On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
You are using the word science in an incredibly loose and general way. I've no idea what your examples are saying either - that people have preferences for different music genres? That artistic people can be investors?
You've also avoided the point on scientific papers or study of PUA. Or any scientific consensus on it. I'm not even sure how you can fit PUA into a scientific model.
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?
Do you think prostitutes actually love someone immediately after payment?
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.
You are using the word science in an incredibly loose and general way. I've no idea what your examples are saying either - that people have preferences for different music genres? That artistic people can be investors?
You've also avoided the point on scientific papers or study of PUA. Or any scientific consensus on it. I'm not even sure how you can fit PUA into a scientific model.
I've already defined what PUA is and how it is a constituent of other sciences repackaged into one. I've also explained how the other sciences are proven in multiple of levels in history to work ergo proving that by utilizing those techniques, you will end up achieving your goal.
So basically you are just ignoring or not understanding those analogies I've used. Please list what made you confused, I would be glad to discuss them with you.
But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
It's even a questionable social science. If you look up the theories that PUA is based on, it has a number of detractors in the social-scientific community. It is in no way proven, hard science.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
Who needs social science papers when he's got a National geographic channel popcorn show to back him up.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
Without having any position on PUA, the requirement for science papers is non sense. Learning to relate with females is like learning to play football (soccer), its an empirical thing developed trough imitation, practice and self analysis.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
Edit: @gotunk well they are the ones claiming that PUA has reduced male/female interaction "to a science", and have clarified that it's like social sciences like psychology. So why not hold them to their standards?
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
If you don't have the patience for a 45 minutes video, then how are you going to have the patience for more detailed reading?
Think of the video as an intro class to get hooked
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
If you don't have the patience for a 45 minutes video, then how are you going to have the patience for more detailed reading?
Think of the video as an intro class to get hooked
I'm not asking for an intro class. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that PUA is a science. Thus far you're just skipping around the issue.
EPT
