Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

The popularity and ethics of PUAs and similar communities

12357

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    .."why don't you meet any nice Irish men these days!" :D.
    I know LOTS of Irish men. And foreign men too! :) 90% of you are lovely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Pug160


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I'd kinda disagree with this. Now maybe it was a generational thing, but when I was 18-20 odd I noticed the single sex educated dudes were more successful with women. I went to an all boys school and what I noticed when I repeated the oul leaving in a mixed environment was you could kinda spot the mixed school guys fairly easily in general. They were more "mature", less a bunch of dossers, often less craic. The addition of young women in their lives as adolescents dialled back their exuberance a little. Without women in the classroom to impress the single sex schooled guys gave less of a feck. Plus more of the mixed dudes had women "friends" and weren't so great at making them girlfriends. Whereas the male only blokes didn't have that friend phase so much so were more likely to look for the romantic/sexual stuff up front. Now of course this was in very general terms. Plus I was usually comparing single sex rugger bugger type schools with less... well arrogant school environments. Arrogance at 20 gets you a longer way as a general rule. Later on not so much.

    What you're saying may well be true, but you're perhaps missing the point. Growing up in a mixed sex environment provides a safety net to those who need it, in my opinion. The young lads you're referring to probably mixed with girls outside school. But not every young lad interacts with girls outside of school hours, and if there is little or zero contact made with the opposite sex throughout those crucial years, it is surely going to have some sort of negative impact - in theory at least. Your examples are only correlations, and from a small pool of people. Also, how long ago was it?

    My view is that it's better to lock the gate before the horse has bolted, or at least attempt to. If I ever have a son, I will want to provide a stable environment for him. I wouldn't want him to end up being a Lothario or someone who can't communicate with women - I'd like him to be somewhere in the middle - well balanced and normal. One theory is that same sex schools make young lads more likely to be sexist in later life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭RedJoker


    I’ve noticed that the pickup artist (PUA) community seems to be becoming more and more mainstream lately. I’ve no interest in it myself thought I do find the rise in popularity intriguing. From what I know, PUA involves honing a routine and attempting to engage women in conversation with the aim of a one-night stand or a casual fling. It seems to work on a subset of women, just as some men can be wound around the little fingers of some women. From the ads I’ve seen, the PUAs know this and encourage their acolytes to treat approaching women as a numbers game and so they approach as many women as possible.

    There seems to be a growing amount of BS emanating primarily at least from the US aimed at young men, specifically those who’ve yet to experience a relationship or any sort of romantic interaction with the opposite sex. Most of this portrays women quite negatively and the PUA sites seem to be no exception. Women are strongly encouraged today in both professional and personal endeavours, which is fantastic. There doesn’t seem to be any similar message for young men leaving a void which ends up being filled by PUAs, “red pillers” and misogynists in general.

    I find it disturbing that such groups prey on the loneliness of young men spreading this message that women are little more than targets and prizes rather than people worth knowing. I was offered a free workshop myself once. The idea of putting up pretence just to attain one-night stands has no appeal to me. The PUAs fill a role in an ethically questionable manner. However, there seems to be no alternate message for young men which likely explains it’s growing popularity.

    Do ye agree? Any thoughts?

    Mod note: As per the charter, “Discussion of Pick-Up-Artists (PUA) methods and techniques are not allowed on this forum.” This thread is not for discussing PUA methods and/or strategies, merely for discussing the reasons for it’s growing popularity. Please bear this in mind before posting.

    In order to eliminate re reg trolls, we ask new posters who are registered for less than ten days, with post counts of fewer than twenty posts, not to post on this thread. Trolls will be banned and their posts deleted.

    I won't comment of the ethics question because that's probably more of a personal opinion on where you want to draw the line. The popularity one is interesting, it's difficult to give an answer to this, you're talking about a very broad spectrum of groups, some with very different goals.

    PUA started about 10-15 years ago, this evolved into "dating coaching" and later "lifestyle coaching" as instructors sought to distance themselves from the more extreme/embarrassing elements of PUA and get more mainstream acceptability. The manosphere has only started up within the last 5 years, this was originally a loose collection of PUA/game blogs that went a different direction to dating/lifestyle coaching and eventually came together to form the modern version of the manosphere. "Red pill" is even more recent, only in the last couple of years. I personally only heard about the manosphere and red pill 6 months ago, it's not particularly well known or discussed in a lot of dating/lifestyle game groups although it is becoming more frequent. Most "dating" instructors would advise taking it with a huge grain of salt and running it through your personal experinces first before accepting anything. Dating/lifestyle coaches are often disparagingly referred to as "purple pill" by red pillers. You then have MRA (mens rights activists) and MGTOW (men going their own way) which are pretty recent as well. Offshoots like "marriage game" have become pretty popular as well.

    Just to give an idea I've googled trended a few search terms that shouldn't have much overlap with other topics: Untitled.jpg Mystery method would be one of the best known early PUA methods. roosh and heartiste are two of the game blogs which eventually formed the modern manosphere. Heartiste used to be called Roissy but that term seems to be picking up other topics, it explains why there's a sharp initial spike for "heartiste".

    On the whole, PUA, at least the version you seem to be referring to in your description, is on the decline. There is actually a worse subset, guys describing themselves as "mPUAs" (master PUAs) would typically be a red flag and a source of amusement. Guys twirling girls on the street or doing cartwheels, going into "BEAST mode" etc. The type of stuff that gets very brief attention from girls before they're able to make their escape. It works on almost none of the female population, low self esteem or otherwise. This is the type that depends on the "loneliness of young men" "who’ve yet to experience a relationship or any sort of romantic interaction with the opposite sex." On the whole, these types of instructors are being called out and ridiculed more frequently. A type of self policing in the manosphere I suppose.

    The guys you'll typically see defending PUA and explaining that "peacocking", "negging" and "routines" aren't taught anymore would be from the "dating coach"/"lifestyle coach"/"purple pill" groups. These groups took the stuff that worked from the original PUAs and improved/iterated it over the last 10 years. The original guys got a lot of stuff right, some of which is backed up by scientific literature, mostly it's backed up by repeated infield "proof". The explanations for why these things worked were often off base though, as is some of the explanations the academics came up with also. Some of the original stuff did a lot of damage as well and had to be unlearned. I'd only recommend that material if you're interested in the historical context. The "it only works on a subset of women" fallacy is probably somewhat justified when talking about the early PUAs, they did have a lot of success though and it laid a lot of the groundwork for where game is now.

    Some of the marketing for the dating coach type groups can be very over the top, the bootcamps are expensive. There is a lot of diversity in the students and why they're there. The most common pattern is a normal, average guy getting out of a LTR/marriage, having a decent job (enough disposable income to afford ebooks/bootcamps anyway) but limited experience initiating intimate relationships with women. You also have frustrated "nice guys" who've realised the old rules no longer seem to apply, it's questionable if they ever did apply tbh, there's a funny chapter I just came across in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" called "You Just Ask Them?", it's available online. Goals with this group vary from wanting to play the field for a while, guys wanting to find a girlfriend/wife to guys just wanting to build basic social skills and have better social lives. I think the popularity of this group is on a slight increase, it certainly hasn't had the same explosion as the manosphere but it was starting from a higher baseline thanks to early PUAs. I think the continued popularity is due to the "purple pill" nature of it, it's presented in a very "feminine friendly" manner so it doesn't trigger the same immediate dismissal/repulsion from your average "nice guy" who stands to benefit a great deal from it. I don't think this "purple pill" nature is purely a marketing ploy (although that's probably part of it), a lot of the manosphere/red pill beliefs can be quite toxic and unhelpful for students. The other reason for the increased popularity is that it works for guys who put the effort in, the main cases where a guy putting in work won't improve is where there are underlying psychological issues which need to be worked through with a therapist first/concurrently. It's main focus is on self improvement and being an inherently better/more attractive man (which game is a part of) so it "works" (for lack of a better word) on the vast majority of women.

    The increased popularity of the manosphere/red pill likely has a few sources but it's a pretty diverse area. A lot of manosphere content is click bait and designed to cause outrage and get shared on social media which has been rapidly increasing it's popularity. Third wave feminism/SJWs are bat**** crazy and don't do themselves any favors (the recent UVA false rape claim, gamergate, etc.), a lot of manosphere content points this out but it's like picking on mPUAs, very easy targets for criticism. I'd imagine they're the main "lures". The reason people continue to frequent the sites are that there's a lot of motivational, self improvement type content which improves mens lives. There's a lot of game material which helps men. Female psychology, male/female attraction, evolutionary biology, etc. are fascinating topics in their own right and there's a lot of discussion on those topics. Despite it's many faults, the "red pill" honestly just does a much better job of explaining/predicting reality and female behaviour than any mainstream or feminist ("blue pill") outlets.

    I'm not sure how much MGTOW and MRA are increasing in popularity, it's not an area I'm hugely familiar with. My impression is that it's mostly made up of guys who are at the lower end of the dating spectrum or guys who have just come out of divorces and are more focused on being able to see their kids. The reason for the increased popularity is likely an offshoot of manosphere click baiting but the specific interest in MGTOW and MRA afterwards might be due to "open hypergamy" and family courts being heavily stacked against men. I know Wibbs has mentioned that high divorce rates are more of a U.S. phenomenon rather than an Irish one and feminism isn't as big of an issue here thankfully. A lot of the analysis on divorce comes from UK statistics which, despite being a lot lower, show a lot more detail about trends. Dalrock (a Christian marriage manosphere blog) would probably have the best analysis on divorce from the manosphere: 1, 2, 3, 4. Divorce rates are actually decreasing but this might be explained by the recent trend of women delaying marriage until their 30s where they're far less likely to get divorced. The red pill explanation is that this is mainly due to "SMV imbalances". It's a complex topic though, not one I've done a lot of research into.

    Obviously, there's a lot of overlap and exceptions within these groups, these are the big subsets I've noticed.

    Regarding the point you brought up about terminology. I agree it is pretty off putting and a lot of the purple pill/dating coach instructors have tried to remove a lot of it. Some of it has been around before/outside of the community though. You "score" or "get lucky". You "get shot down" rather than having a woman reject your worth as a sexual prospect. Most of this stuff is likely used because getting rejected isn't a pleasant experience so it can be easier psychologically to think of it as an impersonal "game" you're playing. PUAs did take that to a pretty nerdy extreme, although sometimes shorthand is easier when referring to concepts without having to explain them each time.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭GalwayGuitar


    There is an anti-PUA guy (who will still sell you books on how to pick up girls) called Aaron Sleazy who made a good point, if lads spent more time building up their social circles they wouldn't need to learn game since they would meet girls naturally.

    One thing I know for sure is Irishmen could be world beaters if we weren't such alcoholics. We could clean up with foreign women especially. We meet girls, we're charming and funny, and then we blow it by getting wasted. Seen it, and been guilty of it many times.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    There is an anti-PUA guy (who will still sell you books on how to pick up girls) called Aaron Sleazy who made a good point, if lads spent more time building up their social circles they wouldn't need to learn game since they would meet girls naturally.

    One thing I know for sure is Irishmen could be world beaters if we weren't such alcoholics. We could clean up with foreign women especially. We meet girls, we're charming and funny, and then we blow it by getting wasted. Seen it, and been guilty of it many times.

    It don't think it follows that a large circle of friends or the lack thereof will lead to success with women or lack of success with women and the same goes for alcohol.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭GalwayGuitar


    It don't think it follows that a large circle of friends or the lack thereof will lead to success with women or lack of success with women.

    I believe a number of PUAs advise men not to drink if the want success with women.

    But if you have a large social circle you'll be meeting people in a more natural way. Of course the trick is not to get friendzoned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    But if you have a large social circle you'll be meeting people in a more natural way. Of course the trick is not to get friendzoned.

    Of course, I agree with you. It depends on what you mean by natural. What is natural? Do you mean some kind of moral way of meeting people?
    It is just as likely in my opinion that a guy who is consistently successful with women can meet perfect strangers and have sex with them within minutes or hours of first approaching them or he can have multiple previous sexual partners he can get in touch with when he needs sex. These are women who want sex and are only too happy to have a no strings thing. Lots of guys keep the contacts of various women in cold storage when they need them. None of these women might know anything or want to know anything about him whatsoever.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,291 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    There is an anti-PUA guy (who will still sell you books on how to pick up girls) called Aaron Sleazy
    ...wait... did I read that right... Aaron Sleazy? :pac::pac: No way. You couldn't make that up.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    Wibbs wrote: »
    ...wait... did I read that right... Aaron Sleazy? :pac::pac: No way. You couldn't make that up.

    Some of these fellas sound like they come straight out of a comic book! Mystery,matador.....naughty nomad!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 216 ✭✭theboy1


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Really? Bloody hell, what sorta variety of dingbat were they? "I'm an engineer, I build shít that makes your world work. What do you do" would be my approach. If I didn't run out of maths when I ran out of fingers and had brains and such..

    The world doesn't need engineers it needs farmers.We didn't run out of bridges or planes, we ran out of food.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,291 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Who designs and builds the tractors and all the other agricultural equipment required for the large scale farming necessary in today's world? Who designs and builds the ships and trucks and other systems to get said food to market? And we're not even close to running out of food in the western world.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 216 ✭✭theboy1


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Who designs and builds the tractors and all the other agricultural equipment required for the large scale farming necessary in today's world? Who designs and builds the ships and trucks and other systems to get said food to market? And we're not even close to running out of food in the western world.

    We can't be shortsighted.More and more crops are failing every year.Soon we could be just left with corn.

    IMO we would have to consider interstellar travel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    theboy1 wrote: »
    We can't be shortsighted.More and more crops are failing every year.Soon we could be just left with corn.

    IMO we would have to consider interstellar travel.

    Only people that have seen interstellar got your quote everyone else thinks you believe that nonsense.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,533 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    theboy1 has been banned. Please do not reply to his posts.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Pug160


    I'm a bit disappointed that the mixed sex school discussion died a rather premature death on this thread - it's something I think is at least worth talking about. It's also not completely unconnected to the main thread topic. Perhaps it can be discussed at a later date on a dedicated thread. It just reminds me of the whole 'I'm all right Jack' attitude many people have when they don't think something has had a negative impact on them. The truth is, life isn't always black and white - what may have a negative impact on one person might not have the same impact on another. Some people claim that their dad beat seven shades of crap out of them as a child but were unaffected by it and even went on to become very successful and well rounded people. But we don't all agree that that's a good way to be brought up just because some people aren't negatively affected by it. One other attitude I see a lot of - from men in particular - is a kind of fear of the sexes becoming too close. It's like they encourage segregation and want to keep the opposite sex at arm's length. The obvious answer is that sexism plays at least a part in that. But I don't think it's the only thing at play. I need a bit of help on this though. Perhaps it has something to do with machismo. All I can say to that is that there are some manly men out there who don't feel very manly at all, because they didn't mix with the opposite sex enough growing up and as a consequence are lacking in certain qualities needed to form relationships with women. Sure, people can fix problems as adults, but like I previously stated, why attempt to lock the gate after the horse has bolted?

    I decided to have a quick look at this topic on some other forums. One of the forums I looked at was a student forum. Not everybody agrees by any means, but a lot of these young university aged students were saying things like ''the people who were awkward in those early years may have benefited from a mixed sex school'' and ''It (same sex school) may have given the timid people future problems''. A lot of girls also seem to be in favour of mixed sex schools as well, with many arguing that same sex schools seem more ''bitchy'' and what have you. Maybe this is not a topic that's on everybody's radar but I reckon it's more important than some people think.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭RedJoker


    My initial reaction to the school topic was that if kids having weak social skills was the biggest problem with schools we wouldn't be doing too badly. That's not really fair though as schools are making changes and trying to improve but it's a very difficult/slow process in an underfunded area. It's also not fair because it doesn't really address the question and it's certainly a discussion worth having.

    Segregating by gender makes a certain amount of sense. Boys and girls tend to learn differently and it would allow more specialized teaching methods. Segregating by age group makes a certain amount of sense as well. Students will tend to be at similar levels when split by age. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the best approach though. Using the current batch process might not be ideal either. You could argue for segregating by personality type (analytical, creative, entrepreneurial, artistic, artisans, etc.) rather than by age or gender. That might improve teaching but you also risk social development by keeping students with similar personalities together.

    Which then brings the question of whether social development is or should be the responsibility of schools. If it is a responsibility, how high a priority is it. As in, when a conflict arises between creating economically useful people or creating socially well adjusted people, which takes precedence and to what extent.

    It's an interesting discussion:
    RSA - Changing education paradigms video
    Seth Godin - What is education for? PDF
    There's also a bunch of TEDTalks on the topic.

    Are schools even the problem though? Studies are showing that students who use SMS texting abbreviations actually score higher on grammar and spelling tests. Recent generations do most of their social interaction via written word. It's not really surprising that literary scores are improving while interpersonal social skills might be decreasing. Of course, every technological improvement causes the same anxiety. When TV and radio were invented, people complained that everyone’s brain was going to go to mush. When the printing press was invented, people thought it was going to destroy our ability to speak eloquently. Social media is the latest victim of this but studies are showing that it doesn't necessarily cause narcissism and also that it's not interfering with the closeness we feel with others which are the biggest arguments for "the internet is ruining us".

    You could argue that game is experiencing this same anxiety. "It's going to turn men into bitter misogynists and social robots", etc., etc. In a way it's a very new technology. If social skills are a bigger issue with men today then game is probably the ideal solution for it. In terms of motivation I can't think of a better sell to young men then learn social skills and you'll have more success with women. It's also, by far, the most advanced tool to teach it. Instructors have gone into excruciatingly analytical detail on the subject of teaching social skills and forming connections in order to help students who needed it. In fact, it's a common complaint from critics that game is unnecessarily analytical. Do we teach game in schools...? :pac: Don't think we're there yet but people balked at the idea of bringing tv or computers into schools at one stage as well. We get back to the question of whether that should be the responsibility of schools in the first place though. I highly doubt we'd see it in schools in it's current form but I'd imagine some cleaned up, socially acceptable version of it may start influencing things, if it hasn't already.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Pug160


    RedJoker wrote: »
    My initial reaction to the school topic was that if kids having weak social skills was the biggest problem with schools we wouldn't be doing too badly. That's not really fair though as schools are making changes and trying to improve but it's a very difficult/slow process in an underfunded area. It's also not fair because it doesn't really address the question and it's certainly a discussion worth having.

    Segregating by gender makes a certain amount of sense. Boys and girls tend to learn differently and it would allow more specialized teaching methods. Segregating by age group makes a certain amount of sense as well. Students will tend to be at similar levels when split by age. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the best approach though. Using the current batch process might not be ideal either. You could argue for segregating by personality type (analytical, creative, entrepreneurial, artistic, artisans, etc.) rather than by age or gender. That might improve teaching but you also risk social development by keeping students with similar personalities together.

    Which then brings the question of whether social development is or should be the responsibility of schools. If it is a responsibility, how high a priority is it. As in, when a conflict arises between creating economically useful people or creating socially well adjusted people, which takes precedence and to what extent.

    It's an interesting discussion:
    RSA - Changing education paradigms video
    Seth Godin - What is education for? PDF
    There's also a bunch of TEDTalks on the topic.

    Are schools even the problem though? Studies are showing that students who use SMS texting abbreviations actually score higher on grammar and spelling tests. Recent generations do most of their social interaction via written word. It's not really surprising that literary scores are improving while interpersonal social skills might be decreasing. Of course, every technological improvement causes the same anxiety. When TV and radio were invented, people complained that everyone’s brain was going to go to mush. When the printing press was invented, people thought it was going to destroy our ability to speak eloquently. Social media is the latest victim of this but studies are showing that it doesn't necessarily cause narcissism and also that it's not interfering with the closeness we feel with others which are the biggest arguments for "the internet is ruining us".

    You could argue that game is experiencing this same anxiety. "It's going to turn men into bitter misogynists and social robots", etc., etc. In a way it's a very new technology. If social skills are a bigger issue with men today then game is probably the ideal solution for it. In terms of motivation I can't think of a better sell to young men then learn social skills and you'll have more success with women. It's also, by far, the most advanced tool to teach it. Instructors have gone into excruciatingly analytical detail on the subject of teaching social skills and forming connections in order to help students who needed it. In fact, it's a common complaint from critics that game is unnecessarily analytical. Do we teach game in schools...? :pac: Don't think we're there yet but people balked at the idea of bringing tv or computers into schools at one stage as well. We get back to the question of whether that should be the responsibility of schools in the first place though. I highly doubt we'd see it in schools in it's current form but I'd imagine some cleaned up, socially acceptable version of it may start influencing things, if it hasn't already.

    Schools are at least partially responsible for social development. I'd be very surprised if anyone in authority refuted that claim. To what extent they're responsible is in question. It's certainly not a case of one or the other when it comes to good grades or social skills - both can go hand in hand. Grades will take precedence over everything else but it would surely depend on the individual school. If the choice was between a single sex school that was only marginally better than the mixed sex school in terms of results, the overall benefit of the mixed sex school could very well be better. Once again, it's not always about having one thing or the other, many mixed schools do very well.

    It depends what you mean by problem. I don't think any dysfunction has a sole reason behind it. But the truth is, the school years are very important developmental years where learning skills - both academic and social - stand people in good stead for the rest of their lives. Why do you think so many conscientious parents - particularly middle class parents who have more money than average parents - sign their kids' up to so many extracurricular activities? It gives the children more social confidence and helps to make them well rounded. This notion that many parents are only worried about results and nothing else is a falsehood in my opinion. The old saying about not being able to teach an old dog new tricks does have an element of truth to it unfortunately. We become more rigid in our ways as we age, so it makes much more sense to learn life's essential skills early on when the brain is absorbing more information.

    Teaching men social skills and certain laws of attraction is useful. But it should never really get to that stage - that's my whole point. This whole 'game' thing isn't really something that should be promoted anyway - certainly not in the same way as promoting cognitive behavioural therapy or anything else with legitimate backing. But I do acknowledge that it probably is useful to some people. But that's all it is - a tool which may or may not be useful - depending on what advice you take. I personally think there are more well rounded avenues one can go down, which are less likely to be destructive. I think there is an ethical route to being successful with women but that is not often promoted. Abandonment of certain moral scruples is often promoted as well as varying degrees of chauvinism.

    It can all be avoided if a person has had a balanced upbringing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭RedJoker


    Pug160 wrote: »
    Schools are at least partially responsible for social development. I'd be very surprised if anyone in authority refuted that claim. To what extent they're responsible is in question. It's certainly not a case of one or the other when it comes to good grades or social skills - both can go hand in hand. Grades will take precedence over everything else but it would surely depend on the individual school. If the choice was between a single sex school that was only marginally better than the mixed sex school in terms of results, the overall benefit of the mixed sex school could very well be better. Once again, it's not always about having one thing or the other, many mixed schools do very well.

    Sure, both can certainly go hand in hand. Sometimes there might be conflict though. Grades taking precedence sounds reasonable enough to me.
    Pug160 wrote: »
    It depends what you mean by problem. I don't think any dysfunction has a sole reason behind it. But the truth is, the school years are very important developmental years where learning skills - both academic and social - stand people in good stead for the rest of their lives. Why do you think so many conscientious parents - particularly middle class parents who have more money than average parents - sign their kids' up to so many extracurricular activities? It gives the children more social confidence and helps to make them well rounded. This notion that many parents are only worried about results and nothing else is a falsehood in my opinion. The old saying about not being able to teach an old dog new tricks does have an element of truth to it unfortunately. We become more rigid in our ways as we age, so it makes much more sense to learn life's essential skills early on when the brain is absorbing more information.

    Absolutely.
    Pug160 wrote: »
    Teaching men social skills and certain laws of attraction is useful. But it should never really get to that stage - that's my whole point. This whole 'game' thing isn't really something that should be promoted anyway - certainly not in the same way as promoting cognitive behavioural therapy or anything else with legitimate backing. But I do acknowledge that it probably is useful to some people. But that's all it is - a tool which may or may not be useful - depending on what advice you take. I personally think there are more well rounded avenues one can go down, which are less likely to be destructive. I think there is an ethical route to being successful with women but that is not often promoted. Abandonment of certain moral scruples is often promoted as well as varying degrees of chauvinism.

    It can all be avoided if a person has had a balanced upbringing.

    I agree that it would be better if men were taught social skills and taught about women earlier in life. There would probably be much less anger. It's become pretty accepted now that anger is a phase guys tend to go through when they're learning about the red pill. Something similar to the 5 stages of grief. It definitely depresses a lot of guys as well. Some guys end up jaded. It's why there can be a lot of misogyny. A lot never accept it and stay in denial, sometimes they have a real life experience later on that resonates with the red pill beliefs and they accept it. Some people never change their beliefs, it's somewhat accepted that not everybody will want to change beliefs they've held onto and built identities around, especially later in life. Personally I'm at the acceptance stage and didn't really have an anger or depression phase. I came into game through the purple pill route so most of the red pill stuff I learned about 6 months ago was old knowledge from experience anyway. Purple pill tends to be very practical and negative beliefs unsurprisingly aren't particularly helpful when trying to meet women.

    Not sure what you mean by legitimate backing or why you think game doesn't have it?

    If we agree that game is just a tool then the question of ethics doesn't really come into it. Like a gun isn't ethical or unethical, it's a tool.

    A lot of the problem is with the explanations for why these techniques work. The original guys had a lot of issues and came up with explanations that were pretty manipulative and made very little sense but have hung around despite better explanations. If you followed it for the reasons they gave then I'd agree it would be pretty unethical and immoral. Probably destructive also. I kinda wanted to avoid the ethical topic because it's a long explanation but we might as well address it.

    A lot of pickup techniques can be traced back to avoiding tripping the heuristics girls use to filter guys out and tripping the ones that filter guys in. Girls are the sex who need to filter through their options. Men perform, women choose. They don't have time to fully get to know everyone who's interested in them. Female attraction is much more complex than male attraction, which is primarily visual. To filter their options they use heuristics which have evolved over time, they're very good at it and it's unlikely to be a conscious process which is why asking the girls won't work. They're not trying to be dishonest, they don't consciously know the reasons so they use meaningless, socially safe, explanations like "no chemistry". Our heuristics (beautiful face, tits, etc.) are much more immediately obvious.

    Unattractive guys will usually follow certain patterns. Attractive guys often go against them. Most of the early PUA guys spotted these patterns and backwards rationalised explanations (often pretty manipulative ones at that). Texting back instantly is something most unattractive needy guys will do so the advice to take time avoids triggering this heuristic. Explanations about making the girl anxious don't really make much sense, I don't see that being a productive thing. Takeaways work similarly, an unattractive guy isn't used to getting responses from girls and won't look away. Qualification follows a similar theme. An unattractive guy won't have standards, he'll take what he can get. A guy who qualifies will trigger this positive heuristic for girls. Letting the girl know you like her for reasons other than her body/looks isn't that important, she knows you're attracted to her body/looks. Negs were something an unattractive guy would never do, it was never about "lowering a girls self esteem". Teasing is taught instead because it triggered the same heuristic without the potential downsides of insulting a girl. They still "work" though, in the sense that they trigger the heuristic, they're just harder to execute and unnecessary. An instructor said recently that everything in pickup is disqualification, you're avoiding the behaviours that an overly interested guy would do. None of these are mandatory but they're all helpful which is why you'll see discussion about which ones you can cut out, what's "essential", etc. Preselection tends to be very accurate which is why it's such a powerful heuristic for women. Wealth is a heuristic women use, it's rarely about being "gold diggers".

    So the explanation for why it works always boils down to unattractive guys tend to not do these things, attractive guys tend to do them. If you want the "why" then you ask why unattractive guys exhibit the negative traits more often and attractive guys exhibit the positive ones more often. It's never about having a particular effect on the girl (manipulative or not).

    Beginners need to be taught these techniques so they don't keep making the same mistakes. The better you get (or better looking you are) the more unattractive heuristics you can trip without it costing you, your natural behaviour no longer inadvertently trips other unattractive heuristics and you end up accidentally triggering the attractive heuristics. Advanced guys will do these things as a favour to the girl to make the process easier for her. They're no longer required but they help things along. They know they're attractive guys but they appreciate that the girl doesn't know that yet.

    The idea that guys are encouraged to "put up a pretense" in order to sleep with girls is off base as well. It can take a while for a girl to decide whether you meet her threshold for attractiveness, it's something she's trying to figure out and that can sometimes take time. It's a fun process though so it's not exactly some chore men are putting themselves through. She'll also test to find out as well, this is often a subconscious process although sometimes they do it to mess with guys for amusement. Different girls respond better to different heuristics like some men respond better to different heuristics for fertility (beautiful face vs. tits vs. ass, etc.). Heuristics are cultural and evolving as well. Girls will always look to see that you're still the same attractive man, even after 50 years of marriage they still check. Guys are never advised to lie and tell girls they're looking for relationships, etc. for the simple reason that it's counterproductive. Unattractive guys almost always want relationships while only some attractive guys do. Unattractive guys hate being single and want to grab onto the first girl that comes along. No matter how well she knows you already, by giving relationship vibes, you're triggering this heuristic. Even if you do want one, guys are advised to make it seem like it's her idea and something that appears like a "sacrifice" because it makes you seem like a more attractive guy to her.

    So is this ethical? It's no more unethical than a girl wearing heels or (well applied) make up really, which is the converse for male attraction that game is for female attraction. Personally I prefer when women make the effort to look as beautiful as possible. I want to sleep with the most attractive women I can. There's also scientific literature that show men having larger ejaculations when sleeping with more attractive women, likely an evolutionary trait to maximise reproductive chances with the most fertile women. So you're making yourself look like the most attractive man you can be to her. Pretty much all game blogs/companies advise working on your actual attractiveness and inner beliefs at the same time. Getting reference experience with women will naturally increase your attractiveness so it's somewhat of a catch 22 there. It's like advising a girl to eat well, exercise, take care of her skin, hair, nails etc. rather than telling her it's ok to eat nutella out of a jar and squeeze into a corset before she goes out, pretty obvious stuff. Personally I'd prefer if all women were taught how to apply make-up properly, some girls destroy their natural beauty with bad make-up application. Likewise I'd imagine most women would like guys to make themselves as attractive as possible and cut out the needy, unattractive behaviours.

    Adopting the behaviours without actually working on the underlying issues (like the original PUAs did) is pretty unethical I'd agree. It would be the equivalent of girls stuffing their bra or wearing a corset to disguise their weight. If the illusion is going to be gone before sex then it's kinda bad form in my opinion, although it's not the end of the world I guess. If it inspired me to make the effort to seduce her it's not like the sex is going to be unenjoyable anyway. Less likely I'd see her again though. I wouldn't expect a girl to go reapply make-up before sex but taking it off and purposely making herself look less attractive before sex isn't very considerate. Likewise a guy who asks for permission or supplicates and acts submissive during sex is making himself less attractive to the girl so it's not very considerate either. Where you want to draw the line of what's ethical or unethical is personal opinion of course.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    The idea that guys are encouraged to "put up a pretense" in order to sleep with girls is off base as well. It can take a while for a girl to decide whether you meet her threshold for attractiveness, it's something she's trying to figure out and that can sometimes take time. It's a fun process though so it's not exactly some chore men are putting themselves through. She'll also test to find out as well, this is often a subconscious process although sometimes they do it to mess with guys for amusement.

    What do you think if the roles were reversed?
    She'll also test to find out as well, this is often a subconscious process although sometimes they do it to mess with guys for amusement.

    Quite the mind reader you are. I can assure you I am quite conscious. And very conscientiousness of not hurting the feelings of others. If only PUA's were so careful.


    I think it's valuable in human relationships to imagine yourself from the other side of the conversation or relationship and see yourself from the other perspective. Actually think of the persons situation gender but also life personality etc. And then go through your relationship with them either in work or friendships. Think of that person's responsibilities or what they have been through. And not just what they want you to see. But what they must be feeling.

    For instance a racist remark or certain gender sensitive remarks. Or conversations you have had. How might you have come across?

    You don't have to agree with their perception but you might have a better understanding of why they have it.

    It's also useful for gauging when someone is actually just a bad person.


    You say it's not about hiding yourself for men. But really I can guarantee you most women do not have a favorable opinion of PUA's. In fact think you are a woman for a moment. Truly imagine what you feel. Hurt? Degraded? Humiliated? Scared? Objectified?
    Where you want to draw the line of what's ethical or unethical is personal opinion of course.

    Morality is not subjective it's objective. That's the whole thing about morality.

    Put yourself in the woman's position with her experiences etc and then look at yourself. Do you still think you are leading these men down a path where they can be honest with the vast majority of women without women being offended? It's actually isolating men. They cannot be honest with the women they date about what they are doing. Because if they were the women would be well offended. I would wager the men sense this and are infact lonely in their interactions with women.

    Seriously do you really think I deserve to be treated the PUA way? To laughed at mocked and hurt like that? I am not an object. I am a human and I am capable of telling you what I feel and think.

    How would YOU feel if someone treated you the PUA way? Just think on that.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,291 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Morality is not subjective it's objective. That's the whole thing about morality.
    While I might take some of your points on board, on this particular point I would strenuously disagree. Morality is anything but objective. This is self evident with even the briefest glance at human culture, history and mores. It has clearly changed over time and changes damn near with the year in our sped up modern society. It also varies widely between cultures even today. EG the accepted morality of Ireland in 1955 is very different to the accepted morality of 2015. Morality has remarkably few absolutes. That goes triple for sociosexual and reproductive morality.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,740 ✭✭✭the evasion_kid


    She'll also test to find out as well, this is often a subconscious process although sometimes they do it to mess with guys for amusement.

    I've actually encountered this a few times,its their way of "thinking" they hold some imaginary power,after all they're the ones doing the testing here so you better tow the line....buster.at this stage youre better off running as you're no better than a dog to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    Wibbs wrote: »
    While I might take some of your points on board, on this particular point I would strenuously disagree. Morality is anything but objective. This is self evident with even the briefest glance at human culture, history and mores. It has clearly changed over time and changes damn near with the year in our sped up modern society. It also varies widely between cultures even today. EG the accepted morality of Ireland in 1955 is very different to the accepted morality of 2015. Morality has remarkably few absolutes. That goes triple for sociosexual and reproductive morality.
    No morality is relative that is not the same as saying it is subjective. The law of contradictions states. Something cannot be B and at the same time be A if A and B are contradictory.

    Morality cannot have legitimacy if it contradicts itself. Is the person's action ultimately moral, immoral, or amoral? All I'm saying, regarding the relativity of morality, is that the rule of non-contradiction proves that it must be viewed as a spectrum concept, NOT with the common "that's right, that's wrong, and that's that" attitude. More importantly, the awareness of moral complexity that this brings must be used diligently to ascertain what moral and immoral aspects of a given act exist, and to recognize that true justice reacts with appropriate severity as a result.


    Morality is relative yes, but subjective no. There is a spectrum yes.


    Subjective morality is flawed and self serving. It is blinkered and illogical. Subjective morality is unexamined. Relativism is what I've described above: admitting that there are degrees of right and wrong determined by intent and circumstance. Subjectivism is "whatever I think is good, that's what good is." That's just plain, self-important nonsense.

    Morality changing over time is relative. It's not subjective it's relative objectivity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    There is obviously a spectrum in all of this morality talk though. The severity of actions usually determines how real it seems to people. It's easy for it to come across as bunkum on a forum.:o

    Also I am not saying there is a spectrum on the question. But a good guide is 'Would I like someone to do this to me?'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The very axioms we use to underpin morality are subjective - i.e. deciding whether or not humans should live, or whether our true moral goal is to obliterate ourselves from the planet - are both subjective views that lead to completely different moral systems; technically, neither one is more valid than the other, it's just that the majority of people choose to follow a moral system, which suppresses people who hold the latter moral system from carrying out what they view as morally desirable.

    If everyone agreed on the same axioms that should underpin morality, then you could probably make a case that how you decide to build that moral framework past that point, can be mostly objective - but the axioms you decide to base it upon are still subjective in the first place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    The very axioms we use to underpin morality are subjective - i.e. deciding whether or not humans should live, or whether our true moral goal is to obliterate ourselves from the planet - are both subjective views that lead to completely different moral systems; technically, neither one is more valid than the other, it's just that the majority of people choose to follow a moral system, which suppresses people who hold the latter moral system from carrying out what they view as morally desirable.

    If everyone agreed on the same axioms that should underpin morality, then you could probably make a case that how you decide to build that moral framework past that point, can be mostly objective - but the axioms you decide to base it upon are still subjective in the first place.
    Moral sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true but factually true. An axiom as a starting point of reasoning Logical axioms are statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define.

    Your reasoning cannot contradict itself. Non-logical axioms are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific theory When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. A non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression.

    Therefore the starting point of morality is logic in that case and logic is not subjective.

    Moral sentences that include factual propositions about the world.

    Chomsky states
    Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."

    If you hold yourself to lower standards than you expect of others what kind of world is it that you see?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    Pug160 wrote: »
    The truth is, life isn't always black and white - what may have a negative impact on one person might not have the same impact on another.
    That's very very true.

    I would say that shows morality is relative rather than subjective though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    Meh I am taking stuff too seriously tonight ..sorry :o

    Don't mean to hijack thread. ...weird mood.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,533 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Meh I am taking stuff too seriously tonight ..sorry :o

    Don't mean to hijack thread. ...weird mood.

    No need to apologize. Ethics is part of the thread title.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,291 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Don't mean to hijack thread. ...weird mood.
    Feck that LKL, I can't see any hijacking. Indeed for me this shít just got interesting. And for a "weird mood", you're firing on all cylinders on the philosp...phil... thinking front. :) Keep it coming I say. I still think you're off base on the subjective/objective morality position, but anyone that can type a sentence like "Moral sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world" has both my thumbs up. You make my head hurt in a good way. :)

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Feck that LKL, I can't see any hijacking. Indeed for me this shít just got interesting. And for a "weird mood", you're firing on all cylinders on the philosp...phil... thinking front. :) Keep it coming I say. I still think you're off base on the subjective/objective morality position, but anyone that can type a sentence like "Moral sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world" has both my thumbs up. You make my head hurt in a good way. :)
    Oh thank you :o

    I am aware writing a mammoth post can be like a wall of text. Nite nite for now though! :)


Advertisement