= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bogus comments on Open thread, Feb. 01 - Feb. 07, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
RooshV, Julien Blanc, and perhaps 'manospherians' more generally, are not representative of typical PUA advice. (Notably, most PUAs would not advocate 'surprise BDSM' as Julien Blanc did.) Clarity is probably right that 'manospherian' sympathies are not well-regarded, but this has little to do with PUA itself.
For reference, who would you say is representative of typical PUA advice?
These days I would point to /r/seduction on reddit as a good example. Notably, the now mildly-infamous '/r/TheRedPill' section split off from the '/r/seduction' folks arguing that they were being too PUA-focused and apolitical, i.e. they were not focusing enough on 'manosphere' concerns.
Interesting point about the split.
One way to understand what kind of people these communities attract is to consider "what's in it for them". Most people who are focused only on understanding sexual/romantic dynamics well enough to get a girlfriend they're happy about being with will dip their feet into the community for a few months or a couple years and then disappear. It's the perpetual failures, and more importantly the people with a political agenda, who stay.
Roosh wrote Bang in 2007! That's a long time ago. He's in his 30s now and openly says that he's not interested in closing with a high number of women per year anymore. I don't know what your opinion is, but my impression is that Roosh's early work was pretty solid in terms of the basic mechanics of going from the approach to the close (though nothing past that, like LTRs). But nowadays his agenda is political, and I assume you're saying that PUA (e.g. r/seduction) is apolitical and practical, whereas the manosphere (e.g., RooshV Forum, r/TheRedPill) is political and focused on macro trends.
Kind of unfortunate I guess. Almost everything in the "manosphere" comes directly from the original Roissy of 2007-2009 (e.g., this post). Even The Misandry Bubble is just Roissy Macro written with more academic patience and less penetrating intelligence. While Roissy's practical system was also quite good, most people in the manosphere have given up talking about micro dynamics with any sort of insight. It gets pretty shaky with charlatens like Rollo Tomassi, who seem in it only for the political agenda (and consequently have their head in the clouds).
The reason I say it's unfortunate is because they've really made no progress since Roissy and a few other people (e.g., Ricky Raw here) laid the macro groundwork all those years ago. They're just getting louder and more active politically. Too bad the real Roissy didn't have the discipline and desire to use his intellectual power for something more rigorous. And nobody has stepped up to take his place. All we have now is the lightweights who talk practical and the counterfeit heavyweights who like to make a scene in the public sphere.
Well, the political agenda is also a natural evolution. After getting laid enough times, it gets dull. Also if one is at all philosophically inclined, one notices that the very existence and need for PUA is a symptom of how dysfunction certain aspects of society are. Thus one is naturally led to politics.
That's what I was getting at, though I didn't mention the mechanism. People who are not philosophically inclined will tend to learn the basics of PUA, get a bit of success going, and then go back to their life. Those who are, well, there's a natural evolution which leads into politics related to growing older, losing interest in closing with many women per year, and so forth.
I suppose mentioning the "perpetual failures" in the same sentence and also using the negative-connotation word "agenda" may have made it seem like I was criticizing PUA practitioners who develop an interest in the political side of PUA theory. But I meant nothing of the sort. I myself have a strong philosophical demeanor and a deep interest in understanding the current tides of human organization and the pathologies underlying the modern-day erosion of proper societal coordination.
If you read "The Feeling Good Handbook" than it claims that vunerability is central for love relationships. There are PUA people like Mark Manson who are pro-vunerability but Roosh certainly isn't.
Quite a lot of PUA behavior leads those people to not living long-term relationships because the PUA paradigm prevents them from opening up and being vulnerable.
'Vulnerability' is a highly ambiguous term, though. You can definitely show an 'emotional' side (good!vulnerability) without slipping into unattractive 'beta/doormat' mode (bad!vulnerability).
In what way does the PUA paradigm prevent people from opening up and being vulnerable?
You may have the causality backwards. PUA is a tool for creating short-term sexual attraction, and the men most invested in improving this tool will be men geared more toward short-term relationships than the average person. Rather than PUA causing men to lose out on the joy of long-term relationships, it may simply be that the community is disproportionately populated by men who's thinking was already firmly oriented toward short-term flings.
Basically people close down if you tell them to force themselves to approach strangers in relatively hostile enviroments. That what the resident person I know who wrote a book on comfort zone expansion and who run a weekly meetup on comfort zone expansion has to say on the topic.
PUA trains man to consistently reflect on whether their behavior is attractive and then change their behavior based on that reflection. Commonly that means that a man thinks he isn't supposed to show weakness when he's in a relationship. It trains the idea that if the man stops engaging in PUA type behavior his girlfriend will cheat on him. That creates resonance with fear of the girlfriend leaving that prevents opening up.
Two of key people in the game are publically out as being depressed a decade afterwards. Tyler and Mystery. That even through those two have actual success in attracting woman and they make a lot of money coaching people.
Herbal/Tynan isn't but then he stopped the PUA lifestyle, by his own account lost skills and is now seeking a wife to settle down with. Losing skills is quite interesting because it indicates that the skills are superficial and not deeply rooted. The fact that Mystery reports still having approach anxiety years after being a PUA is another indication of a failure to actually do deep changes.
I haven't actually meet Mystery or Tyler in person but I do know over a handful of people who make money with selling products to the PUA demographic and who see PUA often as causing those effects. Basically most people linked to MALEvolution think that way.
Let me summarize in my own words some of the points in your post:
Many members of the PUA community:
take it too far and believe that newbies should immediately dive head-first into doing uncomfortable and anxiety-producing approaches in often-hostile environments. (Which causes these newbies to wall off their real selves and hide behind manufactured personalities.)
are paranoid about girls cheating on them and think a single slip into beta-provider mode may seal a crushing and depressing fate. (Which prevents them from opening up and showing vulnerability, which is required for escalating into a love relationship.)
believe that showing weakness in a relationship is always and everywhere a poor tactic. (Which causes the same problem as the last bullet.)
are depressed even if they have had a lot of success attracting women, as evidenced by two of the key individuals, Tyler and Mystery, encountering this issue. (Which shows that PUA working for seduction doesn't necessary mean it works for a good life.)
lose a sufficient amount of skill after a short enough time out of the game to suggest that they failed to create deeply-rooted changes in themselves. (Which stands as more evidence that PUA teaches people how to put on an act rather than how to truly improve themselves.)
Am I on the right track?
Although I agree with you on all of these claims, I don't agree with you on what I perceive to be the overall argument you're constructing, which is that reading a large selection of material from the PUA community is unlikely to be a good way for a man to better himself in the realm of achieving genuine connections with women he desires either sexually or romantically.
Before I continue: Have you read HughRistik's writing here on Less Wrong?
Yes. Let's start by explictly stating my position: There are man who get into PUA and develop skills that make it easy to get laid. Those aren't the majority. There are other man who get damanged by PUA and get hold back in their development.
A bit of what he actually wrote on LW but I don't think the majority of the linked articles. But let's take one http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/04/26/do-women-know-what-they-want/
That post basically argues that woman don't know what they want.The evidence that it brings is that the mating preferences that woman give out when you give them a questionaire don't match what other studies found in a controlled experiment.
That's a bad belief to have. It prevents guys from having deep conversations with women about their desires. If you look at the Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller point of view as articulated on http://thematinggrounds.com/ one of the aspects that a guy can learn by actually listening to woman is woman's desire for safety. When a guy goes on a date his biggest fear is getting rejected. Often for woman a big fear is getting physically violated.
That's not something that the mating priorities questionaire that HughRistik cites or even gathers data on.
In some sense you could argue that Mating Grounds is PUA material but Tucker Max would take that as an insult as he consider PUA to do more harm than good. I think a guy who wants to get layed will do better by taking that book than by taking one about 2008 PUA.
Mating Grounds about PUA:
Other more substantial things that are wrong about PUA from my perspective:
The language. Terms like k-close and f-close serve to disassociate emotions. Just because a word like sex is charged with emotions doesn't mean that it should be avoided. If man feel uneasy about speaking those words they should explore their relationship with those words instead of replacing it with more constructed language.
Treaing woman as numbers. It prevent deeper relating.
The PUA theory of physical escalation. I consider it much better to feel into what feels good to both parties of the interaction than to focus on an interlectual ladder of physical escalation. If you have a group of people who actually feel into what's right, you can have events where men and women dance naked together. Those events suffer greatly from people who operate with the PUA mindset.
Mating Grounds: The prototypical feminist alternative to PUA, which is to say, it removes women from one box, and shoves them in another, and pretends that's an improvement because they don't use words they declare as harmful (even as they repackage all the same concepts into other boxes). They're standard PUA rebranded with more feminist labeling, pretending to be morally superior while engaging in the same behaviors.
"This isn't PUA. PUA is a disgusting reduction of women to sexual transactions." What the hell do you think all of that is? "Nothing meaningful to show for their efforts" = "We'll get you sex!". They're telling men that they have the cheat codes to sex, same as every other PUA-peddler out there.
I can seduce -anybody-. I'm not even unique - I'm not a decent human being, but it just requires acting like a decent human being. No tricks, no magic sequence of steps, no nothing. It just amounts to paying attention to the other human being who is sitting across from you, and realizing that, hey, they're human too, they also want sex and intimacy and affection and to feel loved, and giving them what they want means getting what you want. But "Give the other person what they want" means realizing that -both- parties in the relationship are equal, -both- parties in the relationship both want the same things, and that -both- parties in the relationship both have something to offer and need to give their partner what their partner needs, and apparently it is too goddamn hard for people to think in terms of what their -partner- desires, rather than the magic Ur-Woman In The Heart of All Women Who Must Be Satisfied To Dispense Sex.
Blind leading the friggin' blind.
I agree that many men in the PUA community use jargon such as "k-close" and "f-close" as a technique for disassociating emotions. Where we differ is that you're condemning this method whereas I believe it's a crucial tool to have available.
First of all, let's consider where the emotions come from.
If a man is choosing between saying "I had sex with a beautiful woman I met last weekend" and "I f-closed a solid 8 last weekend", he's choosing between different linguistic constructions. The thought remains the same. In both cases, he imagines the woman, the situation, and the interaction. The difference, rather, is in the realm of cached thoughts and emotions. When he says the former, his mind transitions to associations relating to mainstream thought. When he says the latter, his cognition completes the pattern straight into the received wisdom and social influences of the PUA community.
Note that you are operating firmly within the current of mainstream thought on this topic. This isn't to say that you're wrong. You may very well be on the right track in your criticisms of PUA. But nevertheless your thoughts on this subject demonstrate absolutely no break from the mainstream of polite society. This is the only information we need to understand why you prefer to use terms like "sex" rather than "f-close".
For better or for worse, the PUA community contains a lot of information which is very much contrary to mainstream thinking and tends to draw very strong, negative emotions from the average person. Imagine a socially active and happy person using mainstream language yet trying to retain PUA-type beliefs. The amount of stoicism required to avoid cracking under social pressure would be immense.
The ultimate conclusion is this. You value the mainstream on this subject, so it's concerning to you that PUA writers run away from terms like "sex" because they don't want the associations which come along for the ride. But I'm in a different position: I think the mainstream is on the wrong track on questions relating to gender politics, thus I myself consider it very important to erect a firewall against what I see as mind control.
You phrased your objection as a separate point, but at the most fundamental level your problem with the language is a repetition of your problem with the community's beliefs.
Note that the PUA community is very unusual in that it's a bunch of guys who tend to be somewhat nerdy, intellectual, or analytical, chasing after girls who tend to fall into the category of "girls who are fun and social". It's not that women don't know what they want; it's that the girls PUA practitioners tend to pursue do not speak the same language. If a large number of PUA writers switched their focus to sex with nerdy girls, I'm certain they would quickly "discover" that literal communication about desires is important.
The idea that you shouldn't take a woman's word at face value is a very prevalent meme in PUA, and it's certainly adaptive in its context. But that doesn't mean it applies to you. Whenever you run into a piece of advice which seems totally wrong, you must take into account that the person's life experiences and desires may be very different from yours. What works in one context doesn't necessarily seem sane in another.
I'll continue onto your other points after we sort out this part.
This belief is broadly correct wrt. attraction. Safety is not remotely the same thing as attraction - it is psychologically a very different need. That's why when women started opening up about the importance for them of physical safety (or even just the clear perception of safety) in public settings, many PUAs actually listened to them. They came up with guidelines like 'always leave a line of retreat' - and these guidelines turned out to work strikingly well in the field, and so became increasingly popular. This is perhaps the clearest possible example of beliefs paying rent, no matter where they originally came from. It's how an empirically-focused art improves.
These are flawed terms, but there is an important insight behind them. Namely, that the preconditions for having sex are not very different from the ones that will lead to you two kissing/making out (k-close) or exchanging numbers (#-close) - all of these are 'closes' that reflect some level of commitment. That the 'f-close' is thus not something far-fetched and unachievable, but something that can potentially be reached, provided that you approach it with the right sequence of steps or 'courtship dance'. And yes, this does require ongoing attention to "what feels good", but that's not enough. Having a clear framework to hang it all on is very helpful, even from a pure emotional POV.
I'll be straight to the point - dating advice considered harmful.
A lot of dating advice is seemingly more on why "X is better" rather than what you should be actually doing. The well is poisoned and nobody is stopping to think why people die a short amount of time after they drink from it.
No belief pays rent in those cultures, and nobody gets evicted for unpaid debt either.
They're often anti-epistemology and their epistemology covers as much as the emperor's clothes, and any instrumental advice they may have is like a smith handing out unsharpened swords to soldiers.
Let's throw away 1000 words of advice and see what we can get.
Well, you're certainly right that the people who stay in the community are likely unrepresentative of the average. But there are many people who stay because they're seeking to be PUA wingmen/coaches (either amateur or paid-for), or simply to improve their outcomes and their understanding of seduction- and social dynamics. To some extent, this describes 2007!Roissy and 2007!RooshV too, but even then they were quite controversial and 'political', in a way that many others in the community would have found distasteful and unhelpful.
The flip side of it though is that if the 'heavyweight' political folks are right about what they infer from PUA micro dynamics (I'm far from convinced about this, but we can assume it for the sake of this argument) there might not even be much need for further work on the micro side. Overall, PUA has seen remarkably little change since 2007, though there's definitely been a welcome emphasis on 'inner game' and 'being a natural' as being the next level, and low-level tactics and tricks as useful training wheels that can eventually be dispensed with to a large extent.
Good point.
I don't see the connection. Even if the coordination system of society is falling apart, that doesn't mean that men can't enjoy the fruits of PUA ability in the short term. Why would Roissy Macro being correct not leave room for further refinement in the practical art of seduction?
In the US that might be true, when looking at the people I know in Germany who make money in that industry, a lot of them say that the 2007 PUA stuff creates more harm than good.
Instead of getting told to force myself to do approaches that make me feel unconfortable I get told that it would be good for me to do more non-violent communication style expressions of my own desires.
But even in the US there are people who speak at PUA conferences and take the label of PUA as an insult and claim there are there to get the people away from PUA style thinking.
So how does that actually help with seducing girls? Because that sounds like it simply decayed into yet another "generic self-help movement".
The person in question does write articles about how to get girls to have sex in the bathroom of a nightclub and make his money with the blog hosting those articles. That was the specific personal advice he gave me at the end of spending 10 days at a retreat in nature together.
Actually changing the substance through "generic self-help" seems to work better for the goal of getting woman than focusing on learning tactics for getting woman.
The idea of learning a bunch of techniques to change woman into liking you instead of working to change yourself doesn't seem to be successful.
Makes sense then. He got to know you quite well, and realized that a 'direct' style would work best for you.
That's not really what's happening, though. The techniques are there to change the image you're presenting and ensure that it reflects you at your best and most attractive. That's why 'the inner game' (changing yourself) and 'the outer game' (changing your social image/approach) are largely seen as complementary and mutually reinforcing.