Love in the Age of the Pickup Artist | Hacker News Reader

Love in the Age of the Pickup Artist

thepointmag.com

161 pointsjseliger136 comments

I almost feel like a good amount of the discussion being had missed the point, or perhaps most of the commenters stopped reading when the conversation shifted from the PUA community to the life and works of Stendhal.

To me, the articles clearly had three acts. First, was the explanation of the PUA method and the argument for it. This has accounted for nearly all the discussions I've read thus far. Second, was the case of passionate love as made through the works of Stendhal and his characters. In the third "act" is where the true point of the article comes to life. The author tries his best to merry the practices of seduction with natural love as played out through the characters he has introduced. Ultimately this leads to a discussion of which way is the best way to acquire the lover you seek.

This is the conversation I sought when I clicked the comments button; so I suppose I'll just ask the question outright: Which of the scenarios do you prefer, or do you believe is best?

Letting love naturally occur, all the while you are yourself and your beloved sees you for that?

Seduction through the art of 'the game' to acquire the target of your love in spite of the reality that you must "not love her for her to love you"?

Or perhaps you prefer the authors idea of balance through the withholding of the expressions of love, both verbally and through eroticism until the timing is proper?

Hell, maybe you've even got your own idea of middle ground? Let's hear it.

Good question.

I believe that passionate love ("limerence" as the kids call it) is always bad for me. My best relationships are ones where I'm not in love. Yeah, love comes with an instinct that makes us want more of it, but the same is true for heroin.

I wouldn't say we are designed to want more heroin, but that heroin is designed to make us want more...

If you think about it, we crave love even when we've never had it and don't understand it all that well. Nobody craves heroin until they've tried it.

Ahh, but books, tv, and movies are the pushers of love. If heroin were as high profile and esteemed in most societies as this love thing, then yeah, we'd probably all want it even before we'd had it.

So women don't think you're a real man. And the solution: throw away expression of the personality you like and want to be and respect, turn all interactions with women into a game, and carefully craft yourself and all your presentation with single-minded purpose into a seduction machine. This is treating women as completely different creatures from us (albeit ripe for taking willing advantage of with half-truths and careful conscious manipulation of human impulse). Yes I know it works, but I'm still sure this is just horribly wrong, and far from "not putting the pussy on a pedestal" (as the movie saying goes) this is worship of the game to such an extent that it makes men willing to transform their whole personality and convince themselves that insincerity is the only honest form of human interaction.

That these methods work so well makes me sad about the state of humanity and whatever dreams we could ever have at achieving relations between genders be on equal terms. Maybe the physical and psychological differences are just too great for that, because of the pre-historical assymetry with the burden of carrying and giving birth to a child, I don't know.

That was my initial reaction, but on further thought, I changed my mind. It's not really all that different than the "game" I play when I buy my friends gifts for their birthday, or get my mom flowers for Mother's Day, or act professional when dealing with clients, or behave more aggressively than usual to win a sports or video game match.

The truth is, a person who refuses adjust his behavior to be more palatable to the people he chooses to interact with would have to be a total dick. I'm constantly adjusting to situations I'm in. There's maybe a kernel of me in all of them, but I don't just randomly buy people flowers or throw a ball and tackle people. These are conditional behaviors that I've learned in order to maximize my performance in certain situations and be pleasing to other people.

So if you go into dating with the viewpoint that your only goal is to trick other people into hopping in bed with you, that's not good. But it's not good to ignore things that obviously excite and please the object of your affections either.

I like to think of the PUA community as the atomic bomb - they've got the theory down pat all right, but its application is often destructive, sometimes immoral, and always rubs me the wrong way. In the same analogy, this isn't to say we should just toss it out - I think there's enough sound advice there that can be applied to people who don't want to be total dicks, whose sole purpose of existence isn't tricking women into bed, etc. Call it harnessing nuclear power if you want.

There are some powerful bits of psychology floating about in PUA-land, and while I do not always approve of their application thereof, it doesn't mean I can't steal some of it for what is IMHO a more responsible use.

Is it necessarily destructive though? Not only is there some real wisdom and insight in their teachings (SOME), but if women really do hate it and get burned by it, perhaps they will learn not to respond to those behaviors? That doesn't seem like immediately a bad thing. You could perhaps argue they are only doing what comes natural, but heck- guys have rarely been able to get away with what comes natural.

It really depends on what the alignment expectations is between the man and woman - and what has been communicated. If you're dangling the hook of a relationship in front of someone's face to get them into bed, with no actual intention of follow-through, then I'd consider that a destructive/irresponsible thing.

I think now, with the general awareness of The Game and the prevalence of PUA practitioners, more women are aware of what's really going on - and hey, as long as they're aware of the game and want to play, who are we to judge?

That being said though, there are still a not-insignificant number of women who actually intend to meet Mr. Right at a bar/club - and some PUA techniques with regards to handling that crowd is a bit sickening to read.

It say's in the article that one of the things about "The Game' is that it's generally more honest, PUA don't get girls into bed by dangling a relationship in front of them, actually thats one of the main points, the PUA never offers any relationship.

That essentially these women already want to sleep with these guys, and the guys are merely removing the mental barriers to this desired action(desired by both parties).

I always thought that once women found out how cold and systematic this was they would be repulsed by it. Then I remember when 'the game' and 'the pickup artist' came out women I talked to about it were more intrigued than anything else. Overall I've heard a lot more negativity about it from men. Women don't like being lied to and used, but they do want dating to be like a 'game'.

I can't help thinking this might be vulnerable to the very real age differences. Women enter and exit the dating scene at an earlier age than men, and consequently might not see the theory or the purportedly undesirable elements before they are practised on.

Or maybe it is or will be a common topic of discussion among débutantes, moreso than among men. I have no idea.

A couple of quick points,

1) Illusion of true love; most people are against PUA because boiling courtship/romance into a state-machine automata is abhoring to their idea of true love. When in fact, I'd argue - it's the other way around, most men want to have sex or emotional intimacy with hot women and it's only later one rationalizes to oneself after that one is dating or marrying for "true" love. In fact, being "nice" to the girl is disingenuous (not to mention that it doesn't work) because you are not being truly "nice" to her but being nice in hopes that you can have sex or be emotionally intimate with her. In that situation, you are not being true either to her or to yourself.

2) Illusion of PUA being superficial; a lot of people decry that doing PUA is selling your soul down the river, like an American man who is desperate, taking the easy way out by ordering mail-order bride from Russia. But PUA, I'd argue is not about taking the easy way out but confronting and taking control of one's reality. Human biology dictates that in order to be happy, you need to both get laid physically and share emotional intimacy with a significant other. PUA is about achieving that means, with the minimal sacrifice on your time/resources (you don't have to be rich or learn how to shred on the guitar, etc). Nothing is sadder than a man who spent his whole life "nest-building" and "peacocking" in hopes for the right woman to come along in his life, only to give up his personal goals and vision in return. So in a sense, doing PUA is being true to yourself. Falling in love/getting laid is important to me but it is not the only thing in my life.

Of course, this is very subjective; but just wanted to express my perspective (which I don't think is the mainstream view) on this matter, to at least to get people to reconsider their belief about courtship/dating, if not change their minds completely.

I agree where you're coming from, but you are giving it way too much credit.

The thing to realize about this pickup stuff is that it is a product. A product which is being marketed to the most socially-retarded members of the "everyone's a winner" videogame generation. The consumer is looking for a secret button-combo to drop panties, so that is exactly what is being advertised.

The secret knowledge being sold really all can be boiled down to "Hit the gym, dress well, have a flirty demeanor, and then go out and play the numbers game." However that would sound like actual work and might require an ego-adjustment or two.

And eventually it comes back around to "social proof" and "congruence" and other weird jargony ways of softballing the fact that its easier to meet women if you aren't a loser. Humanity triumphs psychological tricks you can find on the internet, and pretty much everyone involved in this enterprise admits it.

Couldn't agree more. This PUA stuff is just adding complexity to a very simple fact. We're incapable of attributing value to something unless we expend effort on it. There's no win unless you feel like you've earned it. Improving your lot in life through effort (GTL or w/e) will make you feel better about yourself and everyone you encounter will sense it.

Why would we even want a psychological trick? It would hold no value. My video game generation should definitely realize this. "up-up-down-down-a-b-a-b... well that's the last time I'll ever play this game."

At the same time the stereotypical 'nice guy' isn't really being himself either, he's crafting a personality that he intuitively thinks will attract women by kissing their ass incessantly. He just happens to have the wrong idea.

I think there's something to be said for the middle ground of learning the lessons of pickup artists but not the message.

And what makes you so sure women don't enjoy a little (ahem) ass kissing? I have it on first-hand account that some do...

edit: I'm not sure if people don't like my sarcasm, don't understand what I actually meant, or are just close-minded.

I'm sure they enjoy it, that doesn't mean they will respect you more or be more attracted to you for it.

I don't think you understood me there (ahem)... ;)

har har

If you're gonna downvote something straight into the basement, some kind of reply is appreciated...

EDIT: logical conclusion: I actually managed to send HN'ers into an illogical blind rage. props to me. Oh look, there goes my respect for the place. <- did I get it right?

1) Very often clever quips, even if they are funny, distract from the conversation. Being overly strict about this helps keep the place from devolving into a jokefest like so many other forums.

2) Some people will vote you down for complaining about downvoting.

I sympathize with both of these rules of thumb, for what it's worth.

EDIT: For some reason the "reply" link below your post is missing for me, so I'll just clarify a bit here, more than I usually would since this is a thread about gaming social norms. ;)

Rule of thumb #2 also stands for asking for clarification about downvoting. Especially when you do it 3 times: by editing your original post, then replying to it, and then editing the reply. And especially when you seem defensive about it.

Keep in mind that if you get "downvoted into the basement", it's not just one person downvoting you, it's at least 5. You've probably violated some implicit norm. Repeatedly asking for clarification is kind of its own awkward thing in these circumstances (especially with some manners of asking).

Imagine if you make a joke in a group of friends and people obviously don't think it's funny. It's not cool to demand an explanation, like people somehow owe it to you to explain why and how you screwed up. Usually better to suck it up and move on, and try to learn from the experience.

.... ok

Not complaining, simply wishing for feedback. I guess I must not make the distinction clear enough.

thanks.

You got a subtle reply from mbateman, but I'll add two points. First, it's a good idea to read http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html; notice the penultimate one. Second, the downvoting of quips on HN needs to be understood in relation to Reddit, where nearly every popular thread quickly becomes dominated by a long chain of (often genuinely funny) wisecracks. Experience shows that this pattern drowns out substantive discussion, and HN is all about the latter. What people here are downvoting is not merely the individual wisecrack, but that whole pattern. It's a kind of prophylaxis. Lack of a sense of humor has nothing to do with this; it's a conscious tradeoff.

This kind of downvoting has another virtue, which is that it's silent. If it added noise to the conversation, that would be ironic -- and annoying, too. If one thing's worse than misdirected wisecracks it's humorless metadiscussion. I'll stop here. :)

For better or for worse humor is a shaky proposition here.

If by 'here' you mean HN, you have me baffled. Since when is it a humorless place?

Thanks at least for saying something. :)

Humor is fine, but stuff that sounds childish (4chan memes, fart jokes), or sarcastic tends to get downvoted. IMHO with good reason: sarcasm isn't a good way to make a point. Sarcasm is about making your conversation partner look like a tool instead of bringing up an actual justification for your point of view. Good debate should be done with a "cold, hard facts" attitude and a non-aggressive tone. It's fortunate that even with the constant change in the user base, HN still strongly encourages moderate posts.

I actually upvoted you because I think -4 is overkill, but I must admit I don't get the point of your post. I don't personally see it as sarcasm... just a failed joke?

As weird as some of the PUA shit is[1], I don't see what's wrong with changing yourself to help you achieve your goals.

And the solution: throw away expression of the personality you like and want to be and respect

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of shit I don't like about my personality. I can be introverted, pessimistic and diffident, for example, and I would cheerfully discard those traits even if doing so wouldn't get me laid. I wouldn't see it as "throwing away expression of the personality you like and want to be and respect", I'd see it as developing a better version of my current personality.

[1] It sort of strikes me as Social Interaction with Flowcharts!

What's wrong is the PUA gurus are selling their products to frail and insecure 17-year olds who need professional help.

If you feel you need to change yourself for the better and improve your personality then there are people far better qualified for the job than some sleazy PUA sales rep.

Speaking as someone who would have cut off their little finger for one of these courses if I'd known about them at 17, WTF?

frail and insecure 17-year olds who need professional help.

Psychologists and other like personnel are as expensive or more, and if the problem you're trying to solve is "I can't get a relationship/laid" I would go for the PUA over the psychologist. The psychologist might try to help, but he wouldn't be a domain expert, and he might try to convert the client and convince them they have other, deeper problems when that is irrelevant to them.

All that said, taking a dead end bar or waiting job and/or getting horribly drunk regularly will also work for the majority of people.

In no way am I advocating a frail and insecure 17-year old going off and paying someone to tell him how to harass women in bars.[1]

What I'm taking issue with is the idea that you are somehow selling yourself out by making changes to your personality to achieve a given goal.

And really, I'm not sure that your frail 17-year old should be trudging off to any professionals[2] before he's tried hitting the gym, doing some travel and getting some hobbies that actually include a decent number of girls.

[1] After all you can do that for free, as my fine collection of restraining orders confirms.

[2] With the obvious disclaimer that if he's mentally ill he should go seek help.

It's foolish to have such a narrowminded opinion of "game". It's only called game; but in actuality is much more an art. Even if you're going to be so brash as to consider it a game, do you still find it impossible to express personality and self-respect while remaining in the construct of rules? You seem to be answering "yes" to that question.

Putting your reluctance to realize that "games (systems of rules)" and "art" have no fine line aside, the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no sense to me. I suppose it's because I have a much more complicated definition of a "true self," which to you seems to be "not treating women with what I consider 'respect' is immoral and wrong and is 'not me'", that I so strongly disagree with you about virtually everything you said above.

Males and females have two completely different mating strategies, and rightly so. For you see, women are stuck with the burden of 9 months of having a baby grow inside them, plus taking care of the child, while men could potentially sire greater-than-the-human-population children every day. Women will obviously be more picky. Men, less so. Intersex competition will be very high and follow a distribution similar to the 80/20 rule, and multiple sexual partners (when it's possible to go undetected) will be beneficial to both sexes.

At any rate, I suppose I'm trying to say three things:

* Males and females have different strategies for sorting out an ideal mate. How you present yourself is part of your strategy.

* If you're willing to always be your "best self," or what you would call "throwing away expression of personality" by "carefully crafting yourself" -- how does that make you not yourself? You are still you, and your actions are yours.

* Evolutionary psychology -- it makes sense.

I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you.

Relationships are not an art, and they are not a game. If you want to out-strategize someone, go play Starcraft 2. If you want to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, go get a degree in psychiatry.

Romantic relationships are about forming deep emotional connections, about being true with someone in a way that admits a very real risk of emotional agony. Until you grow the balls to take that gamble, you're simply missing the point.

Ugh, I hate to become an apologist for "the game", but I feel compelled.

Whether you or anyone else want to admit it, girls (and guys) have a strong tendency to follow certain behavioral patterns as a result of both biological AND societal factors. And so relationships ARE about art. They require practice, experience, analysis, etc. Some people gain this naturally (or get practice at an early age). The result is that they can breeze through interactions with the opposite sex with relative ease. To observers, their love lives may seem beautiful, natural, and effortless.

But others don't have it naturally, and for whatever reason don't get practice at an early age. They spend their lives muddling through social situations that they either don't understand or, worse, have an deeply-held misunderstanding of. A lot of guys don't know that what a girl says and what a girl wants may be two different things, and they often suffer heartbreak because of it. It is the height of arrogance to assume that these people have no business trying to figure out what they're doing wrong and improve.

Sure, but relationships don't start that way. They start with an initial conversation and flirting, and if you can appear confident, funny, and slightly unavailable, then you get points.

Why is that so evil? I don't buy the whole "I don't want to change myself" mantra. Certain behaviors are more attractive; so if you want women, do those behaviors. You don't have to go crazy and do all that weird PUA stuff, just do the important things; e.g. don't be needy or insecure and you're already ahead of the game.

We might have to agree to disagree, but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am. And yes, that means sometimes I'm needy and insecure. If that stops a woman from liking me, that's a choice she has a right to make. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've found no shortage of women (both friends and lovers) that have helped me through times of insecurity.

It's not in any sense evil, I just think that as long as you keep up these "confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection.

> "but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am"

Having read some of the works in question - I have to correct a misconception. PUA isn't about false bravado - that's why the 3-second rule exists, so you approach the woman before your own insecurities kick in and your mind gets way ahead of itself. If anything, it's not an act, it's actual anxiety management so you don't act like a nervous buffoon.

I don't see anything wrong with this. We accept insecurity from our friends, families, and other loved ones frequently - but we rarely accept it so readily from strangers. PUA is not the art of maintaining romantic interest, it's the art of initiating it between total strangers - and oftentimes the strategies employed are counter-productive for long-term relationships (which is why everything they say must be taken with a healthy dose of critical thought).

> ""confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection."

And that's not what it's about. So here's the thing, PUAs work in a hyper-competitive environment where, even before their arrival, it was already a hotbed of attempted pickups and blatant come-ons. Their strategies are mostly about rising above the rabble of men trying to hook up with drunk girls and appearing more attractive than the sea of dudes in the room.

All of this is still relevant to people who aren't in a sweaty nightclub and aren't just looking for one-night stands. "confident, funny, and slightly unavailable" is a great place to start, especially when your target is desirable and frequently hit on. You can connect all you want once you've beaten the crowd of suitors - that's the point.

Yes yes, this is one side of the coin; but you are willfully ignoring the other--willfully because it's presented in this topic.

If there is no art to forming deep emotional connections, then there is nothing interesting about it. The game is the protocol, the communication of what "real risk" one is taking.

PUAs always communicate that they are taking zero risk, _but_ they provide channels for women to also take zero risk. This is what makes them successful--they have mastered the shallow protocol.

But your deep emotional connections are also a game, as is your real risk. You wouldn't fall in love on a first date, would you? You've got rules of engagement, I expect? But I thought it was about the real risk of emotional agony! No.

What makes the game fun is when there is real risk, when you play for keeps. PUAs run the risk of forgetting why they got into the game to begin with.

> Romantic relationships are about forming deep emotional connections, about being true with someone in a way that admits a very real risk of emotional agony.

That might be true for you. It clearly isn't true for everyone. Clearly there are some people who would rather not have "a very real risk of emotional agony" and their wants are just as real, just as authentic, as yours.

Firstly, I apologize that my post emotionally confused you. If you've since decided whether to laugh or cry, and perhaps have even carried out the action, I'd love to be updated.

When I said "it is art" I was not referring to "relationships". In retrospect, I suppose I was referring to life in general. At any rate, I most certainly made it clear that I don't feel "game" is not meant to be followed as a construct of rules. And, even if it were, there's plenty of room for personality, style, and identity. So we agree, relationships are not a game.

However, you might find that listening to advice about how to deal with people could make meeting people and having them like you be a much easier process. Is taking advice allowed in your model of "true" relationships, or would you say something snappy like... If you want to take advice all day, watch Dr. Phil!

I included evolutionary psychology only as a means to explain overall dating behavior and motivation which the op had asked about. I don't think I implied whipping out some sort of book about personal evo-psych to target a single person.

Finally, what makes you think that "game" (as your narrow mind thinks it knows) forbids deep emotional connections and "truth"?

If you want to make assumptions all day, then you should head over to intern-- oh... nevermind.

You can't desire to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, out-strategize someone, or form a deep emotional connection at different points in a relationship?

I have yet to form a deep emotional connection upon first coming in contact with another person. That's something that must grow with time. From my experience, even going in with the idea that I might get into a serious, long-term relationship with someone, there's a hurdle that I must overcome before I can get a girl to desire a deep emotional connection. The "game" is one means of overcoming that hurdle. Yes, it means adjusting your personality to fit the circumstance, but I do that all the time. Is that somehow uncouth to do so when the end-goal is a romantic relationship instead of getting funding, finding a job, making a new friend, or any other potential scenario that involves another person/people?

If you don't mind me asking how old are you? I have a feeling what you're saying was the way things used to be but these days if you don't employ at least some of these techniques you might as well be invisible. It's what is expected. You won't have any deep romantic relationship because the girl will be far more interested in the PUA expert. You'll never get a chance. I don't think it's a great evolution of personal relationships myself but in my experience that's how it works these days. From what I can tell women are pretty happy with the arrangement too. They're definitely not victims.

Of course relationships are a game: two players, several actions available to each player, and payoffs dependent on both players' actions. That is, by definition, a game.

But it gets more interesting. Relationships are power games, as the player with the most power will dictate the tempo and pace of the battle. If you have more options and are less invested in the relationship than your significant other, then you have power over her. This power gap translates into luxuries like avoiding visiting her family (too often, at least), or not bothering about remembering her girlfriends' names. Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments, and by abstaining from (too much) philandering. This balance of terror works great for both parties.

What you've described may be how your relationships usually go, but it sounds a lot like a living hell to me, and is nothing like my experience.

Living hell for her, heaven for you!? Not really. My approach makes her obsession last longer. She never knows when she finally has you, so she keeps fighting to conquer your heart. Since this is a lifetime endeavor (or, perhaps, a death march), then the relationship never gets stale, and she never gets bored with you. Makes marriages last longer, is less traumatic for the kids, and (ultimately) is better for society.

PS: next time your s.o. forces you to visit her boring family or some friends of her that you hate, you'll wish you had more power. Enjoy the whipping!!

Your assumptions about my relationship are pretty deeply unfounded--I've never been forced to visit her family, nor do I hate her friends, nor have I ever been forced to visit them. There's no "whipping" involved--I'm every bit as free as I care to be.

It's not a question of power at all--we don't seek power over each other so much as we work hard to keep our autonomy while sharing our lives together. It's difficult, but it's worthwhile as well. Building a strong relationship that respects the freedom of each partner is just as hard as keeping up one side of a power game, but it's more fulfilling in the end. Knowing that someone else truly and deeply loves you is a very comforting feeling, especially when you both know it's mutual. Trying to withhold that satisfaction and make your partner insecure just to keep her (literally) on the treadmill is an asshole thing to do, but ultimately it hurts you too. Winning your power-game style of relationship would be hell to me compared to the relationship I actually have.

Look, I'll just address you point-by-point:

Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her when she hits the magic 30-year-old mark.

Fat girls are underrated in my opinion, but there are plenty of strong women who can and do keep themselves in good shape for their own benefit. Of course, a self-starting woman like that is likely far too strong to put up with the kind of bullshit you're talking about.

You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments

I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!

and by abstaining from (too much) philandering

That's not a special favor; that's a basic part of being in a monogamous relationship. If monogamy is boring, have an open relationship and let the girl have some fun too. It might even spice up your sex life to have the odd threesome!

The kind of relationship you advocate might be the best you can get--it may be genuinely difficult to have a genuinely good relationship like I'm talking about--but personally speaking, if the best relationship I can get is some adversarial power game, I'd rather go completely without. I have no fear of dying alone--I am comfortable with the notion.

My personal suspicion: old married couples who treat their relationship like a power game are not happily married couples--they're like the couple in this story: http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/

Watching them was like watching a sick, evil little puppet show. He goaded her, she attacked him. He ignored her attacks, she escalated. Within minutes, dinner was ruined. They both looked supremely satisfied with this result.

Before I turned to leave, the man reached out with a bony, desperate hand and clutched my arm.

“Never, never get married,” he implored.

I looked at his wife. Instead of looking offended, her eyes widened in tentative agreement. A slight nod of her head was like the period on the end of his sentence.

That couple was trying to save my life."

I am not trying to preach anyone, nor to force anyone to live according to the rules that make sense to me. I will never cease to see any relationship between humans, personal or professional, as a power game. Even if a couple has a deep emotional connection, the one who feels less intensely will have power over the other and be able to dictate the rules. It's the way it is.

"I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!"

I would rather not date stupid / irrational women, either! But the only women I know who are rational, smart, interesting to talk to are in their mid-30s and looking for a husband and father to their future children. Since I have some scruples left, I don't date women who want a family man, because I can't offer what they're looking for.

In any case, I challenge you to find a rational, smart 25 year old woman. You know what they say: you can only understand life looking backwards, but you can only live life looking forwards. You can't have youth and wisdom simultaneously. Pick something in between. It's a delicate tradeoff.

I know lots of counter-examples to your theory. However I'd never be willing to introduce you to them because your theories about how to treat them repulse me.

Good for you!!! Now I will try to pretend that I actually do care about what does repulse an internet stranger I never met and never will meet.

I do agree about the power games. However, you are not supposed to think rationally about relationships, you have to 'feel' and 'do things right'.

Also, I disagree about the 'terror' thing. There are plenty of fish as they say. And it is actually really fun to meet new people.

It's fun to meet people, but maintaining functional relationships with people is not about fun. The "balance of terror" thing was meant not too literally. In other words, if one always fears losing the other, then one will invest in the relationship. If there's no fear, then she'll gain 20 pounds and he'll become a lazy, useless slob... and then it's all doomed. There's nothing unconditional in this world, especially when it comes to "love".

"If there's no fear, then she'll gain 20 pounds and he'll become a lazy, useless slob... and then it's all doomed."

If the only thing that keeps someone motivated in life is the fear of dying alone, I'd rather not be involved with that person. In fact, I'd much rather not even know that person.

"If the only thing that keeps someone motivated in life is the fear of dying alone, I'd rather not be involved with that person. In fact, I'd much rather not even know that person."

I am with you on this one. A 22 y.o. who's in a bland relationship because of fear of dying alone does not deserve my respect. But fear of dying alone is not the only fear. Everyone craves for approval, and everyone is hurt by rejection. Moreover, losing someone with whom one had a deep connection is painful, and normal humans tend to avoid pain. Therefore, I would say that fear in a relationship is a cocktail of various different fears, some better than others. Having said that, I still claim that fearing losing the other is a good thing, as lack of any kind of fear is a symptom that something is fundamentally wrong.

What motivates me to live well is my fear is of losing the respect and approval of myself, and what motivates me to love and respect my partner is the genuine love and respect I feel for my partner. I don't think anything is fundamentally wrong with that.

I'm normally a big proponent of fear, but in other parts of life--not love.

I am done with talking about relationships. Since you brought up Violent Acres on the other post, I merely add that someone has put my thoughts into prose more eloquently at http://www.violentacres.com/archives/100/dating-is-competiti...

Love begins where power ends.

"LOVE, n. A temporary insanity curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder. This disease, like caries and many other ailments, is prevalent only among civilized races living under artificial conditions; barbarous nations breathing pure air and eating simple food enjoy immunity from its ravages. It is sometimes fatal, but more frequently to the physician than to the patient."

- Ambrose Bierce

Evolutionary psychology does make sense, but

1) Reality doesn't always "make sense" (e.g. quantum mechanics where many concepts have no macroscopic analogs) 2) Just because every species has gone through natural selection, doesn't mean that every single quality of them was selected for. It could be that certain qualities have no effect on fitness, or a negative one that is counteracted by more positive ones

> the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no sense to me

It already looses some of it's sense when we are talking in the context of relationships, and the methods and success of PUA's only serves to further confirm this.

"it makes sense" is a weak reason to accept an idea.

That these methods work so well makes me sad about the state of humanity and whatever dreams we could ever have at achieving relations between genders be on equal terms.

What? Average women have more power in gender relations than average men. Pickup techniques help achieve equality here. Also the average woman spends more effort on being attractive than the average man, and pickup techniques make men work on their attractiveness, helping achieve equality in this respect too :-)

Well, yes and no. A 20-year-old woman is in the position of being able to date anywhere in the dating pool. She can go for a guitar player her own age or a 50-year-old business executive. A 20-year-old man is probably permanently broke, dressed like a teenager and still inexperienced in the ways of the world.

A 30-year-old women sees her options begin to shrink - she's now competing with the 20-year-olds. A 30-year-old man is finally making money, he's probably traveled a bit, he's discovered the finer things in life, he's well dressed and confident. He has options now. And it's not unreasonable for him to overlook the women who overlooked him 10 years before.

People here are just getting what they deserve, on both sides of the transaction.

I think that the solution is three-fold.

1) Find the right community/context. If you live in a community where evaluation is too shallow, then move. Find a different place to hang out. It's a big world out there, and there's all sorts of contexts. There are contexts where people are not completely vapid.

2) Substance. Be willing to die alone for your values. Are you? If you're not, then don't take this path. If you are, then welcome, brother! (+) In the meantime, do substantive things. Competence is sexy so have it, not just its semblance. Combine this with some genuine fun, and it's a killer combination.

3) Find ways to "be more you." One thing that impressed me about some of the hairdressers on "What Not to Wear" was their ability to make someone more who they were. They didn't jack with someone's identity, they just cleaned it up a bit.

(+) - Hetero women have a similar path that they can take, but it's not the exact same one as for hetero men. As for other orientations, there must be analogues, but I don't feel qualified to comment.

Yes I know it works

It "works" in the same way as makeup, a push-up bra and control pants "works" for a girl. Not quite deceiving but certainly presenting yourself in the best possible way.

It's weird tho that a guy who learns game is a "loser" but a girl who buys a Wonderbra and a pair of Spanx isn't stigmatized at all.

> So women don't think you're a real man.

The problem is that they don't think you are a real man for the wrong reasons (usually, and in this case all the time, since this game is played before you actually know each other).

From the article: "Strauss was transformed from a short, skinny, balding..."

If the definition of "real man" (at first impression, before truly knowing a man) is based on height, weight, and hair, then the methods, psychological games, and trickeries involved in these methods are fair game.

Yes I know it works [...]

Only for some very silly definition of "works". If you want to methodically outsmart people, you can play chess. Doing it in a romantic relationship completely defeats the point.

Romantic relationships aren't about following rules, they're about exposing yourself to someone without a moment of hesitation. Yes, doing so risks the most acute of pain, but it can also hold the most sincere of pleasure. And if that isn't nice, I don't know what is. :)

I think you're missing the point.

As an example, you could be "exposing yourself to someone without a moment of hesitation" and be desperate or clingy. Desperate and clingy are things most people find unattractive. That's just the way it is so it's probably good to follow the rule that says not to do this.

It's entirely possible to learn the things that attract people and do those things; to learn the things that are unattractive and not do those things, all while being yourself.

you could be "exposing yourself to someone without a moment of hesitation" and be desperate or clingy

Well, everyone has feelings of insecurity, and there's no shortage of women who understand that. To the contrary, I think it's a good litmus test for a woman worth dating. If your feelings of insecurity are so so extensive as to be desperate, needy, clingy, etc., it's probably a good sign you shouldn't be trying to start a relationship to begin with, most certainly not a dishonest one.

Again you aren't getting what it's all about. Being desperate or clingy is not always a manifestation of insecurity. It's possible to act desperate or come on too strong and not even realize it. But this is just one example. You seem to refuse to accept that someone can be perfectly capable of being in a relationship while not realizing that they may be doing things that are off-putting; things that aren't defining characteristics. Nothing I've said is about dishonesty.

And to be clear, my views here are primarily related to the very early stages (even if they still apply later on); literally just meeting someone and the time that follows. At these times, a girl needs a reason to talk to you over the 50 other guys that have approached her that day. There are countless things you can do/not do without being fake that might give you the upper hand.

Without a moment of hesitation? Ha. I'm no PUA, but I doubt you fall in love at the drop of a hat. And if you do spot a girl across a crowded room, and think, By God, I'm in love!, you're not going to walk over there and tell her that on the spot.

Relationship protocols are designed around taking acceptable risks. Just because you're playing for real beating hearts doesn't mean there isn't a game.

Most of the techniques described in most of the literature available, is about picking up über hot girls in night clubs, where you compete with über manly football team captains.

If you're at a party in a friends house, different methods are used.

The core concept is that you should not give a pretty woman higher value just because of her looks. I think that is a great concept.

Here's Feynman's account:

  On the way to the bar I was working up nerve to try the
  master’s lesson on an ordinary girl. After all, you don’t 
  feel so bad disrespecting a bar girl who’s trying to get 
  you to buy her drinks — but a nice, ordinary, Southern girl?

  We went into the bar, and before I sat down, I said, 
  “Listen, before I buy you a drink, I want to know one 
  thing: Will you sleep with me tonight?”

  “Yes.”

  So it worked even with an ordinary girl! But no matter how 
  effective the lesson was, I never really used it after 
  that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way. But it was 
  interesting to know that things worked much differently 
  from how I was brought up.

I wish he didn't try so hard to impress us, instead of writing an exercise in clear thought.

I was with him up to the "Let's show off what I've researched about the history of Love," which turned out to be, yes: there have always been pickup artists of a sort, and yes: there has always been desperate deep love. Thanks. I skimmed most of that indulgent name-dropping.

Then he tries to get clever with words and it goes downhill. Loads of those sections could be stripped out for clarity; elegance from simplicity, not pretense from complexity.

Liked the personal stories, the accounts of modern PUA. Did not like the way the research felt like name-dropping. He was trying too hard.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the stilted final sentences. "You have no choice in the matter. Love was hard enough already; it has only gotten harder. Your love will exhaust you. But it will be worth the trouble."

Given the solid summary of the PUA mindset and method (considering the space requirements) I would have granted the author some airs of grandeur if he had been able to give some insight on marrying the lessons of PUA with a respect for real romantic love. But he really couldn't, so the article ultimately disappoints.

I agree with you completely. I skimmed over probably most of the article.

I've been around a couple of the leaders of this community (one is mentioned in the OP, the other wrote a bestseller) who turned up on separate occasions at workshops I attended with a former student of Milton Erickson. Erickson, for those who don't know, was a psychiatrist who was the great 20th century master of hypnosis; he turned everything about the field on its head. Presumably these guys were there to pick up some hypnotic tricks to add to their game. Anyway, my point is: Holy cow, were they creepy. Creepy in a way that makes you want to stay on the other side of the room. One in particular seemed to have developed lizard-like qualities. Seeing them in person was, for me, something of a counterargument to their teachings.

Are you female? It could be argued that a male's reaction is completely immaterial.

Additionally, if you are male- I would like to share an observation. I have found a strong correlation between guys who set off massive warning bells and guys that women are attracted to. I'm not sure whether that's because I'm designed to recognize the most dangerous competitors, or because I can see through their crap, but it happens nonetheless.

On a related note I've read Erickson. The text of Ross Jeffries's books is FULL of what he claims is Ericksonian Hypnosis. They are REALLY long and really weird sounding -- I can't imagine anyone falling for that kind of thing.

I read the Neil Strauss book--it's fascinating and fun. But there was one story in there that really summed up the entire culture for me.

The story is about a new PUA posting to a message board. The first post was how excited he was and how he had set a goal to approach 50 women in one day. His second post was about how he had actually accomplished that goal and he was going to set a second goal of asking for 100 phone numbers in one week. His third post was about how happy he was with the process and how he was positive that he would be getting laid within a year. In summary, his definition of success was that after one year of making picking up women his full time job he would get laid once.

That story clued me in to the real strength of the PUA method. It appeals to men enough to turn wall flowers into people actively seeking dates. But the efficiency of that method is laughably bad (not to mention the outcomes being shallow).

> But the efficiency of that method is laughably bad

Based on one anecdote from the book? The PUA methods attracts guys who are terrible with women. It's not surprising that there cases where the guys isn't going to improve much. This isn't an argument against the ideas or methods.

No, not based on one anecdote from the book. I'm using that anecdote to summarize the entire movement based on reading the entire book. I thought that there were several cases where a lot of time was spent without much payoff.

But if you offered a man who was utterly unable to attract woman 40% odds of acquiring just 1 or 2 partners per year through PUA methods (and a 60% chance of no returns) I think he would (rationally) invest a huge amount of time into this.

happiness = success / expectations

Interesting idea. But is doubling ones success really equivalent to halving ones expectations? I feel torn between the two. On the one hand is the American/start up/self-help trend of going out and getting lots of success, and on the other is the more Buddhist view of eliminating desire. If happiness follow the above formula, is there a way to say one way is better than the other?

I'd say halving your expectations itself is rather successful. Doesn't seem to me like the easiest thing to do. I think most of us are influenced by how other people view us to a varying degree, which raises our expectations of ourselves (keeping up with the jones').

I can't say if one is better than the other, but I'd envy you more for eliminating desire. Seems far more daunting to me.

I've found out one thing that will no doubt annoy a lot of people - if you are unhappy and depressed, because you don't have many challenges in life, or you are underchallenged or something (in school, work, etc), then try the game as a new fun activity. It will cure your depression, because it's so fundamentally animal, and it has the biggest pay off of any sport you could try.

Not so sure I agree there. I'm no PUA, but when you are coldly manipulating the situation, I find that completely lacking in challenge. Like, once you understand some of the rules and know what to say and do, it's just too easy, and all you're doing is going through the motions.

It's absolutely challenging. It takes a lot of training, willpower, dedication and willingness to fail to be successful at this.

On a side note, your last sentence has an amusingly ambiguous parse:

"(It takes a lot of training, willpower, dedication and willingness) to (fail to be successful) at this."

He said, talking about all of life. >_>

And if you like that, I would suggest that learning an intricate technique to regularly murder bums and get away with it is another great method to improve self-confidence for the depressed young man.

Oh please, I'm no fan of PUA techniques, but comparing that to murdering bums? Get real.

More often than not, the picker and the pickee are equally aware of what's happening. It's an elaborate mating dance more than anything else - one that happens to end up in the sack. What, did you think women preen themselves for a night on the town out of some virginal and innocent hope for True Love(tm)? Men and women in clubs/bars are there for similar reasons.

Personally, that's not what I'm looking for, but I constantly wonder what of the PUA community I can pilfer for my own ends - certainly, their methods for generating initial interest should be of interest to anyone, even people like me who are looking for relationships more than sex.

I didn't seriously compare manipulating people to murdering bums, the post had an air of facetiousness to it.

But the analogy is valid. The end goal is to satiate animal drives by using people. One may be more extreme, but that is simply to demonstrate the poor logic that justifying this pattern of behavior encompasses..

Personally, murder is not what I'm looking for, but I constantly wonder what the of the bumkill community I can pilfer for my own ends - certainly their methods for generating intense blood lust should be of interest to anyone, even people like me who are looking to kill bears more than men.

Your analogy is not valid. You're ignoring reality, and the posts above which explain it. You are imagining that the women hooking up with these men are so naive/gullible/stupid that they went home with a guy they just met in a bar, expecting a deep long-term emotional relationship.

The truth is, women are a lot smarter than you seem to believe. They know what the men are up to, and they are willing participants. They are not being used. Your analogy would only hold if the bums were intentionally looking to find someone to murder them.

equally aware? Isn't a PUA's game kind of over if she realizes where he's getting his plays?

In the book he says that at some point he started telling women openly up front about the game and him being the pick-up artist etc., just to see what happens, and it didn't have much effect on the outcome.

A woman on a webforum I used to frequent actually mentioned this--before she knew about PUA's, she would actually reliably recognize them in bars, and figure they were easy lays so she would target them.

It doesn't matter, she knows what you want right from the start.

As much as "the game" advice is fascinating and very convincing, the many followers of this are the ones that repel me the most.

Everyone I met associated with this system, so far have been someone trying to make money off of it, or a misguided person using the system to justify lying, or someone truly dishonest to them selves.

I spent well over 18 months and thousands of Dollars on perfecting this system. I have not met someone who can demonstrate a convincing or awe inspiring performance or at the least a good personality. Most of it is the hype built around very normal qualities.

The introverts build hype for the socially talkative PUAs whom you might find very annoying at work or in classroom. The extroverts build hype for those intelligently speaking PUAs whose ideas might be very questionable. Some guys build hype for the other PUAs who socially disrespect women. PUA is just a title that many of these folks are working hard to get to satisfy their egos and mask their insecurities.

One guy advised me to wear a huge bunch of keys around my pants, because women think you are in charge of something big. One guy advised me to own the room when I walk in. The other guy I met introduced himself as someone who goes to university and also works in a big software corporation full time when he works at a small restaurant.

Most people who are attracted to this are the ones who lacked male role models in their lives and those from countries like India where marriage is the only way and life outside work is confusing still.

Like many other people from my background I felt cheated by the traditional system, which advised to be a good social norms respecting and social expectation meeting person and get a good education, good job, life security etc in exchange for abundant opportunity for sex(remember make love to me randy from south park). In fact the exactly same things are considered a boring personality but if you are a romeo, not having a decent job, depending on friends and family, can have a full time duty talking to women every where, you are considered Romantic by women. Having seen my friend's wives leave their PhD husbands for a "leisurely life" guy, and reading a lot about cheating girl friends, "The game" opened my eyes. It gave a promise size of a Mount Everest. The results were not that satisfactory but at least I got some better parts from it like self improvement and being less socially awkward. Like some one here advised, dating is really a numbers game and the rest is self-improvement

If you look at most people of the 'seduction' community, they usually have something in their history that stunted their sexual-social development and basically need instruction/a support group/whatever to help overcome it. Usually people who grew up in religious households, or families that didn't let them out of the house much at all or let them socialize, go out or offer much anything in terms of privacy. Or they imposed it on themselves by being geeks and only socializing really with male friends. Or they developed various phobias or incorrect ideas from adults, caregivers and personal heros (Sexual harassment phobia, taking radical 2nd/3rd wave feminists seriously, etc). It could be more subtle reasons or other things.

Because they're nerds, men, usually young and are dealing with sexual problems the machismo goes to 11 and they do various socially stupid things. And most of the people who started these courses are not the most healthy of people.

> If you look at most people of the 'seduction' community, they usually have something in their history that stunted their sexual-social development...

So you're saying that the people looking for help in understanding and attracting women are more likely to have been bad at it in the past? And that people who already have a lot of experience and success are unlikely to be interested in PUD methods? Isn't that obvious?

> At the height of his “gaming” activity he had eight steady sexual partners—who all knew about each other—and was maneuvering himself into threesomes on a regular basis.

Love it or hate it, that's pretty darn impressive. (Assuming they are attractive)

If a girl says somthing like: “Remember, as you walk home through the night, be bold,” there are problems afoot. Condescending poetry is a death knell.

As an aside -- I've always preferred superficial girls to bad poets. At least the terms are more clearly defined.

Maybe all that women want is someone they can talk to as human beings and be with?

No, that isn't true either.

It might be true for me, but it isn't true for someone else. The problem with such generalizations is something rather simple; nature is not absolute. This works if women are absolute beings who care about nothing more than finding a secure man to breed with. There are women like that and there are men like that too, but it isn't a hard and fast rule.

Gender is in fact a spectrum and the idea of women you have in mind for whom such stuff works is only a portion of the total population. There are so many beautiful women and hawt men out there who want more to life than mindless pickups and sex.

Where do evolutionary generalizations come into over here? Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a condom.

Yes, male and female brains are different, but there are fundamental differences within those sets as well (I am living breathing proof of this). So, maybe just maybe such things don't work in the longer term. As it assumes that both parties are in the "game" for something or the other.

What happens when you mature and you realize that you want more?

If you treat most women as objects of desire sooner or later your relationship will crash and burn. After all s/he is nothing more than a fancy toy for you. Emotions have to be felt not reasoned with.

I think that the most important discovery any of us can ever make is that; love is not a noun but a verb. It is something you have to work for. It simply doesn't "just happen". It takes years of emotional intimacy and mutual respect to have a relationship that can be classified as "true-love", and perhaps that is something worth the while in the longer run...

[edit: forgot grammar and spell check]

Emotions have to be felt not reasoned with.

This sounds somewhat arbitrary and unreasonable, why does it have to be this way? Why can't a person make rational filters on their emotional experience and only experience emotion through that? How is this any less valid than behaving in a more emotionally unstable fashion?

Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a condom.

I used to think this, but I'm not so sure any more. Isn't it just a more specific version of "you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you see a women you don't want to have sex with"?

I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.

>>>I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit togething in an interesting and compatible way.<<<

Most of my ideas on evolution have been shaped by Richard Dawkins. If you've read his books then you probably know what is coming.

His proposal to look at evolution from the gene point of view is something that is simple and logical to me. He points out that individuals are temporary collections of genes, and it is these genes that play games with us not the other way around. I love it how he puts; we are survival machines built by our genes.

However, for some reason some of those machines have developed this ability to talk to one another over things they have created. They seem to be able to reflect upon their own decisions and instincts in order to improve their response to the environment. There is no doubt that the gene/s that enable this became wildly successful in the gene pool. So, in a quirky way we have this ability given to us by genes that prevent us from carrying out the sole purpose of our existence to those genes; replication.

On the other hand we can argue for the-men/women-you-don't-have-sex-with example by pointing out that each time we mate there is a finite cost attached to it, and in order for the genes to be propagated most efficiently we have to take that into account. To a gene what is the use of having 30 descendants if none of them live long enough to reproduce?

What I am trying to say is that we aren't governed by our gene programming to the extent suggested in pop-culture. The genes themselves have given us a backdoor, and we exploit that backdoor a lot. It is an extremely strange recursion that boggles my mind.

So, at the end, yeah, you are right. There is nothing for which we can be 100% sure, but you have to admit this is a fun game. ;)

I was intrigued by the reference to "Ovid’s frank advice on meeting women at the theater". This seems to refer to the "Ars Amatoria" which is an interesting read in its own right.

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amatoria

Full text (English translation):http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Artoflovehome...

The more you interact with women, the more you get to know women.

There is no method.

Think about throwing a baseball. No professional pitcher looks the same. They each have their own peculiar windup, delivery, and follow-thru. They each have a different selection of pitches. Some are taller than others. Some are from the Dominican Republic. What do they have in common?

They've all been pitching for a long ass time.

Sure, they have insights on the process. They'll show you their grip on their change-up or how they flick their wrists out before they release their curveball. They'll show you little bits of technique but they'll never be able to teach you how to pitch.

You've got to figure it out on your own.

Confidence is absolutely key. You're up on the mound. Your entire team is behind you, waiting for you to deliver the ball. It's just you and the batter. You're on the spot. You can't undo what is about to happen. There is no proof-reading. There are no mentors to run things by.

It's all up to you.

The first pitch might be off target. That doesn't matter. You've still got at least one more pitch to throw. So what are you going to do, fret about what just happened or think about how having a 1-0 count can work to your advantage? What was that last pitch, a fastball, and you missed up and outside with it against a left-handed hitter? Perfect time to throw your slider in for a strike, just nabbing the upper right corner. Now it's 1-1. The hitter is left thinking if the first pitch, way outside that it was, wasn't just some sort of psychological test, a setup, a prelude for the rest of the at-bat.

Congratulations, you've just gotten through a single batter. There are at least two more to go, and that's just for this inning. If you're lucky, you'll get to face 27 or more of them. If you're not up to par, you might only see a dozen or so. The point is you are hungry for the chance to show off your skills.

It doesn't matter if you're a knuckleballer, a crafty south-paw, or a fire-brand young all-star. You're all experiencing the same thing.

However, the method used to succeed is your own.

> The more you interact with women, the more you get to know women.

s/women/people/

However, a little instruction about body language and psychology can go a long way if you need it. It's useful to know where you stand. Incidentally, I've started playing poker most nights for the past week, and together with some reading about tells, I feel as though my ability to read people to some degree has improved.

If offered the choice between empty meaningless sex and deeply meaningful unrequited love I'd take the first without hesitation.

The former might be shallow and empty but the latter is just horrible.

If I was offered the choice, I'd ask, "come on, am I absolutely required to choose one? This is almost as bad as election year."

Then, if I had no other option, I would choose the sex.

I wish there was a manual like this for business relationships.

There is. It's called The 48 Laws of Power. Combine that with game and you have a potent combination. I practice game to gain a better understanding of female psychology, but it's taught me volumes about human psychology as a whole.

The last section is a bit pretentious ('darkened dorm room', 'do not lament your condition'). I do sympathize with the difficulty of learning how to love in modern times, etc. And I did enjoy parts of the retelling of The Red and the Black. However, there is a more sustainable alternative to PUA, which is also not naive (like blind Romanticism).

And that is, consciously, be awesome and find awesome common ground.

I think we all are ignoring the other side of the coin:

There are lots of girls who want to have uncompromising sex but that are tied by the gossip of their own female friends, by the gossip of the 'righteous' men around them, and by the double standards of society in general.

Those girls deserve to have fun if they want, and not being discriminated against. 'Pickup' artists just fulfill the need, that's why their method works.

I was captivated by this book and (since I didn't allow myself to buy it) stood for hours in Borders perusing the pages. The game approach to relationships is discussed to death in these comments.

My question is: Can you generalize the PUA approach, e.g. use a form of it for angel investors, prospective customers, etc. For a prospective customer the "neg" could be: "here's where your business fails" and then, when their curiosity is piqued you tell them how to fix it, etc.

It is the feeling I got from reading it, so yes. I think lots of people are offended by the end goal of "the game", so they do not even analyse what the means to get there are.

In lots of ways its strategies to show that you are interesting. To learn how you can captivate someones brain for a while. How you break through the normal filtering of the world. To understand when something similar is done to you. I even enjoy it when I know it happens to me, so it is a bit of a game.

There are things like body language saying yes, while words are saying no. Or several stories are being told simultaneously, unsuccessful ones being dropped and new one are started, to keep listeners. Or how to show that you are successful without appearing to be bragging.

It seems to me that a lot of the comments on here are written by folks who didn't bother reading the whole article. True, the stuff about Stendhal gets pretty thick at times---I had to skim over some of it---but it's worth it in the end.

There's something ironic about this. The thesis of the essay is along the lines of: love is a very hard road, but worth it in the end. But it is presented in such a fashion that only folks who are persistent will follow it (the essay itself) to the end.

No mention that Strauss' girl who he fell for and stopped 'playing' then later left him? How odd.

Is Game really just acting confident and being flrity? Ross Jeffries and other people like him talk about using Neuro Linguistic Programming and covert hypnosis to make a girl sleep with you. It sounds REALLY exploitative and I don't believe that it works because what he says to say are these LONG and really weird sounding things that you just sound like an idiot for saying. But SO MANY PEOPLE follow him that I don't understand it.

"Your website has been suspended!"

Hacker News effect? :-)

Still in Google's cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=ubuntu&#...

Game is like the Force. The choice of being Sith or Jedi lies with you.

Love is a verb, not a noun.

It's also a noun.

edit: Hey, I'm just out here fighting for linguistic accuracy in bumper sticker slogans!

15 romantics (votes) or did you all just want Cliffs Notes on "The Game"?

Yet everything fades away in the face of death.

Yeah, but if you're going to believe the whole "ultimately we're just dust on the wind" point then everything is meaningless and you may as well kill yourself now.

The better alternative is to find what pleasure and satisfaction you can while you're here.

I don't really understand that line of reasoning at all. And probably never will.

Ultimately we're just dust in the wind. That's a fact. Our life is very short, as proved by all the research in longevity and how much we want it to succeed.

In my mind this 'you only have one shot at it' aspect only makes life way more important than if there were reincarnation, or life after death or any of those things.

It makes life infinitely more valuable. We don't enjoy life 'despite' its one-shot-itis, we enjoy life MORE because of it.

We don't enjoy life 'despite' its one-shot-itis, we enjoy life MORE because of it.

I'm sorry, but nothing I've seen out there bears this out.

For the most part, people get through their days by ignoring their mortality somehow. If this wasn't the case there would be nothing to explain the plethora of people out there working dead end jobs they hate, stuck in relationships they don't enjoy or telling people they have plans to do 'something else' at some unspecified point in the future.

I know that's a remarkably pessimistic take on it, but really, look at your average person out there. If they were actively conscious of their mortality (and trying to make the most of their one shot) why would they be living the way they do, without trying to change something?

They are not conscious of their mortality because they have been denying it all their life.

'Your grand pa did not ceased to be, he just went to a better place' is the lie they tell to their children, and in a minor grade, to themselves.

All those 'life after death', 'angels', 'ghosts', 'zombies' and reincarnation movies and TV programs also help accomplish that.

Now, you are not being pessimistic, just stating a fact. However, whatever the most average person can think should not and does not affect the way I see life.

You're confusing two point: the meaninglessness of being simply atoms in the void, and our finite life spans. It's perfectly consistent to think that a finite life span would make us cherish our time more, if only not for the fact that everything is meaningless.

No. I also think that we are atoms in a void.

How that makes everything meaningless is totally beyond my grasp. It however mimics the message of 'doom' that some religious people uses to attack atheism.

Having read only a part of 'Gödel, Escher, Bach', I realize that the fact that we know some of the rules that atoms follow, and can predict how in average a given bunch of atoms will act, helps us nothing to explain how complex things form.

Never mind life, the most complex form of matter we know.

This in my view, makes all life (not just mine) very, very valuable. We are the most precious matter in the universe.

Most small things act 'in a way' when studied alone, but form incredibly complex patterns and 'behaviors' when acting in great groups that are totally unexpected, by anyone who studied the small things in single quantities.

In fact, a single brain will never be able to understand how a brain works. Thousands of brains, or a bigger electronic brain, probably can. But they themselves will never be able to explain how all the group or the electronic network works to produce knowledge.

Why should the emergence of complexity from simple underlying rules give meaning or value? First, there's the whole is-ought problem. Second, even if you tried to say complexity implied values, there are all sorts of things (computers, trees, and weather systems) which are highly complex but don't have the kind of intrinsic value that is assigned to people.

aka Absurdism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com