I believe attraction is somewhat of a science BUT not all women are attracted to the same thing. There's just no way it's that simple. Not all women are attacted to money or status, but many are. Not all women are attracted to muscle bound guys, but many are. The trick is knowing what the woman YOU are interested in is attracted to...the 4 billion other women out there don't really matter when there's that one you're head over heels over for and SHE's the one you want to attract. You just never know...if she wants a rich guy, and you ain't got it, move on.
I keep swinging back and forth on you, Jordan, because it does sound like there is a decent guy in there that legitimately wants help. Perhaps I just feel discouraged because of the all the other blockheads that post here. First, ditch the science. Science is useful in many areas, but this is not one of them. You can come up with all the equations you want explaining why the Mona Lisa is a great piece of art, but you will never learn to paint that way. It's like handing a 5 year old a physics textbook and telling him to learn how to ride a bike with it. As for friendship - to me, this would be someone where I could count on them and they could count on me, someone who has your back when things get rough. Odds are good that I do not have this sort of relationship with person #697 to friend me on facebook. Glucocorticoids , Oxycontin, we all have that stuff floating around in our heads, but at some point, you need to realize that you are the one in charge here. Your brain can't just decide later on today to commit suicide - that's your call. Now it's not that all that stuff that happened in the past doesn't matter, what matters is how you deal with it. Self improvement should be done for personal reasons, not to try and impress anybody (unless you are trying to make someone you don't like envious, but that's a different topic) I'm losing weight right now, because I don't want to weigh 300 pounds someday. But even if I did, I know my real friends will still be here, my weight loss has nothing to do with them. And finally, personal relationships are an emotional issue, not an intellectual one, which is why science is not useful here. I used to make the mistake of tackling emotional issues intellectually, and I made a complete mess of things every time.
"Science is useful in many areas, but this is not one of them."
This is a laugh and a half because you have regularly demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about science. The first half of your sentence is nothing more than lip service.
"You can come up with all the equations you want explaining why the Mona Lisa is a great piece of art, but you will never learn to paint that way. It's like handing a 5 year old a physics textbook and telling him to learn how to ride a bike with it."
Don't throw out analogies if you don't know how to use them, okay?
Here's the thing, D. Understanding the science behind attraction so that you can go out and apply it is like learning the science behind botany so that you can grow a better vegetable garden in your backyard.
"As for friendship - to me, this would be someone where I could count on them and they could count on me, someone who has your back when things get rough. Odds are good that I do not have this sort of relationship with person #697 to friend me on facebook. "
I take it back. This is the funniest thing you've said yet. Do a Google search on the Naked Photo Test. Imagine that you had photographic evidence of you doing something so humiliating, that were it ever released to the public you would never be able to show your face again. Ask yourself: how many people in your life do you actually have outside of immediate family that you would trust with such a secret? The average person has 2, maybe 3. One in 4 people have no one. I'm not going to count on you answering honestly, but I rather doubt that you're among the number of people like... let's say Aye Jaye who would have an unusually high number.
"Glucocorticoids , Oxycontin, we all have that stuff floating around in our heads, but at some point, you need to realize that you are the one in charge here. Your brain can't just decide later on today to commit suicide - that's your call."
Technically the unconscious mind makes a decision a split second before your conscious mind. That does have some very strange implications about the nature of free will, but the fact of the matter D is that emotions are not a choice. They are reflexive reactions to stimuli that we developed long before sentience. Sentience changed the game in that we are able to second guess our emotions. Most of the time anyway. Crimes of passion still exist, after all.
"Self improvement should be done for personal reasons,"
But you said that thinking about yourself makes you a narcissist. Which is it?
As an aside, you seem to think that narcissism is interchangeable with selfishness. It isn't. Narcissistic personality disorder is pathological and actually occurs very rarely. It's distinguished by a number of very extreme symptoms. You may try to diagnose some of us as having the disorder, but you'd be wrong because to actually diagnose a personality disorder, one must first have an education in psychiatric medicine. By your own ridiculing of the scientific method and the general ignorance you have displayed of psychology in general, it's fairly obvious that you have no scientific training of any kind whatsoever.
"And finally, personal relationships are an emotional issue, not an intellectual one, which is why science is not useful here."
As I said before, not everybody is cut out to be sociable. You, tomsho, are so self absorbed that you have lost the ability to understand or relate to your fellow human beings. Some of your fellow narcissists, like other pick up artists, make a little bit of sense to you since you can kinda relate to them, but everybody else is a total mystery to you, and as such, social skills and social understanding will forever remain outside of your grasp.
"First, ditch the science. Science is useful in many areas, but this is not one of them"
Are you serious? This is like saying "body builders should disregard science and eat whatever they want to eat". There is a science behind building lean muscle, and if one wants lean muscle, one must adhere to the science behind getting those lean muscles. You would be surprised how many models are nutrition experts as well. Knowing the science behind something will definitely give you an advantage, picking up women is no different
" You can come up with all the equations you want explaining why the Mona Lisa is a great piece of art, but you will never learn to paint that way"
Are you mentally challenged? Did you not comprehend my last post? Art has nothing to do with procreating, thus invalidating your assertion science cannot help with relationships. Looking at a beautiful painting doesn't activate our mesolimbic dopamine system, nor does it excite stimuli in the amygdala for arousal.
"It's like handing a 5 year old a physics textbook and telling him to learn how to ride a bike with it."
"Glucocorticoids , Oxycontin"
It's oxytocin, not oxytoncin
"we all have that stuff floating around in our heads, but at some point, you need to realize that you are the one in charge here"
As Tomsho mentioned, our emotions makes decision before our rational mind, and can even inhibit our cognitive abilities. Electrical stimulation can induce behavior against one's will. For example, electrical stimulation to neurons in the brainstem triggers sexual positioning, "doggie style" (Benson 1988; Rose, 1990) and these nerves are connected to the amygdala and ventromedial hypotholamus nuclei involved in sexual activity, inducing erratic sexual behavior. Electrical stimulation to the medulla forces people to walk, electrical stimulations to the amygdala can induce rage and aggression. We are not "always in control" which is why people tend to get "caught in the moment" or in "heat of passion" do stuff they normally wouldn't do.
"Odds are good that I do not have this sort of relationship with person #697 to friend me on facebook"
What a load of total B.S. As Tomsho also pointed out, there have been multiple studies confirming that people only have two or three good friends they can really count on, if they are lucky, and you claim to have 697? Haha. Lying on Amazon is not a good look.
"And finally, personal relationships are an emotional issue, not an intellectual one, which is why science is not useful here"
Have you never heard of emotional intelligence in contrast to cognitive intelligence? Science breaks down emotional intelligence as well and shows how one can improve their emotional quotient, which mines is very high.
Lastly, I also agree with Tomsho, are you a psychiatrist? What gives you the right to diagnose us with narcissistic personality disorder? I am actually studying interpersonal neurobiology and psychiatry, and Tomsho does not exhibit the common symptoms behind the personality disorder.
Also what about the SCIENTISTS who aren't pick up artist who agree with the science behind relationships? You are claiming the top scientists in the world, including Richard Dawkins, Matt Riddley and Geoffery Miller, are wrong? None of these men are pick up artist, but their studies are congruent with pick up artists methods
To answer your question Jordan, D is not mentally challenged. What he is however is willfully ignorant. Asking him what he thinks of scientists who support the science of seduction is pointless because he already several pages back told us what he thinks of scientists when they disagree with him. I referenced an article by clinical psychiatrist who specializes in working as a therapist with couples to iron out relationships problems. In the article, she talked about how opposites attract, that the Shadow selves of two people in a relationship will try to sync up to create a mutually beneficial psychological partnership that allows both partners to achieve a mentally healthy whole Self. D boasted about not reading my post (as if admitting that you don't read opposing arguments is supposed to make you look good) and then when I told him explicitly what the article was about, he ridiculed it claiming that whoever wrote it was a quack.
I admit, I'm not a psychiatrist. My interest in psychology is still only on the student level. However I don't think it would be unfair of me to say that D does a lot of projecting. Many of the ad hominems he launches against myself and others show him accusing us of the same bad behaviors that he is actively engaging in. I brought this up before, but there's another thread he created at another book on the site. After a couple pages of me joking around and generally baiting him into his usual ignorant rants, he loudly proclaimed himself the better man and predicted that everyone reading the thread would agree with him. Several people promptly joined the thread to call him a jerk and criticize his bad behavior while siding with me. He reacted by deleting all of his posts. Classy, no?
I say at this point, enjoy it the way you would a bear riding a motorcycle.
Most people can be likeable and make friends easily by the time they are 10 years old. I'm still friends with people I knew from back then. Your insistence that this is a complicated science is your sad attempt to explain to yourself why you suck so badly at something small children are good at.
I attempt to explain to you the difference between meaningful and meaningless relationships, and somehow from that you get that I'm claiming to have 697 personal friends? This is going nowhere. Relationships are a concept that take some depth to understand, and your worldview is so shallow that I don't think I can couch this in terms that will make any sense to you.
Also, I should add, if social skills was a science, then it would be something that only a small number of specialists understand. How many people understand physics or chemistry? Not many. If social skills was a complicated science requiring years of study, then most people would be hermits. Instead, the opposite seems to be true.
"If social skills was a complicated science requiring years of study, then most people would be hermits. Instead, the opposite seems to be true."
Some people are naturals, some are not... do you expect the unfortunate men out there that grew up without these skills and traits to just die alone? Humans have the ability to learn, practice and obtain skills they never had before. I'm not sure why you are so against men learning about their opposite sex's wants and needs. The majority of my generation has no freaking clue how to pick up woman... guess why? Technology...cyber social networking... instant messaging... facebook.
Many people have lost the skills to comfortably approach and talk to a random person across the room. They have become way to comfortable behind a computer screen where there is no fear of public rejection. Many guys in college these days can go through their entire college career without approaching a RANDOM girl at the bar. A scenario many never have to face due to social networking like facebook. If you do not practice it... you lose it. It's that simple.
"Also, I should add, if social skills was a science, then it would be something that only a small number of specialists understand."
And thus betraying further your ignorance of science. The water cycle took mankind a while to figure out. And yet now it's taught in middle school science classes. Will this give you a career in the physical or life sciences? No. But it will mean that you understand where rain comes from and why. Blood wasn't discovered to circulate through the body until 1601. Knowing that it circulates under pressure won't give you a career in medicine, but it makes it pretty clear to you why you need to put a compress on bleeding wounds when applying first aid in an emergency situation. Knowledge is not a black and white issue of haves and have-nots as you suggest.
One does not need to be a professional psychologist or sociologist to understand social dynamics. One simply has to be willing to learn. I never actually majored in the sciences myself. I was a Communications major with an English minor. My study of the life sciences was purely a personal endeavor. I read books, asked questions of real experts, and took up a personal study of psychology and human interaction. There was no rationalization as you erroneously tried to diagnose (again, the irony of you ridiculing science while pretending to diagnose people like a psychiatrist), I'm just interested in what makes people and the human brain tick. I like to learn new things.
The problem D is that you believe social skills are not skills. But by your own admission, we don't communicate the same way we all did when we were toddlers. So what's going on here? Can you answer that? Have you devoted any thought to it?
<Some people are naturals, some are not... do you expect the unfortunate men out there that grew up without these skills and traits to just die alone?>
I don't buy the idea that it's possible to "not learn social skills". I don't see how such a thing is possible unless you were raised as a feral child. If you interact regularly with other human beings, then you've got social skills. If you interact with other people and nobody seems to like you, then you're probably just a jerk. Approaching random women - I never do this because women know what random men approaching them are all about, and the hill you have to climb to prove your intentions are at least somewhat honorable is huge. If you want to meet women, then your best bet is to re-adjust your social circle to get some women into it. If you don't have a social circle, well... that one is tricky. Normally, I would say just be nice to people and your social circle will grow, but that is not going to work if you are a natural jerk.
Obviously D you never studied things like autism. Ignore the self-diagnosed wankers for a moment, Thom Hartmann has a couple books on the subject, having worked in education and with psychologists to achieve a deeper understanding of autistic people. In a nutshell, autistic people are wired in such a way that they can give laser-like focus to things that interest them and learn and accomplish a lot in a short period of time. The trade-off is that they're less able to pick up on social cues and have a steeper learning curve than other people. They can learn, it just takes longer.
There are other reasons that someone would be behind the curve on social skills. Perhaps they're just introverted and don't interact with people as much as the average person does. Maybe they've had bad experiences that had a negative impact on them. No matter the cause, applying a blanket statement that if they're not as good as you, they must be damaged goods and should die as hermits to avoid inconveniencing you is hardly what I would call friendly or compassionate.
The other problem is that your view is so black and white. There is no room for nuance or shades of grey in your argument. And when someone suggests otherwise, your reaction is ad hominem attacks and nastiness. But the world is not black and white. It never has been. You say that all women are suspicious of men approaching them. In your reality, yes. Because you were never able to do it successfully, you assume that your experience in universal. Unfortunately, I and others have proof that you're wrong.
"I don't buy the idea that it's possible to "not learn social skills". I don't see how such a thing is possible unless you were raised as a feral child"
Guess you never heard of the RGS2 gene, responsible for introversion. Seems like once again, science trumps your rubbish. Also, it's been well known that negative experiences in childhood can lead to introversion. I would give you the science behind it, but you don't believe in science
"If you interact regularly with other human beings, then you've got social skills"
This is like saying "if you shoot the ball a thousand times, than* you've got basketball skills". If that were the case, there would be millions of people in the NBA right now. Just shooting a ball doesn't develop basketball skills, it's the same with social skills, just talking to people doesn't develop social skills. It helps to enhance it the skill, but it doesn't give you the necessary skill set.
" If you interact with other people and nobody seems to like you, then you're probably just a jerk"
So you are claiming nobody likes jerks? What city are you from? It must be a small run in the mill town with a population of 30, because in the big city of Los Angeles, "jerks" are the most popular people. Hell, look at shows like Jersey Shore, they are all jerks, yet they are socially dominant
It's clear you don't know the FIRST thing behind the dynamics of interpersonal, or intrapersonal relationships, yet you talk like you are an expert. Surprisingly, not really, you are unwilling to provide sufficient evidence for any of your claims. Everything you say is conjecture, and until I see some evidence, it will remain conjecture. You can't even show us your social circle. I bet it is full of lame, boring individuals and your sex life is atrocious
Sounds to me like you are still struggling to find some kind of out that will allow you to avoid addressing your own jerk behavior. That's why I don't think you have any shot at improving here.
It's part of the social contract - if you want to go around assaulting people and stealing, they will not put up with it, they will deal with you by confining you so you can't hurt anyone else. In much the same way, if you want to be an a-hole, people will deal with you (and protect themselves and others) by isolating you socially. This is not a concept narcissists can pick up on, because you have to actually care about other people for it to make any sense.
Yes, you do have basketball skills if you can shoot a ball, but you don't need NBA level skills to have friends or a social life.
It also sounds to me like you are using "science" as a way to avoid addressing your own shallow behavior that makes people dislike you. You keep this up, and you are only going to attract similarly shallow people into your life, all of whom will use you and then abandon you when it suits them.
<So you are claiming nobody likes jerks? What city are you from? It must be a small run in the mill town with a population of 30, because in the big city of Los Angeles, "jerks" are the most popular people. Hell, look at shows like Jersey Shore, they are all jerks, yet they are socially dominant>
The thing that saddens me, Jordan, is that I really believe that you are not capable of understanding actual friendship or real relationships. Again, it's a concept that requires depth to understand, and depth simply isn't you. You still seem to think that "online social circles" full of people who don't actually know you count as popularity. You think that people on tv with cameras following them into staged social events are popular. I hope one of these days you find something in life that has some actual meaning, because that is your only real shot at correcting your shallow way of thinking.
"Yes, you do have basketball skills if you can shoot a ball, but you don't need NBA level skills to have friends or a social life"
No one doesn't have BASKETBALL skills. For an individual to have BASKETBALL skills, one needs dribbling skills, defensive skills, footwork skills, athletic skills, power skills etc. Shooting skills is ONE part of the overall skill set, and shooting a billion times won't give you skills. If you are using a horrible technique, no matter how many times you shoot the ball, you will have a low percentage of making your shots. Study the mechanics (system of his hand, arm, body and leg movement) of a professional shooter in the NBA, then go to your local park and compare that mechanism to the amateur. You will see the person in the NBA has a system, which ENHANCES and IMPROVES the percentage of his shots going in. It's the same with social skills. You can talk until you are blue in the face, but if your inner game isn't congruent with the verbal, it doesn't matter. Also, there are certain techniques you can use to enhance your social skills.
"It also sounds to me like you are using "science" as a way to avoid addressing your own shallow behavior that makes people dislike you"
I use science, because I am a scientist and it's an objective way we can falsify any conjecture. Science trumps personal opinion, because personal opinion is bias, subjective and relative. Science is the complete opposite, being objective and more universal. You are giving me personal bias, subjective, relative conjecture without offering any evidence, while I am giving you science disproving your rubbish, yet you avoid it.
Also, I have plenty of people that like me. I'm willing to bet my life I have more people that like me, than you have more people that like you.
"You keep this up, and you are only going to attract similarly shallow people into your life, all of whom will use you and then abandon you when it suits them."
You are neither a psychic or psychologist, you're psycho, but without the "logist". You don't have any evidence supporting any of these claims, yet you expect us to believe your nonsense? That is completely laughable. You are just spewing your propaganda hoping people will buy into it, well those with rational minds don't. Rational minded individuals question everything, and provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims. Yet, every time someone debunks your nonsense, you either switch subjects or commence with infantile ad hominen attacks, leaving me to believe you are either a.) a female or b.) a loser who can't get friends and lives by the adage "misery loves company" or c.) just plain stupid
"You still seem to think that "online social circles" full of people who don't actually know you count as popularity"
I never said this. I brought Facebook into this conversation because it's the only way we can see your social circle, which can give us some positive evidence behind your "nice guy theory" which leads to a healthy social dynamic. We should be able to see SOME evidence that you are a social stud, and have a plethora of friends. I know being popular online doesn't translate to being popular in social realms, but more times than not, those popular in the social realm tend to have tons of people writing their walls and leaving positive feedback. My friends do all the time, so if I'm "shallow" I would love to see the positive feedback on your wall. Again, I am not saying this is synonymous with being popular outside the screen, it's just giving us some evidence. We can have a challenge and post on our wall "Like this if your really like me" or something similar, and see who gets more responses. I know this isn't a very scientific method, but it is a way to prove your method, or do you have a better way showing your immense social circle full of abundance?
"You think that people on tv with cameras following them into staged social events are popular"
So now celebrities aren't popular?
Lastly I will admit, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Even if your method of being the "nice guy" and "just start talking to more people" does work, it doesn't automatically rebuff our notion. Our methods both can work, saying we are shallow doesn't make it so. First, you need to prove the method doesn't work, THAN prove people who use this method are shallow. Please, try to be a scientific, or philosophical as you possibly can. Conjecture doesn't fly with me, I need some evidence
"Sounds to me like you are still struggling to find some kind of out that will allow you to avoid addressing your own jerk behavior. That's why I don't think you have any shot at improving here."
That would mean something if I thought you knew what you're talking about. But you don't. You haven't presented any evidence. The first and only time you tried to provide evidence was at the start of this thread where you presented statistics that you later admitted you completely made up because you don't know how statistics work.
I wasn't trying to provide excuses or outs as you so disingenuously claim. If I was, I would have diagnosed myself with those problems. Yet I haven't. Interesting how that works. What I was doing was providing yet more scientific proof that you don't know what you're talking about. And true to form, rather than questioning the evidence you attacked me personally. This shows that you have no argument.
"This is not a concept narcissists can pick up on, because you have to actually care about other people for it to make any sense."
D, you don't know what narcissism actually means. We've established this. You think psychiatry is a bunch of hooey because it contradicts your uninformed opinions. This means that you are supremely unqualified to diagnose someone with narcissistic personality disorder.
You have also provided no actual proof of this social contract, just made a tenuous analogy to crime and punishment. It is interesting to me however that you would equate social awkwardness with violent crime. And then go on to claim that you are not judgmental and mean. You've already admitted that you want socially awkward people removed from public discourse because their presence is an inconvenience to you. Is there anything more selfish than that?
I don't believe you're interested in helping people. Just yourself. You started this thread to make yourself look good by tearing others down. And it seems so far that's the only tactic you know. You have yet to build yourself up or lead by example. You just attack everyone who disagrees with you. Frequently and viciously. People who disagreed have tried to be nice to you, yet you continue the attack. If you're such a nice guy, why act like such a tool to everyone?
Another thought occurs to me. A while back, we had that guy spouting off a lot of sexist crap. He condemned a woman, saying she deserved her misery for not choosing him over some other guy. I told him why he was wrong to think that. Why he wasn't a good person for saying those things. You didn't. Why didn't you stand up and tell this guy he was wrong? Did you agree with him? If not, why didn't you call him on his crap? You claim to be a good person, yet you failed to admonish someone for their hateful, cruel judgment of another human being, a woman whose only transgression was not choosing to date one guy instead of another. Why? I expect a real answer out of you for that, and I will keep bringing it up until i get it.
Yes, Jordan, celebrities can be unpopular. Just because people pay attention to you doesn't mean you are liked or respected.
<Please, try to be a scientific, or philosophical as you possibly can. Conjecture doesn't fly with me, I need some evidence>
I don't know where the line is between philosophy and conjecture in your universe, so I'm not going to bother with it. I think you call things you want to believe philosophy, and things you don't want to believe conjecture.
<And then go on to claim that you are not judgmental and mean.>
I do not recall making such a claim. I've found that people who whine about "judgementalism" just don't want anybody judging them. They always seem perfectly happy to judge everybody else.
<If you're such a nice guy, why act like such a tool to everyone? >
No, tomsho, just to other tools. I don't believe you understand the difference between tools and non-tools.
Also, you are going to have to refresh my memory on exactly what "sexist crap" you are referring to.
Of course, you just redirect the issue. "I'm not judging other people! You're just a wimp!" D, you act this way with everyone who disagrees with you, no matter how civil or polite they are. Don't try to deflect the issue, because you will lose.
As for the sexist crap, go back to pages 15 and 16 to find Brett G's misogynist, self-righteous ranting. You had plenty of time to rebut my points, but you never told him that the things he was saying were wrong. Did you agree with him? And if not, why didn't you say anything when you had the chance? You're certainly not one to shy away from a fight so far.
Furthermore, this has already been covered but needs to be repeated: your insistence on not explaining your opinions in detail and providing proof because I "just wouldn't get it" is rather transparently a stalling tactic. You say I wouldn't understand. Well why don't you explain it anyway for the benefit of everyone else reading this thread who has not yet chosen a side? Don't you want to persuade others to join you? Everyone arguing with you has been readily able to provide proof of their claims. You're the only one insisting that his opinions are self-evident. That's not a proper argument though. In a real debate, you either put up or shut up.
Re-read my posting and see if you can find the part where I said I was non judgemental.
I don't see anything sexist about Brett's comments. It's one thing to admit you feel a certain way, and another to promote certain attitudes as a positive good. His dating strategies also seem perfectly healthy to me.
If I were to say that cursing at a job interview would stop you from getting the job, most people would say, yeah, that makes sense, because cursing in public has never endeared me to any authority figure in the past, nor would I myself hire such a person. You, however, would start demanding that I prove cursing at job interviews is a bad idea, at which point I would conclude that you are so far divorced from reality that further explanation would be a waste of my time. I assume at least a basic level of social competence on the part of people who read my postings, and if it is not there, then there is nothing I can do for you.
"Re-read my posting and see if you can find the part where I said I was non judgemental."
Well, my work is done here.
"I don't see anything sexist about Brett's comments."
That answers a lot. You see absolutely nothing wrong with tearing people down to build yourself up, assuming that people who don't agree with you are either sick or mentally retarded, and condemning people as failures for their mistakes despite the fact that it's never too late to pick up the pieces. Yes, that's quite the compassionate, egalitarian world view you have there D. Mahatma Gandhi ain't got nothin' on you.
Anyway, regarding your job interview analogy, not only is that stupid because you're just putting words in my mouth in a transparent attempt to continue dodging the need to actually present even the most rudimentary proof of your claims, but you also are presuming that your concept of how relationships work is the be-all and end-all. Once again, you assert that your opinions are self-evident, thus proving my accusations to be correct. You don't present actual proof, you just belittle anyone who does not hail you as infallible.
I just read this whole thing and need to chime in.
D mckenzie, you are being really stubborn. It's obvious to any objective reader that you are wrong. I have a friend who got really into the whole PUA world, and I don't personally care much for it, but some of the stuff you say is flat out wrong. Are you seriously claiming that a male can't increase his attractiveness in the eyes of a girl using his personality or 'charisma' and that his status/looks are the only thing the girl considers? Seriously?? Maybe if we were robots.
At the same time, the other guys who are defending PUA methodologies should understand that TO AN EXTENT mckenzie's sweeping generalizations are true. Girls do heavily weigh looks and status in choosing someone to date, and cultivating your 'game' can only improve your attractiveness so far. I'd randomly estimate that looks/status are about 60% and the remaining 40% is personality(humor, confidence, affability, etc). This entire series of essay rebuttals seem to reduce to this:
D mckenzie claims that looks/status is 100% and personality is 0% as long as you 'act normal' A Tomsho claims that looks/status is about 20% and personality or 'game' is about 80%
and you guys have written long essay rebuttals to each other basically trying to expand on why your own viewpoint is correct when the two sentences above basically summarizes what you are debating.
The answer is that it's somewhere in between. (Like I said, my estimate is 60%/40%) PUA books are way too optimistic about how much more success you'll have and basically claim that a super unattractive guy with a crap job can get supermodels if he has 'game'. (This was actually mentioned in part of the book The Game so they definitely try to sell this idealistic notion to readers.) D mckenzie is the opposite extreme and claims that game is absolute rubbish and we are just robots that seek out a mate with equal or higher looks/status and choose them for a mate with no consideration for anything else as long as their personality is 'normal'.
So there it is. No need to debate anymore. Just take a survey amongst your friends and see whether their estimate is closer to 60/40, or 55/45, or 70/30, etc. I'm sure the average will hover somewhere near 60/40. It certainly won't be 100/0 or 20/80 that's for sure.
I didn't say personality didn't matter, my point is that working on your "game" is the wrong way to improve your personality. A personality is something that is too complex to be faked, and people will see through you faster than you think. If you want to improve your personality, then be yourself and forget about all the other BS people tell you to do. You will be far more confident and likeable when you are just being yourself. The caveat I throw in, however, which I learned after talking to the guys on this thread, is that being yourself will not work if you are a natural jerk. These guys are not cut out to be sociable.
"Just take a survey amongst your friends and see whether their estimate is closer to 60/40, or 55/45, or 70/30, etc. I'm sure the average will hover somewhere near 60/40. It certainly won't be 100/0 or 20/80 that's for sure."
Let's assume that is what I'm saying, the whole 80/20 thing. Averages don't always fall on the half-way mark in a closed scale. And if we're going to take this a step further, an empiricist would laugh at the notion of voting on the truth as you suggest.
"and they only go for the top tier guys. That is, top tier in looks, income, and charisma." Definitely not true man. You can def mind screw a girl into liking you, men do it subconsciously all the time. Havent you ever seen a hot girl with a thug, loser, guy with no job, can't stay out of jail etc.?