Hi.... I haven't read this whole thread, but I know one very important thing that immediately discredited PhilosophyTutor in my view. I strongly feel that the best pua's are not at all about merely extracting something from the woman they interact with. They claim they live by the motto "leave her better than you found her". From my impression of Casanova, the ultimate pua, he lived by that too.

How do they know whether they fulfill this motto well?

Take this into account: a lot of good pua's may fall far short of the ideal amount of rigor, but at the same time, far exceed the average person's rigor.

Whether someone does better than average is irrelevant to whether they do well enough. It's possible, indeed very easy, to put more effort into rigor than the average person, and still fail to produce any valid Bayesian evidence.