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 and throwing out the occasional ad hominen.
Not true, the video provides enough evidence. Evidence is evidence regardless of the media outlet.
If you were to just to spend your time watching it til the middle of it instead of arguing, you could get a much better understanding of the science behind PUA.
The idea that the media outlet does not matter is entirely misconceived. A television program's main purpose is to entertain and be amusing. It is not beholden to be accurate. There is a much greater ambit to stretch the truth for the sake of entertainment.
A peer reviewed paper is not all that. You put your reputation as a scientist on the line with its publication.
I think it's quite clear why the latter is preffered as evidence.
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?
I don't know who claims that, but it is large and diverse community. I think those who claim that are misguided and that there is no need for that. In weight lifting, for example, the best coaches are former athletes who spent years under the bar, and formal studies are for the most part completely useless. I think something pretty similar applies to relating with woman.
To be fair with PUA, I also consider wide parts of stablishment psychology, sociology, economics (SOME PARTS) and finance to be complete non-sense (and I have a finance major). Just because something is taught at an university does not mean is worth knowing or useful at all; moreover, false theories create a sense of certainty that is completely false and back fires (banks using VaR, psychiatrist over prescribing pills because they made up diseases)
Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
Anyway it's for you to provide something that backs up your claim, and not for me to help you with that. So far you've shown me a television program. Is that all? Do you not realise you've been skirting around the issue all this whole when a scientific paper which says "PUA is consistent with xxx scientific principles" would have resolved this conundrum a while ago?
@GoTuNk! Maybe not. But it's quite generous to call something based on science if it as little related to science as any sort of pop-psychology you might find on Oprah. A lot of self-help can have the window dressing of science for marketing purposes without being grounded in any sort of real science.
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
I've always stated that PUA have scientific backings.
Every skill is based upon science and PUA is indifferent. Like every skill such as weightlifting, there are ways to improve your performance with the correct sets of exercise and diets.
Speaking from that analogy, what do you specifically need to know what type "workout" / "diet" have the best result in PUA? This shouldn't be difficult to provide if you have a good foundation of the topic, that is if you have watched the series!
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
I've always stated that PUA have scientific backings.
Every skill is based upon science and PUA is indifferent. Like every skill such as weightlifting, there are ways to improve your performance with the correct sets of exercise and diets.
Speaking from that analogy, what do you specifically need to know what type "workout" / "diet" have the best result in PUA? This shouldn't be difficult to provide if you have a good foundation of the topic, that is if you have watched the series!
I've no idea why you're trying to quiz me on PUA when I never claimed to be an authority on it, and only wanted evidence that it is a science.
So when you say it has scientific backings, what do you mean by this? Are you saying science endorses it? It that science can explain it?
It it's an endorsement then please show the papers where it happened.
If scientific backing means it's based on scientific principles, again please show the paper (and not your arguments by analogy) showing this to be the case.
If you're saying that science is involved in the same way that science can explain football or cooking, then I have no problem with that. Except it's a meaningless statement since nearly all human activity can be explained by science. So PUA isnt anymore peculiar or privileged than say taking dump which involves principles of physics chemistry and biology.
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
But how is this scientific? You're just repeating yourself and asking how we can argue against what you see as self evident principles. Science does not take an approach thay anything is self evident.
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
I'm not seeing a scientific journal being listed. Your random made up scenarios aren't based on any science.
No one asked for a youtube video of a show, no one asked for some scenario you've fabricated. The only thing you've been asked for is a link to a scientific paper and you refuse to provide it. As such the only possible explanation is no paper exists proving the scientific merit of PUA so you're defending a point you've completely lost.
We are going to establish a few things beforehand that PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
"For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. [...]
When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine."
"This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain."
"We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.
The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.
Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.
We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.
As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict."
"How your posture might make you more likely to cheat, steal, and commit traffic violations.
Here, the researchers tested whether a person’s posture — specifically, how “expansive”, or spread out, it is — affects their willingness to perform dishonest acts. Turns out that tricking people into adopting an expansive body position make them more willing to steal money, cheat on a test, and even commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Not only that, but cars with wider seats were more likely to be found illegally parked on the streets of New York City. The authors hypothesize that the effects they see are due to the expansive body position making people feel more powerful — and, as we know, powerful people tend to be both dishonest and hypocritical."
"Walster (1965) investigated the influence of momentary self-esteem on receptivity to the romantic advances of a stranger. The researcher arranged for a group of female participants to interact with a male research assistant who flirted with them. The female participants were then given positive or negative personality test feedback. After their self-esteem was increased or decreased in that way, they were asked to rate their liking for the male research assistant.
The results of the study indicated that women who had their self-esteem temporarily lowered found the male research assistant significantly more attractive than the women with temporary high-self esteem. Walster (1965) theorized that this effect occurred for two reasons. First, individuals who feel “imperfect” themselves may demand less in a partner. Second, a person usually has an increased need for acceptance and affection when their self-esteem is low. Overall then, when an individual is made to feel “low”, they find potential romantic partners more attractive."
"Can you “click” with someone after only four minutes? That’s the question at the heart of new research by Stanford scholars Dan McFarland and Dan Jurafsky that looks at how meaningful bonds are formed. [...]
“One of the key features of a community, social network or relationship is the sense that it’s meaningful, that there is some kind of force behind the relationship,” McFarland said. “We wanted to get at what the essence of the connection is, what makes people feel like they bonded.”
McFarland said much of the literature on social bonding points to characteristics – traits, status, attributes, motivation, experiences – as reasons why people connect. But, he said, those explanations ignore or downplay the role of communication. [...]
Their analysis of nearly 1,000 dates found that words, indeed, do matter. How the words are delivered, when and for how long make a difference to how people feel toward each other, and in this case, whether the men and women sensed that they “clicked” during their encounter.
The four-minute date, the study found, was enough time to forge a meaningful relationship – something that seemed to go beyond looks and motivation. But female participants reported lower rates of “clicking” than men, suggesting the women are more selective and, in this particular setting, more powerful."
On May 29 2014 14:17 Xiphos wrote: We are going to establish a few things beforehand that PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
"For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. [...]
When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine."
"This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain."
"We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.
The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.
Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.
We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.
As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict."
"How your posture might make you more likely to cheat, steal, and commit traffic violations.
Here, the researchers tested whether a person’s posture — specifically, how “expansive”, or spread out, it is — affects their willingness to perform dishonest acts. Turns out that tricking people into adopting an expansive body position make them more willing to steal money, cheat on a test, and even commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Not only that, but cars with wider seats were more likely to be found illegally parked on the streets of New York City. The authors hypothesize that the effects they see are due to the expansive body position making people feel more powerful — and, as we know, powerful people tend to be both dishonest and hypocritical."
"Walster (1965) investigated the influence of momentary self-esteem on receptivity to the romantic advances of a stranger. The researcher arranged for a group of female participants to interact with a male research assistant who flirted with them. The female participants were then given positive or negative personality test feedback. After their self-esteem was increased or decreased in that way, they were asked to rate their liking for the male research assistant.
The results of the study indicated that women who had their self-esteem temporarily lowered found the male research assistant significantly more attractive than the women with temporary high-self esteem. Walster (1965) theorized that this effect occurred for two reasons. First, individuals who feel “imperfect” themselves may demand less in a partner. Second, a person usually has an increased need for acceptance and affection when their self-esteem is low. Overall then, when an individual is made to feel “low”, they find potential romantic partners more attractive."
"Can you “click” with someone after only four minutes? That’s the question at the heart of new research by Stanford scholars Dan McFarland and Dan Jurafsky that looks at how meaningful bonds are formed. [...]
“One of the key features of a community, social network or relationship is the sense that it’s meaningful, that there is some kind of force behind the relationship,” McFarland said. “We wanted to get at what the essence of the connection is, what makes people feel like they bonded.”
McFarland said much of the literature on social bonding points to characteristics – traits, status, attributes, motivation, experiences – as reasons why people connect. But, he said, those explanations ignore or downplay the role of communication. [...]
Their analysis of nearly 1,000 dates found that words, indeed, do matter. How the words are delivered, when and for how long make a difference to how people feel toward each other, and in this case, whether the men and women sensed that they “clicked” during their encounter.
The four-minute date, the study found, was enough time to forge a meaningful relationship – something that seemed to go beyond looks and motivation. But female participants reported lower rates of “clicking” than men, suggesting the women are more selective and, in this particular setting, more powerful."
This is great, and I'd love to discuss this. But can you please paste this in a new thread called sth like "The Science of Mating Success"? I don't think that it is adequate to discuss these things in this thread.
On May 29 2014 15:47 Jumperer wrote: If picking up women was scientific all scientists would have a hot babe by his side.
Being a researcher doesn't give you magic powers. Science as it's actually done is more about covering your bases and eliminating alternative explanations than being certain of something at the fringe of human knowledge, because you never have enough information to answer all the questions that pop up. With that said, with all that troubleshooting, you'd think that one could approach life the same way.
The studies above, even if we were to take them fully at face value, which I don't, are essentially speculative and have poor generalizability as far as humans go. That's not to take a dump on the authors, because well, it's a hard as hell system to study and maybe that's the best we can come up with so far.
Jesus, and now I know why the dating thread prohibits anything PUA related. Also, there was a PUA thread on TL that was closed because it got so fucking creepy and idiotic.
Edit: forgive the length. Consider this a general rebuttal to the PUA justifications in this thread and a voice in support of the 'it is mostly anecdote, misrepresentation and pseudoscience' counterargument.
PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
Ohhhh goody. Now I can put my amateur epidemiology hat on.
Link 1: (daily mail)
So the daily mail is what is referred to as a tabloid newspaper, not an academic journal. It's fairly well recognized that such newspapers do not actually have science correspondents ( that is to say, someone with a level of expertise in reading and analyzing scientific literature), so articles like this are basically someone just like you reading the abstract of a paper and then trying to make it sound important (or interviewing a scientist who desperately wants their research to sound more important to get funding and then exaggerating even THAT). You can even look at this person's article history and see that, by and large, the only articles to do with actual scientific research she's written on are either 'cool wierd shit' articles, tech articles dressed up a science and attrativeness/sexuality/psychopathology research.
This article cites no quantitative data (percentages and so forth), makes some pretty hilarious fallacies right off the bat (women speak more than men on average therefore speaking less is 'more masculine'. Right there in the opening summary). It does not include a link to the study. Luckily, I'm not an imbecile, so I can do that for you. It's here
Here's the abstract:
This study reports on male and female Californians' ratings of vocal attractiveness for 30 male and 30 female voices reading isolated words. While ratings by both sexes were highly correlated, males generally rated fellow males as less attractive than females did, but both females and males had similar ratings of female voices. Detailed acoustic analyses of multiple parameters followed by principal component analyses on vowel and voice quality measures were conducted. Relevant principal components, along with additional independent acoustic measures, were entered into regression models to assess which acoustic properties predict attractiveness ratings. These models suggest that a constellation of acoustic features which indicate apparent talker size and conformity to community speech norms contribute to perceived vocal attractiveness. These results suggest that judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.
If we look in the methodology, we see this:
Thirty native speakers of Californian English (15 females, 15 males) served as raters and received course credit or $10 for compensation. All reported normal hearing and had lived in California from toddlerhood.
So the female sample for this research was 15 californian university students. Native californians too, so no one from a non-US cultural environment. (I'm making a bit of an assumption here due to the course credit stipulation, but this would be in line with most studies of this type. A sample is simply picked from whoever they find nearby). Not exactly a representative sample of 'all women'
so, so, so. In this case, you selectively quoted an article that selectively quoted someone's pet research project which, when actually looked at concludes that 'judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.', which is hardly 'guys we've proved beyond doubt why the strong silent stereotype exists!'
NEXT.
Link 2: Abstract from 'Heterosexual seduction in the Urban Night Context: Behaviors and Meanings
Hmm, so this one is a little less retarded (forgive me, I hate media misrepresentation of research). Still, we don't have much to work with from the abstract and I'm not subscribed so I can't access the full text. Here's what's relevant (mostly)
The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting.
aaand that's it. It is an observation of the dating strategies of a sample of people in lisbourne, portugal. It observed that men tended to do X and Y and women to do A and B. No attempt was made in the abstract to explain why this is the case, so no inference should be drawn. In so far as any theoretical work was achieved by the study, it was not a study of dating, but one of communitas, which is a far broader and (frankly) more important concept in the social sciences. Not exactly sure why this is used to support PUA. Perhaps elaborate?
This is an interesting one because superficially it is actually the most supportive of PUA ideology so far, however, unfortunately for the PUA crowd, it's... well, to put it nicely, using this kind of data to justify your own behavior towards a group is preeeeety much what the eugenics movement was all about. The reason why that is so reviled is, as well as being durp to the wall psychopathic assholery that ignores the feelings of your fellow humans, also completely ignores the effect of culture. Which is a pretty fucking big thing to ignore, just saying.
Using this kind of statistical modelling to make hard statements about how one should act is basically like expecting prisoners to behave like the actors in 'prisoner's dilemma'. Which may just get you shivved.
Plus, the core finding of the study revolves around the relationships between parents and offspring, not partners. A reasonable extrapolation to make would be that the less influence parents have on their offspring's choice of partner and the less they are invested in that choice, the less this applies. I think it's also fair to say that we live in a period where women's ability and desire to choose partners and live their lives without dependence on their family is higher than ever before which weakens the applicability of this research. Which was weak to begin with. So while this one is interesting, at least, It's not very practical.
NEXT
link 4: Discover summary of the results of this study:
Ok, so you're not doing yourself any favours here. This study is basically about how posture causes you to act like a douchenozzle. If you strut around like a douchenozzle, turns out you'll actually start acting like one too. Whoodathunkit.
More seriously, I assume the point trying to be conveyed was that PUA folks should learn to adopt certain postures because those postures are more conducive to feeling like a glamorous badass, which will naturally score you some tail. Behind all this bullshit lies a clean, simple truth: people will read your body language. If you look scared, they will assume you are scared and worry about it. If you don't look scared, they'll assume you're full of yourself, which some section of women do find attractive based on an assortment of anecdotes. If you want to score a nice, thoughtful girl, be ok looking scared. If you want to score someone who is just there to milk you (generally because they feel entitled to your undying loyalty on account of their haircolour and titsize), waddle around like your pants are too tight all you like.
If you want to actually propose a more reasonable logical extension of this research for use on dates, be my guest. Be warned though, I will do my best to dismember it with a number of accompanying citations you will likely find inconceivable.
NEXT!
Link the 5th!
I'm actually not even going to dignify this one. Like seriously, this would fail SO many ethics checks today that the guy would be out on his ass and never allowed into a research institution again.
On top of that (and of far more pragamatic relevance) is that there's a key distinction between the study and the behavior it is used to justify (negging). That is, the negativity in the study was brought in from an outside source, unrelated to the object of the experimental subjects' interests. He did not put them down, they were induced into a state of lower confidence through things (supposedly) unrelated to the guy. I shouldn't have to explain how this is vastly different to if the man they were meant to be going for himself put them down. So yes, if you want to have a better chance, find a girl who's desperate for someone, anyone to treat her nicely and validate her efforts a bit. In the dating world of PUA, that shouldn't be too hard...
Even ignoring that problem, by the way, you didn't quote the rest of the article, where the guy says:
First and foremost, using such tactics often comes from a place of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Dean, 1964-5). In the end then, they may not lead to lasting, satisfying relationships - just to both individuals being miserable (Boxer, 2002). Therefore, while the potential short-term effects are intellectually interesting, any temporary gain could be off-set by even greater long-term difficulties. It would simply be better to find a reasonable partner, with appropriate self-esteem, who is agreeable and attracted from the start.
Second, it is important to note, however, that these tactics do have an effect. Individuals should be aware that insults can influence their attraction and compliance. A spouse or date that makes you feel low may actually be making you fall for them more - not less. So, guys and gals beware.
Third, for those who are concerned about the ethics of specific forms of insults in relationships, it might be a good idea to broaden your definitions. Such tactics are not confined to a subset of individuals (e.g. PUAs) or a single gender. Both men and women nag and neg. Both insult to lower self-esteem, gain a compliance advantage, and influence romantic feelings. Therefore, rather than simply advocating for the abolishment of one type of behavior, or one gender's use, we might want to arrange an overall cease-and-desist of such tactics. At least, making everyone aware of the potential effect of ALL of these types of behaviors is a start.
In summary: 1) this kind of behavior is likely to lead to misery for both partners 2) it'll still actually get you attached to people though, which means 3) congratulations, you now have yourself a relationship! An unhealthy, unfulfilling, abusive relationship. GL HF ^^.
Last one:
"Research on speed dating examines what makes couples 'click' in four minutes"
Another interesting one. While I think this one is the first that fills my baseline level for actually being relevant and practical, there are some observations to make
1) the participants were all graduate students at stanford, placing them probably within maybe the top 0.1% of people in terms of their ability to critically analyse, maintain composure under pressure and communicate with their peers, all of which are critical to postgrad study and work. Taking them as a representative sample is therefore inadvisable. Especially when you're trying to apply the same rules to a drug addled tween in a nightclub.
2) There's also this note
"The researchers said the longer it took for the individuals to decide on a date, the more they reported having a bonding experience, suggesting communication can change someone's feelings about another person and break their association with traits"
I'm adlibbing totally here, but to me what that says is actually getting to know someone and letting them get to know you as an individual, not just a performance, will mean they won't judge you based on all these alpha/beta stereotypes the PUA community seem to lap up. This has also been my experience, anecdotally. Not being mr decisive, man of all men but simply by organizing, honestly, to see people I like around my life schedule and making sure I'm going out to enjoy myself in good company has resulted in a lot of really quite enjoyable dates.
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?
I don't know who claims that, but it is large and diverse community. I think those who claim that are misguided and that there is no need for that. In weight lifting, for example, the best coaches are former athletes who spent years under the bar, and formal studies are for the most part completely useless. I think something pretty similar applies to relating with woman.
To be fair with PUA, I also consider wide parts of stablishment psychology, sociology, economics (SOME PARTS) and finance to be complete non-sense (and I have a finance major). Just because something is taught at an university does not mean is worth knowing or useful at all; moreover, false theories create a sense of certainty that is completely false and back fires (banks using VaR, psychiatrist over prescribing pills because they made up diseases)
You do know that there is a metric shit ton of various science studies relating to sports that is readily used right? Saying formal studies are mostly "completely useless" is fairly disingenuous. You also are making some pretty bold and broad claims about various disciplines that make me want to ask for your qualifications to assess them. Considering you are what I am assuming is a college student, I would say you probably have limited knowledge to judge any one of those fields.
EPT
