|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
|
On May 29 2014 09:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 09:14 plogamer wrote:On May 29 2014 09:03 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:49 levelping wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. PUA is as much a science as astrology... I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA. On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights. Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too. Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees. That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear. There are people who live with less supportive families in gut-wrenching poverty who manage to become good people. His life was hard and its sad it was that way. However, there are people with far greater challenges in life who manage to avoid going on killing sprees. I am as sympathetic to him and his family for their suffering, but he did killed people who did nothing to him and were only going about their day. He took his suffering out on others, which is not acceptable.
No one in this thread is saying taking out suffering on others is acceptable. We need to do a better job to teach our future generation values that the shooter clearly lacked. We cannot police everyone. Even when the police visited him, he was able to pass as being harmless.
On May 29 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:
The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
What institutions?
|
On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
|
On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
|
am I the only one who keep seeing PUA as permission to use animals?
somehow i've never used/heard PUA = pickup artist before reading this thread.
|
On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:
You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
What about prostitution?
|
On May 29 2014 11:03 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:
You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. What about prostitution?
I think you are thinking of a wife lol
|
On May 29 2014 11:12 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 11:03 CountChocula wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:
You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. What about prostitution? I think you are thinking of a wife lol
Is it misogynist that I laughed at that joke?
|
On May 29 2014 11:12 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 11:03 CountChocula wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:
You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. What about prostitution? I think you are thinking of a wife lol
No. That is not what a husband/wife relationship is about.
|
On May 29 2014 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 11:12 Lockitupv2 wrote:On May 29 2014 11:03 CountChocula wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:
You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. What about prostitution? I think you are thinking of a wife lol Is it misogynist that I laughed at that joke?
Yes. Also just sad.
|
On May 29 2014 10:35 barbsq wrote:
am I the only one who keep seeing PUA as permission to use animals?
somehow i've never used/heard PUA = pickup artist before reading this thread.
I take it you have never visited the dating thread of read girl blogs for years hell, even been on the internet that long :D
jk, but you avoided the worst of the internet in all seriousness
|
On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
|
PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
|
On May 29 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
It cuts both ways. Let's keep in mind that PUA is reactionary.
|
On May 29 2014 11:27 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion. You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks. Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
|
On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
Let me know when I can get my PhD in Comedic science. Sounds like a blast to be honest.
|
On May 29 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
PUA treats females way better than the average being. A part of PUA is to judge a women by her character instead of her looks. This have a double effect. One to get rid of being nervous to talk to an attractive girl, the other is to truly connect with her and understand her psychology and essentially becoming her psychiatrist to get through life.
On May 29 2014 11:50 RuskiPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion. Let me know when I can get my PhD in Comedic science. Sounds like a blast to be honest.
There are many improv clubs and comedic workshop around. Just check your local listings. 
|
On May 29 2014 11:49 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 11:27 levelping wrote:On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion. You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks. Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA. You seem to be missing that point. So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
|
On May 29 2014 12:00 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 11:49 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 11:27 levelping wrote:On May 29 2014 10:55 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 10:26 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 10:20 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression"). But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study. You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans. So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject. No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim. PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences. But prove me wrong. Provide your citable studies, good sir. "PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl. Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations. Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth. Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian. Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd. Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma. Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations. If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials. EDIT: Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate. And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion. You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks. Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA. You seem to be missing that point. So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want. If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
Art and science are not mutually exclusive my friend.
They interrelate. For example in terms of music, many people would hate the "mainstream" music because of their easy to play tunes, the bad vocalist, very repetitive choruses as oppose to orchestra music that have much more complex composition with performers coming from prestigious musical backgrounds.
Or you can even objectively justify a motion picture by the script, the acting, the cinematography, and the overall direction.
Also it is even artistic for people to design ergonomic chairs, buildings, and inventions.
And oh
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the science of stand up comedy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
