1027: "Pickup Artist"

[spats]

He does not realize it but the "pick-up artist" of this comic is actually the winner here. This woman he's taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch.

Um, no. She reacted the same way anyone should when a stranger comes up and insults them.

Unless you define "bitch" as "woman who isn't accommodating and compliant to whatever bullshit a man wants from her". Which unfortunately, many men do.

If you believe you can't ask a respectable woman to have sex with you, and you can't accept a slut, then manipulating a respectable woman seems far preferable to rape.

I think you just broke my brain.

If you can't bring yourself to be open and honest with a woman, and you are repulsed by any woman who seems open to what you're interested in, then you are either mentally ill or at best are failing to appreciate the basic fact that women are people. Seek therapy, and stay away from women.

Also, if your justification for something is "at least it's not rape"...

*shudder*

Okay, here's something to think about: when evaluating a woman's behavior or reaction or thinking about how to talk to her, turn the tables. Pretend you are her and she is you. What would you want in that situation? What would you want to hear? How would you feel? How would you react? Act accordingly. It's that simple.

If you can't do that - can't put yourself in another person's shoes - you're a sociopath.

[BAReFOOt]

Oh boy… the old prejudices about pickup artists again…
But I can understand it. All you n00bs see in idiots like Neil Strauss / Mystery and their peers on TV and on their websites, and think that’s what it is.

Helpful hint: There are at least three generations of pickup artists!
An the first two are epic failures!

The first ones were started by Ross Jeffries, who used neuro-lingual programming. We have all agreed, that that is a extremely fucked-up way of doing things. We have also agreed that if you “get” a woman that way, you can never know if she really likes you, or just because of your nasty trickses. And in the end, it will not work for long anyway.

The second ones were started by Erik von Markovik (Mystery), and are still apparently what’s going around the most. Just to be clear: They are FAIL! They think they can work some “routines” and do some “trickses”, and that will get her. But the harsh reality is: As soon as their trickery runs out… which even for the best is after a couple of hours or when it approaches an actual relationship… they are the same failures and losers again, that they were the whole time. And obviously, women catch on. It can’t work, and by now everybody but them and their followers knows it.
Negging is a typical thing of those people.

The third generation was started by Owen Cook (Tyler), exactly because of that unnatural shit of the generations before. They are the first, to care for the actual social dynamics of the natural way this works (for non-losers). They are approaching psychology, neurology and sociology from the practical standpoint, while those three sciences approach it from the theoretical one. And if you think only a bit further, they meet in the middle.
So they are not only the first ones that can be shown to work and work naturally, but they are on a solid scientific foundation.
Because it’s exactly the stuff one naturally does, there is nothing to catch on to, no trickery, no lame shit. It’s not about playing a character. It’s about changing yourself from a failure like Mystery to somebody who naturally is good with women. Somebody who is attractive because he deserves it. Who is himself attractive. Not just attractive because of an elaborate mask he’s wearing.
So it’s mostly about overcoming one’s own insecurities, fixing false social conditioning, actually understanding the social dynamics, etc. (Like the misconception that women would like to have sex with men with lots of money and stuff to brag about. … Yes there are some women who like men with lots of money. But as providers. That means it will be even harder for those men to have sex with her. She will simply find a real man to have the child with, and you will pay for it. Not a smart approach.)

Some people just aren’t good at that. And telling them to just go out “like normal people” won’t work, since they already did that, it didn’t work at all, and by itself never will. That is tough to admit, so don’t belittle it. So what exactly is some people’s problem with wanting to understand why and fixing that? (And why would anyone choose not to understand (also rationally), how those things are supposed to work. (Naturally.))

But hey, one can also still say that all Germans are Nazis* and run around in either Lederhosen or SS uniforms, all Frenchmen always have a baguette and a bottle of red wine under the arm, and so on… so with enough ignorance, it’s easy to say that pickup artistry is still the Mystery method, and by simply preventing oneself from actually dealing with the subject or understanding it, it’s all shit anyway. Like that evil Rock music and that verboten Swing music and those evil computer games that do nothing but create murderers and criminals, right? Right?

___
* There is no “Godwin’s ‘law’”. That’s nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché that got waaaay to generalized, and became a version of exactly the thing it originally criticized. (Typical for retards trying to argue.) Originally, it was used to counter somebody invoking the Nazis as a thought-terminating cliché. Then it was misused for cases where the Nazis were used as a proper argument, like here. (Typical for cattle who can’t think for themselves, ignore the original story, ignore the intention, and blindly follow the rule, even if it results in the opposite of what was originally intended.) And so it itself became such a thought-terminating cliché. So If you bring “Godwin’s law” up, you automatically lose the argument.

[Belial]

If you can't bring yourself to be open and honest with a woman, and you are repulsed by any woman who seems open to what you're interested in, then you are either mentally ill or at best are failing to appreciate the basic fact that women are people. Seek therapy, and stay away from women.

Also, if your justification for something is "at least it's not rape"...

*shudder*

Okay, here's something to think about: when evaluating a woman's behavior or reaction or thinking about how to talk to her, turn the tables. Pretend you are her and she is you. What would you want in that situation? What would you want to hear? How would you feel? How would you react? Act accordingly. It's that simple.

If you can't do that - can't put yourself in another person's shoes - you're a sociopath.

You win best newbie of the day. There will probably be cake. Don't hold me to it.

[Tomo]

Okay, here's something to think about: when evaluating a woman's behavior or reaction or thinking about how to talk to her, turn the tables. Pretend you are her and she is you. What would you want in that situation? What would you want to hear? How would you feel? How would you react? Act accordingly. It's that simple.

If you can't do that - can't put yourself in another person's shoes - you're a sociopath.

Personally, I'd act similarly to the girl in the comic. But if other girls react to that by taking the guy home, then I assume that's how they want to react as well. So.. everyone gets what they want?

[dawolf]

Speaking as someone who has read The Game, is pretty successful with girls (when single) and found the comic very amusing....

The negging stuff I don't like. I get that it can work, I've seen it work, but I don't like it. It's being an asshole.

Some of the other stuff is shallow. Learning parlour trickses to keep people amused isn't a bad thing to do - hell, why not learn something that's fun? - but it's not that deep and you'll struggle to get more than a one night stand out of parlour trickses.

I think the peacock stuff is interesting, and I've seen that work. Yes that's shallow too but I've got a couple of mates who are AWFUL with girls and I'm sure they'd do better if they did something to attract some attention to themselves in the first place. Some of the other suggestions for building a self image are good too.


What I found most interesting were such items as the simple concept that anyone can do it, that people who are shy, reserved etc could, if they broke through that reserve, be more successful with women. The idea that women should be considered as equals rather than on a pedestal, and just talking to them as a normal person, is something I was awful at as a teenager.

So yeah, the basic stuff was the most interesting. Don't read the book to tell you exactly what to do, as Style is an asshole a lot of the time. Do read it for a good story well told, that also gives some tips on how to be more successful with women.

[eazolan]

Hey Randal, if this is that simple, that easy, put your money where your...uh...pen is.

Start up a dating site. I mean, if all guys have to do is "Be themselves" you ought to just RAKE in the money right?

However, if it's complete bullshit, then you're in for a learning experience.

[spats]

2) BHG's Girlfriend's comeback would be classified as a Shit-test. If Noodly was up on the game, he would have ignored it or countered it.

Ignoring the PUA jargon, not walking away after such an obvious "you're not welcome here" would have been really creepy behavior. The correct responses for Black Hat Girl* at that point would be (1) "No, seriously, go away" and (2) fork to the groin. It's a no win for loser guy.

4) PUA's are supposed to keep their eye on their ultimate goal. His response to BHG's Girlfriend's dis should be either to keep playing until BHG got back

See above. It's not a game when only one person is playing. Loser guy is being creepy. Sticking around just means he's increasing his chances that he's going to have to fight Black Hat Guy and Black Hat Girl at the same time.

PUA stuff relies on the fact that women in our culture are conditioned to be passive and non-confrontational. The correct response from the start - and the response you'd expect from any dude in a similar situation - would be to stand up and cold-cock the asshole. Now in this case, the tongue-lashing does work, but only because she's witty enough to make it hurt more than a broken nose.

* Calling her that because she's not "BHG's girl", she's a female version of him.

[Asclepion]

Um, no. She reacted the same way anyone should when a stranger comes up and insults them.

Unless you define "bitch" as "woman who isn't accommodating and compliant to whatever bullshit a man wants from her". Which unfortunately, many men do.

A normal person would tell him to get lost. What they wouldn't do is infer someone's entire history and motivation from a single statement, and then say an elaborate ad-homien attack on his worth as a person, that they holding themselves back and destined to stagnate without improving, by virtue of their entire being. The PUA was dumb, but the girl's response was wholly inappropriate. Neither one of them have any social skills, but the difference is the PUA is clueless while the girl is actively malicious.

Again, I sympathize more with the PUA, and all I get from the comic is that this woman is a hateful person. It wasn't good.

[Marlayna]

Eh, PUA detractors, which of the following statements do you dispute?

[list=]If you practice doing something, you’ll tend to get better at it
The PUA community has a lot of practice at trying to seduce women, and thus tend to be better at it than most people
There’s probably a decent correlation between the methods they claim cause their success and the methods that do
Not all PUAs advocate the same strategies; for eg not all advocate negging
So one should be able to be (and presumably some people *do* be) a PUA without making women’s lives worse
If so, there’s nothing especially creepy about the scene per se
If it still attracts creepy people, a better solution than complaining about it might be to do it and develop more benign alternatives (a comparison with politics springs to mind)
Incidentally, Feynman was clearly a PUA of the Neil Strauss school (‘You’re worse than a whore’, anyone?), and we all think he was cool, right?
Can’t we all get along, now?
[/list]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

[kingpocky]

When PUAs brag about their methods working, I don't really doubt that they're partially telling the truth. It's not as big of a deal as it might seem though. They don't have any sort of deep insight into the female psyche. Go out to places like bars and clubs, talk to women, and be confident. If you're interested in casual sex, you'll find it. Hooking up in a place where people generally go if they want to hook up isn't something you need to use psychological trickses to accomplish.

[PhilHibbs]

I think that Randall is encouraging unhealthy body images with his depiction of stick-thin women.

[EpicanicusStrikes]

Pretend you are her and she is you. What would you want in that situation?

I'm pretty sure that, if I were her, I'd be too busy seeing what could fit up my vagoo to even be out in the first place. Either that or I'd want him to shut up, knock off the VH1 caliber antics and then we both call all of our friends to come prevent things from getting boring.

And yet somehow that approach never works coming from MY side of the table. Not cool.

[Tomo]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

Friendships should grow smoothly out of relationships. When they have problems, you should be there for them, night after night, selflessly, until one day, in a moment of weakness, and loneliness, they give in.

[Q748921123]

This is the comic that made me create an account.

+1

Not only is this not funny (A person saying someone's life has no value and is doomed to stagnation is not humorous by any normal standard), but I don't get a good vibe from it. As a reader I end up sympathizing with the would-be PUA, and my reaction is that the woman is pointlessly hateful and not worth the guy's time.

A bit harsh, yes.
Guy should have observed a bit more - she's hanging out with our favourite lovable psychopath. But then maybe he know that and that's why he made his move? "Someone who's voluntarily around BHG will put up with anything. "
(Or he could have become a mass murderer. Totally brings in the chicks I've heard.)

[CoryG]

If you can't do that - can't put yourself in another person's shoes - you're a sociopath.

It seems somewhat self-defeating to define a sociopath as someone who can't put themselves in another person's shoes. By that definition you neglect those that can put themselves in another person's shoes and either disregard or disagree with the projected perception of the situation or the tangible outcome relating to it - not to mention that without being able to see the disregard or difference of ideology you would fit the definition yourself.

[spats]

Um, no. She reacted the same way anyone should when a stranger comes up and insults them.

Unless you define "bitch" as "woman who isn't accommodating and compliant to whatever bullshit a man wants from her". Which unfortunately, many men do.

A normal person would tell him to get lost. What they wouldn't do is infer someone's entire history and motivation from a single statement, and then say an elaborate ad-homien attack on his worth as a person, that they holding themselves back and destined to stagnate without improving, by virtue of their entire being.

Or, because this is Black Hat Girl we're talking about: she immediately recognizes what he's doing, is justifiably offended that this random dude thinks he can trick her into fucking him, and takes that greater insult as justification to find his weak point and attack it for massive damage.

(We do know from previous experience that Black Hat Girl is a jerk. But she's justified in this case. Also, I don't like the word "bitch" because it implies there's something worse about being strong-willed or obnoxious when you have lady parts.)

[dawolf]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

Seduction doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[EverVigilant]

This is bullshit. So we are suppose to equate ANY AND ALL attempts to pick up, go out with, or otherwise "score" with a girl as misogyny against or objectification of women? Further, we are also suppose to believe that acting on these ideas is simply a mental defect in our brains completely insurmountable; ie. If you cannot get a girlfriend, its because there is something wrong with your brain?

In an ideal world you'd be able to be honest and straight with women about your intentions and eventually everything would work out. Do you want to date? You would get a simple yes/no answer. You want casual sex? Also a yes/no answer. ANY guy who has put himself out there knows this peaches and roses scenario does not exist and never will. You have to be cool. You have to be smooth. You have to pretend not to care. You have to flirt. You have to act natural at the same time. etc.

He does not realize it but the "pick-up artist" of this comic is actually the winner here. This woman he's taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch. Better to be single than to be with a stuck-up snot who believes in some sort of genetic superiority based on intellect (the foundation of said belief being completely rooted in pseudo-science).

With all due respect- actually, fuck that. Fuck you, Randall. I don't care if I get banned since I don't care to read your comic EVER again. This is too close to home. Bookmark deleted; no more recommendations.

1.) Go to Amazon.com
2.) Order "Neurosis and Human Growth" by Karen Horney
3.) Wait for delivery
4.) Read

If I am gauging you correctly, this will help you a lot more than "The Game".

(I say this as somebody who, maybe 5 years ago, could have written a very similar rant in response to this comic.)

[BAReFOOt]

Speaking as someone who has read The Game, is pretty successful with girls (when single) …. […] Some of the other stuff is shallow. Learning parlour trickses to keep people amused isn't a bad thing to do - hell, why not learn something that's fun? […] I think the peacock stuff is interesting, and I've seen that work. Yes that's shallow too but I've got a couple of mates who are AWFUL with girls and I'm sure they'd do better […]

The problem with this Mystery method (which that is), is that it’s just one being an actor playing fake trickses. People catch on. And it will run out. That’s why it will never work in the long term. All those who say it’s “successful”, conveniently conceal, that nobody of them ever kept a woman for an actual relationship. As that won’t happen with a “method”.

The only thing that makes sense, is not to “play” something, not to “use methods”, but to look at how people naturally are successful with the other gender (yes, this is very much a thing for women too), and then becoming that. You know…, like, actually changing yourself.
Which will involve all the things like getting in shape, becoming confident, etc, that a good psychotherapy would result in too.
That’s exactly the thing that Tyler (used to be a peer of that Mystery group, now part of Real Social Dynamics) started. It’s so obvious: Why not just lean to do THE NATURAL THING?? lol! You know: Like “normal people”!
(Yes, Tyler still has a single fallacy inside, as he’s smart, but not wise. That fallacy is the one about staying in that self-fulfilling prophecy until you have become it. Which, in reality, won’t work, because those people will by definition not feel well enough to stay though all those negative impressions until it becomes generally good. Otherwise, they would have already done it. | The solution here is, that people who have that little strength left, need therapeutic nurturing to keep at it. Which unfortunately, seems to be a huge taboo in our utterly retarded stone-age society.)

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised, if the whole thing doesn’t become a part of modern professional therapies in 10-20 years.

[J Thomas]

This woman he's taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch. Better to be single than to be with a stuck-up snot

Better to be single than in an adversarial relationship of any kind. If you have to lie or manipulate someone to get or keep their affections, then they are not true affections, and where is the value of that... unless you're only interested in them for the use of their body and don't care about their feelings, in which case you're objectifying them and an unethical bastard.

You are entitled to your own judgement about other people. For myself, I see nothing particularly wrong about people who are only interested in each other for the use of their bodies. I don't want to be with them, but provided they stay with their own kind, it's just another lifestyle. Better for them to be honest about it -- they can sort themselves out better that way. If you are interested in somebody for the temporary use of their body, and they want a lifelong monogamous relationship, and you lie to them, you're likely to create problems for yourself.

Thomas's Law (some unrelated Thomas): Never have sex with crazy people.
J Thomas's Law: Never have sex with somebody who's crazier than you are.

And don't have sex with people if you're predictably going to drive them crazy.

Ideally, people who want random sex might set up a website. Kind of like a dating website. They could find each other and rate each other's appearance, odors, sexual style, etc. When one of them is diagnosed with an STD they might announce it to help track the spread and get treatment. Presumably it would be a member-only website, with new members sponsored by existing members. I'd never find out about it.

I don't object to people who want adversarial relationships either, provided they do it with each other.

(Not only sexual objectification is unethical; the core of ethical intention is in recognizing other people as moral agents with subjective concerns as valid as your own: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." I think Abraham Lincoln said that</Dylan>).

I strongly doubt that was Lincoln. Lincoln was a politician. Well, he could have said it, I guess. Politicians say all kinds of stuff.

Anyway, I don't think sexual objectification is inherently immoral. But it causes problems with people who don't want to be sexually objectified. Not so bad when they do want that.

[Piskvor]

Until the final line, I was thinking 'great comic'. And then John was the terrible comic.

Do distinguish between the author saying "and this, children, is the Right Thing to do" and the characters acting according to their, um, character (after all, what good is an unexpected, devastating counter-attack, if you don't follow it up with a coup-de-grace?).

Also, XKCD strikes again: just when you're all "ooh, that's so completely in line with poetic justice according to my confirmation bias, and nice trolling those other people", he trolls you as well.
(I'd add something about potential for an epiphany, but all epiphanies are currently backordered )

[BAReFOOt]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

Seduction doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Seconded. I, for one, would like to be seduced. ^^
And so do most people.

The problem is, when the cake is a lie.
Which, with the Mystery method (shown in this comic), it is.
But Mystery’s method is as outdated of oil lamps mounted to horse carriages nowadays. Only n00bs still fall for that.
We have moved on to proper social dynamics, psychology, and how this is supposed to work in nature.

[Wharrgarbl8]

Start up a dating site. I mean, if all guys have to do is "Be themselves" you ought to just RAKE in the money right?
However, if it's complete bullshit, then you're in for a learning experience.

Way to put in succinctly.
Unfortunately for many guys 'who they are' around women they are attracted to is a fawning, fumbling, nervous doofus. It's easy to set up a strawman asshole in a comic, but I've seen guys get treated as badly as this guy is for 'just being themselves'.

[markfiend]

tl;dr (actually did read)

No you've missed the entire point:

Treating women as a "target", calling your interactions with other people a "game", this whole adversarial approach to interpersonal relationships... makes you an asshole.

[BAReFOOt]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, because you never do that, to get a partner. (You also never were single. Or a child.) Riiiight. ^^

Oh wait, getting a partner by definition involves seduction, and that means that you are either a lying ass, or never had a partner in your life. ^^

[Q748921123]

Oh boy… the old prejudices about pickup artists again…
But I can understand it. All you n00bs see in idiots like Neil Strauss / Mystery and their peers on TV and on their websites, and think that’s what it is.

Helpful hint: There are at least three generations of pickup artists!
An the first two are epic failures!

Interesting post, lot's of good stuff, thanks. Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis. Or evolution.

Actually, It made me think of the Onion article "Anti-Racism Laws Mutate Racism Into Newer, Stronger Form". (Just the evolutionary aspect. Not trying to offend anyone by suggesting any other similarity.)

[dawolf]

Tyler

Been about 4 years since I read the book, but isn't Tyler the really strange one who Strauss thinks is only interested in playing people?



As for the other stuff - you're talking about "inner game". Which I agree is important. Take a friend of mine, a Doctor of Biochemistry, he's extremely bright, extremely fit, looks fine (not amazing) and....can't get laid.

Because he has no inner game, or outer game, or anything where girls can look at him and just say "I want that" (temporary or permanent). It's a shame, as they don't get to know him well enough to see his many many good points.

[Apeiron]

This is bullshit. So we are suppose to equate ANY AND ALL attempts to pick up, go out with, or otherwise "score" with a girl as misogyny against or objectification of women? Further, we are also suppose to believe that acting on these ideas is simply a mental defect in our brains completely insurmountable; ie. If you cannot get a girlfriend, its because there is something wrong with your brain?

In an ideal world you'd be able to be honest and straight with women about your intentions and eventually everything would work out. Do you want to date? You would get a simple yes/no answer. You want casual sex? Also a yes/no answer. ANY guy who has put himself out there knows this peaches and roses scenario does not exist and never will. You have to be cool. You have to be smooth. You have to pretend not to care. You have to flirt. You have to act natural at the same time. etc.

He does not realize it but the "pick-up artist" of this comic is actually the winner here. This woman he's taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch. Better to be single than to be with a stuck-up snot who believes in some sort of genetic superiority based on intellect (the foundation of said belief being completely rooted in pseudo-science).

With all due respect- actually, fuck that. Fuck you, Randall. I don't care if I get banned since I don't care to read your comic EVER again. This is too close to home. Bookmark deleted; no more recommendations.

i agree with everything but the last line. Randall is taking one aspect of pick up and applying it to the whole. The "negging" is beyond playful teasing. But the cocky, funny, cool and aloof thing works better than what most guys learn to do: be supplicating obsequious wussies.

[Red Hal]

We have moved on to proper social dynamics, psychology, and how this is supposed to work in nature.

The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made? Oh and there is a big difference between two people playing a game in full knowledge of the rules and one person believing it to be real. One is flirting, the other makes you a douchebag. If you want to be seduced then what happens isn't seduction.

[BAReFOOt]

The amount of people in this thread, who post extremely loudly, but don’t know shit, and openly choose not to know shit, is staggering.

It’s like all those men in the USA, discussing female health/sexuality topics. They think they have good arguments, because they chose to ignore everything around them.

[radtea]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

Err... yes?

In particular: why not?

Men and women have been seducing each other (which I understand to mean, "inducing to have sex by presenting themselves as maximally sexually and socially desirable rather than as their average selves") since sometime before we came down from the trees.

Why should we stop now?

It's fun for everyone, and if it isn't fun then the problem isn't that it's "seduction" but that someone is being a dick about it. As with any game that involves more than one player it behooves those of us who play it to pay careful attention to our partner's well-being, and the beef I have with the PUA community is that they give that way too little emphasis. But that doesn't make seduction bad: it makes the PUA community a bunch of dicks who practice seduction rather badly (they are the script-kiddies of romance).

Seduction is, of course, a dangerous game. It's easy for people to get hurt. But the same could be said of rugby or ice hockey, and that doesn't stop us from playing them.

[fenris]

I'm amazed at how many people can't wrap their heads around the fact that manipulating people is immoral.

People manipulate each other all the time, with varying degrees of awareness and conscious control. There's nothing wrong in learning about the process and refining it. Manipulating people to benefit yourself at their expense is immoral, obviously.

As someone said, the PUA shtick might be "a support group" of sorts. Not everyone is well-adjusted, many people have crippling habits, some kind of mental illness, bad experiences from childhood/adolescence etc. that prevent them from being naturally social. Are the motivations sleazy? There's nothing sleazy about wanting sex. If someone's creepy, learning to pick up girls will only bring that inner creepiness out, and - through exposure - gradually give that person a healthier outlook.

Another method, one among many alternate choices, is to actually step outside your own head for ten minutes and try some basic empathy.

It's hard to teach a hungry tiger empathy for their prey.
Empathy comes from a place of having one's basic needs satisfied. Jump on 4chan and tell the "forever alone" permavirgins to empathize with the women, which - in their worldview - deny them love and sex and make them miserable. The rampant misogyny does not come from nowhere. If someone is greatly disturbed by sexual frustration, feeling unloved, unaccepted and worthless, he needs to find a bit of peace before he can meaningfully connect with other human beings.

From what you're writing, I assume you're a woman. Our instincts work a bit differently - you might not realize the extent to which frustrated male libido can, over time, warp a mind. The high incidence of sex-related serial killings are not an accident.

This is forcing social interactions out of other human beings who never asked for them
...
falls solidly into the spectrum of male privilege and misogyny

I can go talk to anyone I damn well please, and anyone can talk to me. If I find them annoying I'll blow them off. No privilege there whatsoever.

And don't even get into social norms making this difficult, if someone is so bound in social norms they sacrifice their own happiness for conformity, they have far more problems than some guy trying to start a conversation.

and throwing them down with blindsiding passive-aggression

See, this is the thing. Passive aggression, of any kind, is completely counterproductive. All worthwhile PUA sources will tell you the same. You can succeed despite it, but it makes things harder, and you need to get rid of it when possible.
There is a lot of passive aggression on the PUA forums and in the community in general, but as said - these people had to learn this stuff for a reason, and many are quite bitter about it. If anything, success with women should make them less bitter.

That is not your fault as an individual, but if you have enough brainpower to read these words, then you are perceptive enough understand that it is a social reality you need to be aware of, and act to change it rather than make it worse.

There's plenty of things wrong with reality, but I'm not quite sure what are you aiming this sentence at. And let's not drag feminist "male privilege" theories into this discussion, as that will derail the thread completely.

Overall, I agree with most of your points - the PUA approach is not optimal, and one's love life should not be reduced to a game played for sex. But it's a stepping stone, one that serves people far better than the cultural "be nice, buy flowers and you'll live happily ever after" meme.

[Asclepion]

Or, because this is Black Hat Girl we're talking about: she immediately recognizes what he's doing, is justifiably offended that this random dude thinks he can trick her into fucking him, and takes that greater insult as justification to find his weak point and attack it for massive damage.

(Also, Black Hat Girl is a jerk. But I don't like the word "bitch" because it implies there's something worse about being strong-willed or obnoxious when you have lady parts.)

That does not make it compelling to read. It would be different if she were being portrayed as an antagonist, but I don't get that sense either. Seeing how the PUA doesn't respond to her vitriolic monologue, and instead admits defeat only to have her insult him again as the punchline seems to me to say Randal agrees with it. XKCD's pedestalization of women, particularly this smart, nerdy Platonic supergirl, is exactly what negging is made to combat.

The PUA community is infested with freaks- no one denies that. There is plenty of humor to be found. But this was poor execution of it, and was overly spiteful for the subject matter.

[Marlayna]

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEDUCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. Is it that hard to grasp?

Friendships should grow smoothly out of relationships. When they have problems, you should be there for them, night after night, selflessly, until one day, in a moment of weakness, and loneliness, they give in.

Now that was a horrible comic.

In the comic you're quoting, Randall made it look like trying to make friends with someone you're in love with is somehow dishonest (either to yourself or to the love interest) and manipulative. The truth is, though, that people are simple. Most people just do what comes naturally to them. When I'm in love with someone I want to make friends because I enjoy their company, and that's it. I'm not "waiting for an opportunity". I don't expect to "make them fall in love with me". If and when I feel ready to ask them out, I'll do just that. There's no manipulation or dishonesty involved, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

[Apeiron]

Start up a dating site. I mean, if all guys have to do is "Be themselves" you ought to just RAKE in the money right?
However, if it's complete bullshit, then you're in for a learning experience.

Way to put in succinctly.
Unfortunately for many guys 'who they are' around women they are attracted to is a fawning, fumbling, nervous doofus. It's easy to set up a strawman asshole in a comic, but I've seen guys get treated as badly as this guy is for 'just being themselves'.

Most guys aren't being their TRUE selves when being supplicating wussies. Are you a nervous, fawning doofus with your friends or parents?

Think about it this way: How does a guy treat a girl he doesn't find attractive? Take that an apply it to someone you DO find attractive. Tease her. Don't seem desperate. Don't be afraid. Ignore her just enough. Be confident. Be a leader. Don't be "nice". Once i put this stuff to work my "game" improved tremendously.

A sociopath will use this to sociopathic ends. i used it to find my wife.

What most people think about dating and attraction is wrong.

[savageorange]

Wow, this topic is on fire. Every time I hit submit it says 'a new post has been made. you may want to review your post..' 9_9

@Piskvor:
Yeah, I took care to mention that I was making that distinction and still think it's terrible... Cause I'm imagining it from the point of view of someone who doesn't notice that subtlety -- in my observation most people won't, cause most people have neither serious creative writing experience nor a solid understanding of psychology.

Okay, here's something to think about: when evaluating a woman's behavior or reaction or thinking about how to talk to her, turn the tables. Pretend you are her and she is you. What would you want in that situation? What would you want to hear? How would you feel? How would you react? Act accordingly. It's that simple.

If you can't do that - can't put yourself in another person's shoes - you're a sociopath.

This almost works. By which I mean that thinking about what you would want is not quite the right question, unless the you is an idealized you who always wants what is good for them. (yeah, I went there. Thinking about what is good for everybody involved is hard, but a lot more reliable in producing good outcomes than just thinking about what they want.)
React has a similar problem (reactions don't predict well what actually produces good outcomes -- although they do seem to predict well what produces mediocre outcomes.)

Aw, I came off as pretty critical there. I want to be clear that I think that's a sound line of thought and a good policy, it's just that it could be even more sound.

[markfiend]

trying to make friends with someone you're in love with

What. The. Fuck.

How can you be in love with someone you're not even friends with? That makes no sense.

[radtea]

We have moved on to proper social dynamics, psychology, and how this is supposed to work in nature.

Just as a matter of interest, where did you do your anthropological studies of humans "in nature"? There has been some interesting work on stone-age peoples in the Amazon basin. I can recommend the book "Anxious Pleasures" as a good example of this.

Or are you just imputing to "nature" your prejudiced collection of just so stories about how interactions between men and women are "supposed" to work?

And why is it that what happens "in nature" is "supposed" to happen? 25% of men are "supposed" to die by violence if we look at what happens in societies without the rule of law (which are presumably "closer" to "natural" than civilized societies.)

Normative claims based on what happens in the absence of the rule of law have never been particularly well-justified, still less so today when we understand in greater detail just how profoundly apposite Hobbes' adjectives are.

[dawolf]

trying to make friends with someone you're in love with

What. The. Fuck.

How can you be in love with someone you're not even friends with? That makes no sense.

This.

[BAReFOOt]

Been about 4 years since I read the book, but isn't Tyler the really strange one who Strauss thinks is only interested in playing people?

Remember, that this is coming from a individual (Strauss), who has built his whole life on playing people and denying that that’s a bad approach.
Also remember, that the book was written a looong time ago. A time, when Tyler still was part of their group and before it being fully clear to him, how shit the whole thing was.
Yes, their breakup was pretty bad. And Strauss acted like a total child, because everything he built his confidence on, fell apart.

But as far as I know, they’re OK with each other now. It’s just that apparently, one can’t teach a old horse new trickses. And if those old folks don’t get it by themselves, there’s no way to change that.

As for the other stuff - you're talking about "inner game".

Actually, I’m talking about “being. not ‘doing’”. Saying “inner game” implies, that there still is a “game” which is “played”. Which is exactly opposite naturally being it.

About your friend: I hope that some day, I can boil down the whole neurology (not even psychology) down to a simple set of experiences (because intentions and rules tend to mutate), and then find a way to make those intense enough to imprint the new views onto anyone in a matter of minutes.
Theoretically, it’s possible. The question is, if the senses and plasticity can stand it or will act as a bottleneck, and what the side-effects will be.