and certain morally controversial behaviors are useful to execute on my values in the real world.

For example, even though intentionally studying status is controversial, I find that social status skills are often useful for creating equality with people. I study power to gain equality. So am I a realist, or an idealist on that subject?

Another aspect of the difference we are seeing may be in this article's description of "shallowness."