Why Science? And how it can actually help the Pickup Artist community.




I understand the confusion.  Science is, after all, incredibly incompetent when it comes to helping people with social problems.  Psychology has been around for over a hundred years and it’s really infantile in its efficacy.  For all its expansive theory, Psychology has rarely improved upon the “ear of an empathic insightful friend.”  And when it has, it is always an empathic insightful therapist armed with scientific knowledge that did the trick.  So Why Science?

So, the real problem is not that science has nothing to offer, the real problem is the application of science as a source for a solution instead of a tool for a solution.

What is needed to solve a social dilemma (let’s limit it to that, since that’s what we do) is someone perspicacious enough to apply science as a tool. This is noticeably lacking and very needed. Sadly, many Pick Up Artists are still using the nonsensical and completely fallacious evolutionary psychology. And they use it mostly as marketing.

Meanwhile, real science applied to love and romance can completely demystify it, tell you the real reasons you feel scared and take a lot of that fear away.

Most people don’t need to be told “don’t stand too close” (proxemics), “look them in the eyes” (occulesics), “alter your vocal pitch” (prosody) and “stand up straight” (kinesics).”  And so why do we need fancy scientific words that focus on those things?  Because many people going for more advanced social skills do need to be told “altering your proximity in conversation can create sexual tension” (proxemics), “looking away is as important as eye contact” (occulesics), “vocal pitch can be used to close distance” (prosody), and “how you hold your head influences how people see you more than anything else in the first few seconds of an interaction” (kinesics).

Perhaps most importantly, we as a society need to change how we are interacting with strangers.

Most of our social conditioning is designed to distance ourselves from others and find justifications to avoid other people.

It prevents us from seeing that the nerdy guy who is being a little bit rude is just losing his words because he’s nervous, and the cocky dude who’s being a little too loud is probably just terrified.

This is not to say that those are the people that you need to spend your time on, but there’s no reason to stop a conversation with them when a little bit of calm, fearless, and skilled social attention could change their lives.  And possibly yours.

We have helped hundreds of well-meaning socially awkward folks find love with people who would NEVER have looked at them twice and the retention rate of their relationships are about double the national average.  What that tells me (and I confess this is not very scientific) is that there are a lot of people out there passing up a lot of really good opportunities.

Science exists with its incredibly rigorous and exacting methodologies for a very good reason. To avoid the cognitive biases that you and I aren’t even aware that we have. 

These biases are not only impossible to avoid otherwise, most people don’t bother because those biases are what actually make marketing effective.

But it’s a rejection of pseudoscience like “a woman needs a guy to impregnate her so she will seek out a male who looks like he can protect her” that make me so passionate about extricating all of it from any PUA methodology.  It is all evopsych nonsense.

I used to be an evopsych devotee until I learned just how much completely made up hogwash there is in it.

It’s not that evopsych is totally wrong. It’s that it can’t be called totally right.  And since polarized thinking is the most common form of cognitive bias trying to help someone differentiate what is and isn’t good science in it is basically impossible. For example, the desire for impregnation plays a role in womens decisions to an unknown (and ever fluctuating) degree and the desire for someone to protect them is equally fluctuating.  This kind of pseudoscience is unnecessary to explain what is happening between men and women (or any pair bonding individuals of any gender).  So why even bother with it?

I am not trying to undercut the Pickup Artist community with this.  I am actually just trying to save them from their own PR nightmare and the slow dwindling into oblivion that they are currently suffering from. I certainly am not claiming I can do it all myself.  But I helped create The Attractive Arts to do my part.

We all know that some PUAs are misogynists, not because they have a reason to hate women but because when you gamify attraction you create an us vs them model that glorifies misogyny. If you want to study some science on this, study symbolic convergence theory.

This is where you get PUAs like Jeffy Jeff Allen, who should already been socially ostracized in every PUA circle in order to avoid the PR nightmare that is this very deserved article.

Mystery on the other hand is a scholar turned rogue, I love the guy. He genuinely loves women and even though he came up with the caveman evopsych nonsense about approach anxiety.  What he teaches to people both works and can be applied ethically. He has also influence the PUA community more than any other PUA and he now sets an example of reformed ethics in Pick Up that people can be proud of.  He deserves a lot of credit.

Vince Kelvin, a great natural presence teaching game on a level most can’t grasp but anyone who can, really could have their lives changed. He might be my favorite.  He is unapologetically sex focused yet incredibly ethical and honest.  A role model for others.

So there are lots of great PUAs out there, we are just trying to add a dynamic to it that we think is needed and fits our particular gifts. We are scientists by nature and two of our staff are PhDs.  We think we bring something that can allow the PUA community to remain as successful as ever without resorting to making men and women play against each other.  It can be totally divorced from all sexism and be totally oriented towards simple, natural, honest connection without any neediness.

 Our passion is to create a real way for people to stop being strangers, make friends, get jobs and get laid without regrets in the morning.

We are doing our part by applying actual science, avoiding unnecessary polarizing of women and creating a philosophical framework to attraction technology that is divorced from flashy propaganda.  It’s not designed as a dogma, we are happy when we are proven wrong and adopt new ideas quickly.

We hope this clears up future questions about why we focus so much on science in our approach and our viewpoint and connection to the Pickup Artist community.

One Response to Why Science? And how it can actually help the Pickup Artist community.

  • Rake says:

    But the problem is broader than just the proverbial nerdy guy who wants to get laid but keeps landing in the friend zone. Take, for example, Lauren Marbe, the Essex beauty whose basic intelligence is at the same level as our smartest geniuses, yet is still being boxed into the “dumb blonde” zone because of her appearance. Science can help us understand why, but can it help us understand what to do about it?
    That’s where it takes the application of science as a tool by someone able to see the problem for what it is. Hence basic wisdom, empathy and intelligence is necessary, but also knowledge of the science in order to know what to apply and how.
    In this case Social Constructionist Theory gives us the obvious answer we all come to about gender roles, then we see a number of things at play where people identify the hair, nails, tanning and blonde hair and assume that the person standing in front of them with those characteristics will act in a manner that matches their own assumptions about other people with those characteristics. There is some sexism in there, some bandwagon effect, a little Gambler’s Fallacy. And lastly the Semmelweis reflex sticks that idea in some people’s heads even after it has been proven otherwise.
    Then of course there is projection of the qualities we have in our mind onto other people and…. Wait, why am I just listing cognitive biases? The end result is simply pathologizing the people who are misjudging Marbe and stamping “WRONG” on them.
    How about a solution then?
    That’s the problem. A solution has to be wanted. Solving it on a societal level would involve a massive overhaul of the focus of education in the country from conformative thought to individuated thought.
    But what we would do if Lauren Marbe was our client? We would tell her that she should enjoy the dissonance and be happy to filter people out of her life who are too shallow to see the truth. However if she insisted and wanted to just be prejudged as intelligent. One of the fastest and easiest things we could do is to actually coach her to simply wear glasses. And just as shocking as the Marbe story is in the first place, simply putting glasses on her face would change a lot. There would be more work to do, but it would be surprising just how much a difference it would make to people’s perceptions of her.
    Again, as problem solvers it’s not our job to pass judgment (beyond avoiding hurting people) onto what a client wants, only the application of science as a tool to get them what they want.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *