Oligopsony comments on Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge - Less Wrong

138 Post author: lukeprog 20 January 2011 08:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (493)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lukeprog 21 January 2011 05:55:43AM *  11 points [-]

A few personal thoughts on that...

I've invested my time studying science and philosophy rather than in mastering attraction methods, but I've hung out with the Art of Charm / Pickup Podcast guys (cool, genuine guys btw), and read enough of the literature to give two humorous speeches based on PUA material: How to Seduce Women with Body Language and How to Seduce Women with Vocal Tonality.

If PUA is what Vladimir_M was writing about, then I mostly agree with his last paragraph. I don't know about "most" successful and effective, but it has certainly transformed the lives of lots of men for the better, including my own. And yet, it is denounced by almost everyone - perhaps because they're only familiar with mechanical, dishonest, The Game-era material? I dunno.

Good thing the PUA guys are figuring this stuff out on their own, because the scientists sure have left us in the dark, excepting very recent stuff by David Buss and, for example, that study about which dance moves attract the most women.

Comment author: shokwave 21 January 2011 02:34:35PM *  2 points [-]

And yet, it is denounced by almost everyone - perhaps because they're only familiar with mechanical, dishonest, The Game-era material? I dunno.

Denunciation is a social act. The social framework is an evolutionary fitness mating arena. Kill the status of anyone more successful than you.

This principle is strong enough for me to treat denunciation of PUA as weak evidence that it works.

Comment author: Oligopsony 21 January 2011 04:28:28PM 3 points [-]

I've seen much more mockery of PUA than denunciation, mostly with the sort of attitude one sees displayed towards, say, furries (who are a prototypically unthreatening group.) But perhaps this depends on the corner of the internet you're from.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 22 January 2011 06:48:25AM 3 points [-]

Mockery is mostly for attack. I'm not sure how the mode of attack matters.

It's true that most people don't seem genuinely disturbed by the existence of furries, though. And it must be true that some people mock PUA without feeling threatened, or even without intending to raise their status or lower PUAers'. And in particular cases, for we do love to laugh at those who overreach (are more confident of their status than we think they can justify).

Comment author: wedrifid 22 January 2011 07:39:49AM 1 point [-]

that some people mock PUA without feeling threatened, or even without intending to raise their status or lower PUAers'.

Mockery of another group without intending to raise one's own status? That only seems possible if we include lack of self awareness in evaluating 'intent'. Isn't that just Human Behavior 101?

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 23 January 2011 03:56:13AM 1 point [-]

You're right. I was so struck by that, I almost deleted the clause entirely, instead of weakening it with "intending to".