The question on my mind from the start of our discussion is about the proportion of these not-truly-nice-at-all guys relative to the larger population of self-identified "nice guys."
Okay, so we're arguing over percentages--but I perceive guys like the nice-guy letter writer to be ginormous assholes, where as you view him as reasonable and sympathetic. So my population of jerks is obviously larger, because we define "jerk" differently.
In my personal experience, probably about 80 percent of guys who will express to me the sentiment "women only date jerks" are dudes who I perceive to be jerks (yet who are not having stunning success with the ladies). But I will be the first to acknowledge all the biases that are going into shaping that view, firstly the fact that these are men who think it's a good idea to buttonhole women of their acquaintance with their complaints about women generally, which is quite a filtering mechanism right there. Still, it's what I got.
I think you may be ascribing to me views that I don't hold, given that a good deal of the material you've cited isn't directly relevant to the original question. I don't actually believe that "the ideal man is a woman in a man's body," so I don't need to be convinced otherwise. I believe women are attracted to men, to manly qualities. I dispute that manly qualities = jerkitude, and I object to a model of What Women Want that is presented as categorical yet excludes huge numbers of real-life women.
I also want to circle back to a question you asked earlier and I skipped (because I perceived it as addressing views I don't hold):
Do you think women who generalize about men's preferences are misandric? For instance, "men just like dumb blondes", "men only care about looks", "men only care about sex", "men don't like intelligent/strong women"?
I think those statements are all wrong, at least as presented, although in each case it would be possible to formulate a more careful and sophisticated version that might be supportable. "There is a significant population of men that is primarily attracted to the 'dumb blond' presentation" or "Most men give physical appearance strong weight when choosing a mate." I don't know if they are insulting, although if you as a member of the group being characterized tell me that these statements (the original, or the reformulations) are insulting, then I will update accordingly. If a lot of men tell me the same thing, I will accept it as something close to fact.
But each of those original statements I can refute trivially, by looking at the world, just as I can refute the "women only date jerks" proposition. It can't be true that men only like dumb blondes, because I know smart brunettes who are married. It can't be true that women only date jerks, because I observe nice guys who are happily partnered up.
And as to whether it's misandrist to formulate the statements in that way: it could be. It's certainly wrong; it encourages a false and misleading view of the world; it encourages women to externalize their own failures, and to start viewing men as The Enemy rather than as a collection of human beings who are going to vary wildly from individual to individual. It's on the road to misandry, at least. Basically, yes, I think it's a good parallel.
siduri said:
Okay, so we're arguing over percentages--but I perceive guys like the nice-guy letter writer to be ginormous assholes, where as you view him as reasonable and sympathetic.
Actually, I view the letter writer as sympathetic, unreasonable (see my rebuttal to some of his views in a previous comment), and somewhat of an asshole (though I think his assholishness is specific to the context of the rant, and is probably not the source of his troubles with women).
...So my population of jerks is obviously larger, because we define "jerk" diffe
It seems there's some interest in PUA and attraction at Less Wrong. Would that subject be appropriate for a front-page post? I've drafted the opening of what I had in mind, below. Let me know what you think, and whether I should write the full post.
Also, I've done lots of collaborative writing before, with much success (two examples). I would welcome input from or collaboration with others who have some experience and skill in the attraction arts. If you're one of those people, send me a message! Even if you just want to comment on early drafts or contribute a few thoughts.
I should probably clarify my concept of attraction and seduction. The founders of "pickup" basically saw it as advice on "how to trick women into bed", but I see it as a series of methods for "How to become the best man you can be, which will help you succeed in all areas of life, and also make you attractive to women." Ross Jeffries used neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis, and Mystery literally used magic tricks to get women to sleep with him. My own sympathies lie with methods advocated by groups like Art of Charm, who focus less on tricks and routines and more on holistic self-improvement.
...
...
EDIT: That didn't take long. Though I share much of PhilGoetz's attitude, I've decided I will not write this post, for the reasons articulated here, here, here and here.
...
Here was the proposed post...
...
When I interviewed to be a contestant on VH1's The Pick-Up Artist, they asked me to list my skills. Among them, I listed "rational thinking."
"How do you think rational thinking will help you with the skills of attraction?" they asked.
I paused, then answered: "Rational thinking tells me that attraction is a thoroughly non-rational process."
A major theme at Less Wrong is "How to win at life with rationality." Today, I want to talk about how to win in your sex life with rationality.a
I didn't get the part on the VH1 show, but no matter: studying and practicing pick-up has transformed my life more than almost anything else, even though getting excellent and frequent sex is, oddly enough, not one of my life's priorities. Nor is finding a soulmate.
If you want lots of sex, or a soulmate, or you want to improve your current relationship, then attraction skills will help with that. Loneliness need not be one of the costs of rationality. But even if you don't want any of those things, studying attraction methods can (1) clear up confusion and frustration about the opposite sex,b (2) improve your social relations in general, (3) boost your confidence, and thus (4) help you succeed in almost every part of your life.
This is a post about what men can do to build attraction in women.c I will not discuss whether these methods are moral. I will not discuss whether these methods are more or less "manipulative" than the standard female methods for attracting men. Instead, I will focus on factual claims about what tends to create sexual attraction in women.
This is also a post for rationalists. More specifically, it is aimed at the average Less Wrong reader: a 20-34 year old, high-IQ, single male atheist.
I will also be assuming the stereotype that many passionate rationalists of our type could benefit from advice on body language, voice tone, social skills, and attire - a stereotype that has some merit. Even if you don't need such advice, many others will benefit from it. I did.
As is my style, I'll begin with a survey of the scientific data on the subject.
Self-help methods in general have not received enough attention from experimental researchers, and attraction methods have fared even worse. That may be what drove the leaders of the pickup community to run thousands of real-life experiments, systematically varying their attire, body language, and speech to measure what worked and what didn't. The dearth of research on the subject turned ordinary men into amateur seduction scientists, albeit without much training.
Still, we can learn some things about sexual attraction from established science.
[full post to be continued here]
a I've also given two humorous speeches on this subject: How to Seduce Women with Body Language and How to Seduce Women with Vocal Tonality.
b I used to be one of those poor guys who complained that "Girls say they want nice guys, but they only go out with jerks!" Merely reading enough evolutionary psychology to understand why women often date "jerks" was enough, in my case, to relieve a lot of confusion and frustration. Even without developing attraction skills, mere understanding can, I think, relieve serious stress and worries about one's manly (fragile) ego.
c Sorry, I don't know much about homosexual attraction, and I'll leave the subject of how women can attract better men to other authors.