Isla Vista Shooting - Page 40

On May 29 2014 17:01 urboss wrote:
The alpha/beta male distinction is correct, but the conclusions the PUA community draws from this are vastly incorrect.

Anyone who tries to emulate alpha male behavior is by definition not an alpha male!

Also, alpha male behavior can be correlated to testosterone levels:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347208001322

On May 29 2014 16:31 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
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.




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:



If we look in the methodology, we see this:



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)



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?


NEXT

Link 3: NYT article describing this research

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:




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



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.

Also a decent amount of pretty epic sex.

On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote:
What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.

Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.


You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.

One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.

Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.

If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.

On May 29 2014 21:07 Leporello wrote:
I kind of feel like some of you need to rent The English Patient, and chill out. Do you really need to write long essays on "what women want" in this thread?
Really sad to see it, for a multitude of reasons.

First, I think the PUA concept screws itself over by its very premise. This isn't science. As sappy as it sounds, sexual relationships are a play of emotions and personality, two things that science doesn't understand at all, really.
What does someone "on the top of the field" of personal relationships look like, exactly? Even the goal you're trying to achieve is subjective, because not everyone wants the same thing from personal relationships.
There are techniques of power-plays, projecting confidence, etc. These techniques are great for a job interview -- a forced personal meeting of short length and quick impressions. Putting this science of projection in the forefront of your interactions with the opposite sex is fucking comical. If you really feel it helps, or feel you need it, then by all means.
Just remember your childhood can't be erased, and you can't override your genetic code. You are who you are, and nothing is a bigger turn-off than finding out someone is "fake", putting on an act. If you're not a confident person, then by all means, work on your confidence -- to which one does not need PUA. But simply projecting confidence is an absolute betrayal of confidence. One intimate moment, which is the real test, and she's going to see the projection for what it is. You're walking into a paradox, and it's not going to work.
If I were to generalize women in one way it's this: they can sense insincerity better than men can. And yet the PUA idea of attracting women is to behave in a manner that is simply, by your need to learn it, not natural to you? Good luck with that. Not only does it seem like a great way to dull and obscure your personality, it also annihilates the concept and romance of personal connection. At a certain point among all these generalizations Xiphos espouses, one has to wonder if calling an escort wouldn't be any less personal? It'd certainly be more sincere.

Second, this should all be in another thread. Just having this discussion in the name of this travesty is fucking disgusting, imo. Talking about the fairness of sexual relationships in our society is one thing, but promoting PUA and codifying women's desires with certitude is really bad taste.

On May 29 2014 17:01 urboss wrote:
The alpha/beta male distinction is correct, but the conclusions the PUA community draws from this are vastly incorrect.

Anyone who tries to emulate alpha male behavior is by definition not an alpha male!

Also, alpha male behavior can be correlated to testosterone levels:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347208001322

On May 29 2014 21:51 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
@xiphos, I assumed you were citing research articles in order to build a base of evidence for your case rather than simply providing another way of illustrating the interests of the PUA community.

Your responses largely explain what the articles themselves explain, albeit in a far less scientific fashion and drawing additional conclusions from god knows where. They do nothing to answer my criticisms of them, which while I admit are motivated by a dislike of certain aspects of discourse around research, are so motivated not because they do not align with my political interests, but because they are not reliable sources of evidence. You are using these to try to provide an authoritative seeming basis from which PUA can be championed. I am questioning either the relevance of the research to your arguments, or the reliability of the inferences you are drawing from it due to the inherent limitations of such studies. I can clearly see you don't want to engage on that level, and I have no wish to try and discuss this topic without being able to assume that the quality of evidence is worth discussing.



To get back on topic, kind of, I just want to comment that I study play, and play has increasingly been one of the things I've noticed Elliot was deprived of. There's a fascinatingTED speech by one of the major american play researchers that might be worth looking at for those of you who do wish to investigate the reasons for his psychopathology. His digressions into WoW metacommentary notwithstanding, the guy clearly didn't have a very healthy developmental environment and lacked a diversity of play, particularly with other people to help him become socialized. This isn't an assertion that play deprivation was a significant factor, but I think it's worth considering. Thoughts?

On May 29 2014 21:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:


In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."

This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.

Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?

On May 29 2014 22:13 r.Evo wrote:

Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere.

For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not.

A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!"



I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.

On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote:
No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.

To get back on topic, kind of, I just want to comment that I study play, and play has increasingly been one of the things I've noticed Elliot was deprived of. There's a fascinatingTED speech by one of the major american play researchers that might be worth looking at for those of you who do wish to investigate the reasons for his psychopathology. His digressions into WoW metacommentary notwithstanding, the guy clearly didn't have a very healthy developmental environment and lacked a diversity of play, particularly with other people to help him become socialized. This isn't an assertion that play deprivation was a significant factor, but I think it's worth considering. Thoughts?

I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.

On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote:
No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.

On May 25 2014 07:20 Calanthe wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Yikes. Narcissism, refusal to accept responsibility for his actions & current situation, dehumanizing behavior, martyring himself.

This is what I'm ultimately afraid of when I read girl blogs.