Criss Angel... This Is How We Should Be...

[etherealictrinity]

i completely disagree because
1- chris is famous its not like Ellen didn't know who this person is
2-its on tv, what is she going to do punch him? she is too composed to lose her cool
3- she is a lesbian so its all in good fun
so in conclusion the same stunt would result in bad side effects for you.

 

[Austin Fields]

RD,

I'll agree with your use of social proof, although that theory has most of it's evidence in the way of ambiguous social situations. The theory starts to lose strength when it goes to extend out to explain human behavior outside of that. Mainly because it becomes too close to the fundamental attribution error.

With your history, however, I've known a fair amount of girls who can't stand cocky guys. For the reason that if they seem cocky they're obviously bluffing. Self-confidence and being cocky are two totally different things, I find much more success in acting more mature than other people than being self-centered.

Your claim on what women look for/value first is unfounded. Nature vs. Nurture is a debate that has been going on for decades. Their "sexiness" and how we can use cognitive dissonance as men to try and bring them to us is something that I cannot/ have not found any research on. We can't read their minds, again there are outside factors here than can play into that.

I wouldn't say it has much to do at all with our "survival" instincts. As a matter of fact you wouldn't be able to directly link that to anything. Researchers have barely scratched the surface of any of these topics, and most of that research has very tentative applications into every day life. It's nearly impossible to tell WHY someone is doing any one thing from an internal influence.


The most current research is actually pointing towards more social influences affect people greater than other historical survival "instincts". There are things I can physically do to make people feel more favorably toward me, but they're very "circumstantial" things, and the speculation lays in uncharted territory, so again, nothing that can't be explained away by outside influence.

 

[Toby]

I think it is great that you guys are trying to find PROOF or RESEARCH for every claim made in this thread, given that you are psychology major (if I'm correct). BUT, dismissing all these ideas and experiences just because there is not scientific proof behind them is not good (to say the least).
I can tell you what MOST women likes in a guy, I can tell you what MOST women like guys to do, I can tell you what MOST women are attracted to. I don't have ANY scientific proof or research (besides my own), to support those claims, BUT while you are in the lab, trying to become the next Darwin, I go outside and apply what I know and have a great time with girls.
So just because someone doesn't have a scientific proof, it doesn't mean that it's not working.

 

[Austin Fields]

I think it is great that you guys are trying to find PROOF or RESEARCH for every claim made in this thread, given that you are psychology major (if I'm correct). BUT, dismissing all these ideas and experiences just because there is not scientific proof behind them is not good (to say the least).
I can tell you what MOST women likes in a guy, I can tell you what MOST women like guys to do, I can tell you what MOST women are attracted to. I don't have ANY scientific proof or research (besides my own), to support those claims, BUT while you are in the lab, trying to become the next Darwin, I go outside and apply what I know and have a great time with girls.
So just because someone doesn't have a scientific proof, it doesn't mean that it's not working.

Toby the ideas a based in psychological and communication theories. There would be no "techniques" without the people who are interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

the problem is you CAN'T tell me what most women like, you CAN'T tell me what MOST women like guys to do, you CAN'T tell me what women are attracted to because you don't KNOW. That's what we're trying to study. By the way, there is support to show that having a masters level education or higher seem to make people more attractive, a recent development related to the halo effect. The only reason I can tell you that is because there have been quite a few studies and field tests that have been done to test just that.

Even with several studies backing that idea up, I still cannot tell you that MOST people find doctors attractive, because there is no way of PROVING that. I would need to do my study on every single person in the US, which is virtually impossible. Based on statistics I can give you a rough percentage, but only taken from sample groups, thus the numbers could still be off.

For yours you have to factor in YOU, and study who you were before and after the experiment, how you've changed as a person, from mindset, to body language, appearance, smell, and anything else that have a possibility of affecting how people view you. Then you have to factor in the society around you, maybe a new actor popped up that reminds people of you. Maybe being arrogant is now considered satirical. 93% of all communication is non-verbal so even if you thought you could factor in all these things, you wouldn't know you were doing most of them. We still don't know what makes up that 93% either.

The IDEA is to find something specific that people can actually consider about human attraction, and thus helping men and women out, as well as helping us better understand ourselves.

 

[Toby]

Toby the ideas a based in psychological and communication theories. There would be no "techniques" without the people who are interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

the problem is you CAN'T tell me what most women like, you CAN'T tell me what MOST women like guys to do, you CAN'T tell me what women are attracted to because you don't KNOW. That's what we're trying to study. By the way, there is support to show that having a masters level education or higher seem to make people more attractive, a recent development related to the halo effect. The only reason I can tell you that is because there have been quite a few studies and field tests that have been done to test just that.

Even with several studies backing that idea up, I still cannot tell you that MOST people find doctors attractive, because there is no way of PROVING that. I would need to do my study on every single person in the US, which is virtually impossible. Based on statistics I can give you a rough percentage, but only taken from sample groups, thus the numbers could still be off.

For yours you have to factor in YOU, and study who you were before and after the experiment, how you've changed as a person, from mindset, to body language, appearance, smell, and anything else that have a possibility of affecting how people view you. Then you have to factor in the society around you, maybe a new actor popped up that reminds people of you. Maybe being arrogant is now considered satirical. 93% of all communication is non-verbal so even if you thought you could factor in all these things, you wouldn't know you were doing most of them. We still don't know what makes up that 93% either.

The IDEA is to find something specific that people can actually consider about human attraction, and thus helping men and women out, as well as helping us better understand ourselves.

Exactly... People basically cannot PROVE anything, because it is virtually impossible to do research on every single person on the planet. And by the time the research is done, there would be plenty of new people on earth. So even that study that you are referring to may not be taken in consideration because of the duration of study, amount of people in that study and circumstances of the study.
I also study psychology btw. Body language and facial expressions to be exact. So I would rather recommend to people to study body language and facial expressions instead of that PUA stuff. If you have good knowledge and solid experience, you can always tell what the other person is thinking/feeling (at least a bigger picture). One good thing about body language and facial expressions is that they ARE universal. From USA to China to Africa, everybody have same facial expressions for certain emotions.
So I would rather have my own approach to women, and see how they react to it, and than change it accordingly along the way, than to use the same one over and over again until it works on 50th girl that I approached.

Btw, I started learning body language and facial expressions before the "Lie To Me" series

 

[acme_myst]

I just wanted to chime in here because I think it's a very interesting discussion.

Beans25,

I agree that to have an intelligent, rational discussion on any subject, it's important to be able to present facts and reliable sources that back up your claims.

However, I think that you might be taking this argument a bit too far. Yes, to be able to conclusively say that this-and-that applies to EVERYBODY or EVERYTHING, you'd have to test it on every single person in the world. However, since this would be one of the more unpractical things since the creation of the clipshift, by your argument, it would be literally impossible to practice science AT ALL.

If you'd have to test a hypothesis for every single possible scenario, you would never be able to conclusively state any truth at all. While this is probably true (and at the very least, interesting) from a philosophical point of view, it's hardly how science works or is practised in everyday life. Through carefully designed experiments, using multiple different testing procedures, and with a variety of control structures in place, we actually ARE able to make claims about the trueness of certain statements. These can then be formalized into actual, applicable theorems.

As you should know, since you're majoring in it, this is no different in the field of psychology. As you should also know, humans are not all as different and unique as we like to tell ourselves. On a final note to you, and I hope you're not taking this the wrong way, but when writing a post that displays the kind of message you're trying to get across here, I'd be very hesitant about including claims that "93% of all communication is non-verbal". Because, you know, like 87.5% of all quoted statistics are actually made up on the spot?

Now, having said that, I've actually read Neil Strauss' The Game, and read up a bit more online on different "PUA" boards. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I do not in any way think of myself as, or try to become, a PUA. I was however interested in the material presented therein, for a variety of reasons.

What I noticed was that most of the things that are advertised in the book and on those forums are merely formalizations of common-sensical ideas that most people already know or are at least aware of. You want to get the girl? Be confident in yourself, be fun to be around with, make her feel like she's getting something special if she were to be with you, etc..

Now, I don't have sources or articles which scientifically prove these concepts, however, experience and common-sense would tell us that these are good ideas, and as such, we should be able to discuss their uses without invalidating them merely on the basis of us not having access to any research papers on these subjects. I would be more hesitant about this were we doing actual scientific research, but come on, we're on an online magic forum, discussing the merits of using certain techniques in our performances. I'm not asking anyone for scientific literature proving that retention vanishing a coin will fool a spectator. Experience and common sense tell us all we need to know here.

Anyway, another idea that is advertised in this field, and about which I haven't seen any discussion here yet, are these PUA's so-called "patterns". What's interesting about this (especially for us as magicians), is that they're basically pre-written stories/monologues that use certain subliminal messages and linguistic tricks, to invoke certain ideas in someone's mind. Anybody who is still paying attention at this point would notice that there's a certain amount of overlap between this and concepts from mentalism, like cold reading.
Now, I'm in no way an expert on this topic, so I'm going to refrain from making any statements about this.

However, and to conclude, I'd like to see some discussion from people who are more knowledgable about this than me, on if, and how, we would be able to incorporate patterns like these into our performances. I could image that concepts like these might be used to strengthen one's patter, creating more involvement and connection from the spectator, as well as helping us establish our character in a benificial way during our performance.

Any thoughts?

 

[Steerpike]

This thread is taking a turn towards sexist.

Right on cue. As inevitable as the tides.

While it's true that this is highly dependent on character and situation, let's not start labeling things sexist just because you're uncomfortable talking about it.

That is what i sort of already knew, but found through performing the invisible deck so many times.

In that case, forgive me for ever questioning your expertise in the field, Dr. Freud. My mistake for questioning an intellectual juggernaut like yourself.

However, this does not mean people are predictable

Yes it does. If you can predict a pattern with a certain level of consistency and accuracy, then that is by definition predictability.

Confidence is paramount in this game but don't let that become arrogance...

Can you actually explain the difference?

The problem I'm having with self proclaimed PUAs are that the "science" goes to their head. It's like a kid in psych 101, they think they understand the world by hardly scratching the surface. I've asked multiple times for any scientific research done on the topics the "PUAs" on this forum are claiming to understand. So far nothing. They believe in the validity of a book written by random people.

"Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps"
"The Red Queen"
"The Selfish Gene"
"Sperm Wars"

There's 4 books compiling scientific research that we use right there. You want more? I can give you more.

But that's a different battle. What I'm concerned with is the arrogance that goes along with their "knowledge". The claim that women process information differently than men is astounding - and extremely sexist.

How is it sexist? We're not saying men are better than women or vice versa. Do you even know what sexism is?

If you don't understand these things you shouldn't speak about these things.

Funny, I was about to say the same about you. I have serious doubts that you have read any PUA books.

Women do not think differently and you cannot solve for them like you can an equation. These are the ideas being expressed in this thread that irritate the hell out of me.

Oh, here we go. Look, people are predictable in their behavior. We follow patterns as old as the tides. You are not the special snowflake you think you are. If generalizations and patterns in human behavior were all bull****, how do you account for cold reading?

Being a PUA is a self-improvement. Much like a self-help book it means that you have a problem, you're the socially inept person. There's a difference between wanting to improve yourself and being arrogant enough to think you can generalize an entire gender.

And yet here you are calling PUAs sexist because we said something you disagreed with, not because it actually was sexist. Rock on.

I've heard these arguments before in most of my classes but nobody has been able to produce so much as a half decent scientific study done. So how are you defining a "fact"? I know most of the leading theories on human communication and I haven't come across anything that you guys are claiming have been backed up with evidence.

Read the books I mentioned. Would you like me to track down the actual academic articles? Because I can do that too.

So far someone who's simply self-confident can replicate everything a PUA can do without spending money on these books/"techniques".

PUAs can actually explain how and why confidence works and is achieved. They endeavor to explain how and why attraction happens. You keep saying, "Be confident," but you have thus far shown no indication that you can actually explain or quantify that. You couldn't tell someone how to acquire confidence.

Luis, one thing straight. Than YOU think. Also, charm and funny can't be learned by anyone but they can be developed. However, you can't develop something you don't have. Why do you speak in definitives?

He's right though. Anyone can learn to be funny. Anyone can learn charm. They're skills, and all skills by definition can be learned. That's why we call them social skills. Durr-hey!

I'm looking for evidence that one could find when discussing things like social proof.

"Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini, phD.

so in conclusion the same stunt would result in bad side effects for you.

I can attest from personal experience that you're wrong.

With your history, however, I've known a fair amount of girls who can't stand cocky guys. For the reason that if they seem cocky they're obviously bluffing. Self-confidence and being cocky are two totally different things, I find much more success in acting more mature than other people than being self-centered.

Question: Did you actually read any of David DeAngelo's books wherein he talks about this subject? Because it looks like you didn't based on your characterization of the "cocky & funny" argument.

The IDEA is to find something specific that people can actually consider about human attraction, and thus helping men and women out, as well as helping us better understand ourselves.

Which is what we endeavor to do. We acknowledge that there is no such thing as 100% effectiveness for any concept or technique. Every PUA works differently based on the kind of women he wants to attract. But humans have more in common than they have differences, so there are a lot of things we can say with relative security. If a guy wants to date Japanese girls, he needs to take cultural factors into account for example. If he wants to attract artistic girls, then he needs to find the commonalities that go with that lifestyle and what strengths of his own sync up with that. Grant Adams refers to this as "finding your strength attractors." Note that Grant is a semiotician and very successful writer. He specializes in communication, so I'm inclined to defer to him.

I'm a man of science. I totally understand the desire for data and empiricism. But here's the thing: what we are doing is a massive social experiment in real time. We're constantly comparing, contrasting, and corroborating our experiences to find the hows and whys of attraction. Conversely, the impression I have gotten from you is a belief that you have not seen any formal research into the science of attraction, therefore it does not exist.

Do you know why we continue to believe the ideas we espouse? Because we have seen them work. We have tested them in the crucible of the real world and seen them work. Isn't that an important part of the scientific method right there?

On a side note to the T11 admins, clean up your ****ing forums. This thing is so littered with useless code and god knows what else that my browser stopped responding no less than 20-some-odd times just trying to type this reply. It does not do this on any site but yours.

 

[Sam Green]

I know this is irrelevant and off topic, but can I just say that there are some beast posts on these forums, so much more interesting and lengthy than anything on the DnD forums. No offence to that forum, I love it dearly. I think I'm going to enjoy my stay here.

 

[Austin Fields]

Thank you!

First off, I think at some point I led people to think I was asking for 100% accuracy. My intention was to find some real research behind these ideas, yes they make "sense" but so does "birds of a feather flock together" and "opposites attract". You're damn right you can't ever PROVE anything, but you can support things with more than stories on a forum or you've heard in person, because people exaggerate.

Steerpike, I feel like you got into an argument with me during your own post haha, breaking down what I said and if I restated the same question you were angrier. As if I had just responded and ignored what you said the first time. If the same question gets restated, feel free to ignore it if you've already answered it. Don't get mad at me.

The sexism accusation came from a statement from Luis, claiming he understood how women thought. This would imply that there is a distinction between the brains of men and women, or he would have said how people thought. This also draws the conclusion that men can entirely understand how women process information, and thus manipulate that. By extension then becomes a type of superiority complex, and thus results in a sexist remark like "you just have to comprehend how women think"

People are predictable, yet some of the claims in this thread were never given a source, so, of course while being a dick about it, thank you for giving me something to look into. Maybe being a moderator on the prestigious Ellusionist forum has gone to your head, who knows? I don't really care either, I'm happy to hear that someone can actually back up what their beliefs are. Respect.

As far as I'm concerned unless you're close to Steerpike's actual knowledge on the subject of what the heck a PUA is, you're not a PUA, you're a sheep.

 

[KeoSilver]

*pops another bag of popcorn while hushing the pups who are still hung up with the idea that the placebo effect has anything to do with charm... so he smacks one of the kiddies heads, plops down on the couch reprimanding the child* Shut up pup, he's a psychology major, he obviously knows what he is talking about. Just keep watching and enjoy the show.

 

[ReservoirRed]

This is the most popular thread in a while and it's about using magic to get women. Lame. Nufags cant socialise.

 

[Steerpike]

Steerpike, I feel like you got into an argument with me during your own post haha, breaking down what I said and if I restated the same question you were angrier. As if I had just responded and ignored what you said the first time. If the same question gets restated, feel free to ignore it if you've already answered it. Don't get mad at me.

Touche. I'm having a bad day, and it's probably showing. I've gotten a chance to work out my aggression however, and am feeling a lot better. So hopefully that's the end of the unpleasantness for now.

The sexism accusation came from a statement from Luis, claiming he understood how women thought. This would imply that there is a distinction between the brains of men and women, or he would have said how people thought. This also draws the conclusion that men can entirely understand how women process information, and thus manipulate that. By extension then becomes a type of superiority complex, and thus results in a sexist remark like "you just have to comprehend how women think"

I still don't believe that's inherently sexist. One could easily say the same thing applies to women about understanding men. In fact, I do believe a lot of tension between individual men and women is a communication breakdown because they're not thinking on the same wavelength.

As an example, if you're in a group with 2 or more women, watch how they interact in conversation. Listen to what threads they follow. Most often, they'll be relating experiences to one another and how they reacted to them on a mental and emotional level. Men on the other hand relate experiences to one another, then try to deconstruct them and offer advice and critique. Does that mean there are no pragmatic women or emotionally oriented men? No. It's just the way we're naturally inclined to go.

Maybe being a moderator on the prestigious Ellusionist forum has gone to your head, who knows?

No, I've always been a self-important bastard. I grew a goatee and a ponytail to make it easier to identify me as one.

This is the most popular thread in a while and it's about using magic to get women. Lame. Nufags cant socialise.

Since we've established that people like myself need to provide evidence of our claims (totally fair), can we also say that whiny, douchebag statements like this also need to go?

 

[KeoSilver]

I just realized there was a visual documentary showing scientific studies and experiments that dissect sexuality and what is sexy to human beings. They found that men are more attracted to girls who are out of their ahem time of the month and other things that provide support that deep down past the emotional soup us humans are, that we are driven by primal things. I believe the documentary is called, The Anatomy Of Sex. Just my contribution.

 

[Austin Fields]

*pops another bag of popcorn while hushing the pups who are still hung up with the idea that the placebo effect has anything to do with charm... so he smacks one of the kiddies heads, plops down on the couch reprimanding the child* Shut up pup, he's a psychology major, he obviously knows what he is talking about. Just keep watching and enjoy the show.

Keo you stick your face into so many things you don't seem to know anything about I'd be surprised if you did magic at this point. Go play little boy. This thread requires intelligent thought.

Steerpike, I'll agree the statement was open to interpretation. I'm prone to getting angry about people who think they are somehow above other groups of people. Thank you for your arguments and intelligent discussion.

 

[KeoSilver]

Keo you stick your face into so many things you don't seem to know anything about I'd be surprised if you did magic at this point. Go play little boy. This thread requires intelligent thought.

Oh yeah? I like to think I stick my snout into the things I find that smell like poo. I'm a dog after all. Since you want to directly tell me your feelings about me, why don't I share my ideas on you. You are a self important prick, who feels the need to gain status or merit. Want proof? You alway pitch the line that you are a psychology major. Woopty fricking do. So is half of the student body here at UT, just as an aside, most of those students are shut ins or insane in their own ways. I have no idea how many psychology classes you have taken and really I can't tell the difference between your posting material or Steerpike's. Not to sure if Steer majored in psychology, but that is beside my point...or is it? I unlike you don't need to be right about everything.

What I really feel is that you mistake "intelligent argument" for self righteous...no no self importance pricketry and doucebaggery. Yeah those are made up words, big whoop want to fight about it? Or is fighting called intelligent posting now?

Your merit is just as good as me calling myself, or if I act like I am a hot shot writer. Sure I've had two novellas published, that is a fact, but that doesn't mean I have really any grounds to preach theory as absolute truths. And before you ask, NO you may not have the titles of the works of fiction because they are...romance. unf unf unf

The difference between you and I is this, I don't take myself seriously. Also I found this:

"I'm prone to getting angry about people who think they are somehow above other groups of people."

The funniest thing found within these eight pages...


That smodcast, have a day.

 

[Austin Fields]

Oh yeah? I like to think I stick my snout into the things I find that smell like poo. I'm a dog after all. Since you want to directly tell me your feelings about me, why don't I share my ideas on you. You are a self important prick, who feels the need to gain status or merit. Want proof? You alway pitch the line that you are a psychology major. Woopty fricking do. So is half of the student body here at UT, just as an aside, most of those students are shut ins or insane in their own ways. I have no idea how many psychology classes you have taken and really I can't tell the difference between your posting material or Steerpike's. Not to sure if Steer majored in psychology, but that is beside my point...or is it? I unlike you don't need to be right about everything.

What I really feel is that you mistake "intelligent argument" for self righteous...no no self importance pricketry and doucebaggery. Yeah those are made up words, big whoop want to fight about it? Or is fighting called intelligent posting now?

Your merit is just as good as me calling myself, or if I act like I am a hot shot writer. Sure I've had two novellas published, that is a fact, but that doesn't mean I have really any grounds to preach theory as absolute truths. And before you ask, NO you may not have the titles of the works of fiction because they are...romance. unf unf unf

The difference between you and I is this, I don't take myself seriously. Also I found this:

"I'm prone to getting angry about people who think they are somehow above other groups of people."

The funniest thing found within these eight pages...


That smodcast, have a day.

Problem Keo?

You don't even know who I am, you know I'm a psychology major and that's about it. I realize it's not saying much, there are a ton of psych majors out there. It's not scarce or rare, it's a fact. So there's no way I could try to gain merit out of that idea, woopty doo remember?

Why do you think I need to be right about everything? I try to find the truth. I enjoy research based material. I feel like you've just built up assumptions about me. I bet you think you know what I look like too.

Congrats on your novellas, I'm sure they're great. I wouldn't think any less of you had a topic of writing came up and you mentioned that you had an English major with an emphasis on creative writing or whatever major there is for that at UTSA. That would be an area you're obviously interested in and have more than just general knowledge on. Why are my posts so different?

The difference between you and me Arturo, is that you judge people. People might think the furry thing is a little weird, and maybe you have some resentment built up about it. I don't feel I have the right to pass judgement, but you seem to think that you do. That would qualify as being pretty self important. Even worse though is that you post something just to be a prick, and then blame me for responding to it. Freud would have a field day with an action like that.

 

[KeoSilver]

"You don't even know who I am, you know I'm a psychology major and that's about it. I realize it's not saying much, there are a ton of psych majors out there. It's not scarce or rare, it's a fact. So there's no way I could try to gain merit out of that idea, woopty doo remember? "

Then why do you sound like you want merit, huh? I want status in this conversation, but that is only because it moves the story forward.

"Why do you think I need to be right about everything? I try to find the truth. I enjoy research based material. I feel like you've just built up assumptions about me. I bet you think you know what I look like too."

Nope I could care less about what you look like. The feelings though are mutual.

"Congrats on your novellas, I'm sure they're great. I wouldn't think any less of you had a topic of writing came up and you mentioned that you had an English major with an emphasis on creative writing or whatever major there is for that at UTSA."

First off, sentence structure fail. Psychology majors need better grammar skills so they can communicate problems, without any question to what they are saying.

"That would be an area you're obviously interested in and have more than just general knowledge on. Why are my posts so different?"

The difference between myself and you is that I wouldn't belittle people or say to get their head out of their asses just because they have a different opinion about writing. I would actively encourage them to do what they want and find what works for them. I don't trusts textbooks, I don't follow literature on a subject blindly, I just acknowledge they exist and think back to them if I find myself in a sticky situation. I don't follow it like a bible.

"The difference between you and me Arturo, is that you judge people."

And you don't judge people? Are you not human? Or are you a furry like me.

"People might think the furry thing is a little weird, and maybe you have some resentment built up about it."

Actually not really Mr. Researcher. Despite what you might think, not every furry is openly furry. Just like some magicians don't wear nametags that they are magicians. It is a hobby of mine just like magic. Why would I hate what I enjoy? However, if you want to pry and do a quick google search, I will tell you I am a therian/left hand/pagan/atheist.

"I don't feel I have the right to pass judgement, but you seem to think that you do."

Now you're just speaking craziness. Where do I pass judgement on people that isn't based off of something that person has done? I do have a right to pass judgement on people. It is my nature as a human being to seek out those I feel are mentally unstable or in terms you may or may not be familiar with, BAT **** INSANE!

"That would qualify as being pretty self important."

?? F**k! all of you F***ers are self important ass holes! *points to everyone on the face of the earth*

"Even worse though is that you post something just to be a prick, and then blame me for responding to it. Freud would have a field day with an action like that."

He would, but he won't cause he is dead. Are you the next Freud? God have mercy on our souls if you are. Course I'll be merrily yiffing in hell, thank you very much.



"Alright maybe you're missing my point. Maybe I'm missing yours. So I'll humor you, please explain to me how they think differently than us."

If you weren't a self important prick, you would of taken the phrase, "…I'll humor you…" completely out of that sentence. It is like extra mayo on your sandwich that only adds more fat to your body. Also since you obviously didn't understand his point, you should of waited for clarification.

"And how they comprehend and process information. Don't hesitate to cite the articles the information was published in"

Have you ever noticed that there is a wide and visible gap between maturity in adolescents between genders? Women mature faster then men. I would guess that maturity affects the way our brains process information given to us. Somethings just don't need to be written down and cited to be understood as fact. Girls generally hold grudges longer then guys. Have you ever heard that guys get in fights with other guys, then hug and makeup within a week? But if a girl gets in a fight with another girl, they both attempt to destroy each other's life?


"A buddy of mine, who a few years ago set out to put hot sauce in your eyes and you'll pick up women. Do some research specifically on the study of what women are attracted to. If after this you think that your single example was (statistically) nothing short of useless then your ass is firmly rooted around your head."

The F**k is this? That is intelligent discussion? F**k that! I see more intelligence when our Congress gather. Have you done the research? Because all I can see is you spouting out your opinion and then putting down other people you self important ass hole. If you want an "intelligent discussion" Why don't you try contributing toward that instead of putting others down?

"…The only "science" you're getting close to is the placebo effect. I've done my research, but it's not my job to prove that your "psychological" techniques are valid…"

Actually it is your job, your spending all of your time dispelling other people's observation, using the counter argument that there is no facts to support there opinion. Last I checked the placebo effect is something close to what a hypochondriac does. They think they have every single disease out there and trick their brains into thinking that the, whatever it is, works or they have it. How does that relate to the art of pick up artistry, charming or flirting?

"But that's a different battle. What I'm concerned with is the arrogance that goes along with their "knowledge". The claim that women process information differently than men is astounding - and extremely sexist. If you don't understand these things you shouldn't speak about these things. Women do not think differently and you cannot solve for them like you can an equation. These are the ideas being expressed in this thread that irritate the hell out of me."

You have not said a damn thing to thing to move this f***ing conversation forward. You talentless c**t. Here let me emulate you:

But that's a different battle. What I'm concerned with is the arrogance that goes along with their "knowledge". To not claim that women process information differently than men is astounding. If you do understand these things, you should speak about them. Women do think differently and you cannot solve them like equations.

Why don't you provide your proof that other people are wrong? Or are you to concerned with yourself to leave the confines of your dorm room or bedroom to even care to socialize?


"The things you guys are describing can be explained away with the placebo effect. Much the same way someone takes a sugar pill and feels better or religious healing works."

OKAY. Here we go again with the placebo effect. May you please enlighten all of us less fortunate people how the placebo effect can dispel the techniques of a pick up artist? It's the weekend when I post this, you got a day to crank out a term paper.

"I'm not saying you're gullible. Everyone is subject to the placebo effect. What I'm asking is for actual proof of these claims. So far someone who's simply self-confident can replicate everything a PUA can do without spending money on these books/"techniques"."

Now this I agree with you…kind of. PUA's know what works for them because they use a form of scientific method to figure out what works and what doesn't. They are like ancient humans who domesticated wolves into dogs. PUA have taken the very normal flirting that people do, wolves, and turned into german shepherds.

 

[Austin Fields]

Let me edit this post while I finish reading the above one

Nevermind, not really worth my time. We're going way too far off topic here. I get it, you don't like me, I'll live.

 

[Toby]

I still don't believe that's inherently sexist. One could easily say the same thing applies to women about understanding men. In fact, I do believe a lot of tension between individual men and women is a communication breakdown because they're not thinking on the same wavelength.

As an example, if you're in a group with 2 or more women, watch how they interact in conversation. Listen to what threads they follow. Most often, they'll be relating experiences to one another and how they reacted to them on a mental and emotional level. Men on the other hand relate experiences to one another, then try to deconstruct them and offer advice and critique. Does that mean there are no pragmatic women or emotionally oriented men? No. It's just the way we're naturally inclined to go.

I agree. And I do think that women understand men more than other way around. It's in woman's nature to read body language a lot better than a man does. Mainly because of their maternal instinct. They need to know what their baby needs just by looking at them (since babies can't talk). That is why when it comes to body language (and reading/understanding people), women are using 15-16 different parts of their brain, while men use only 5 - 6 parts. Women most of the time know what you are thinking and what you are about to do, way before you do it. Which is a useful information when it comes to PUA. Women knows when you are thinking of trying to kiss them, way before you realize that they do.
Also, women ARE capable of doing multiple things at once, like having 4-5 different conversations with 4-5 different people at once, and just by anchoring their voice they can switch between those conversations. That is why we think that women like to talk a lot.

For the communication problem between a man and a woman, besides the wavelength, is in my opinion because of all that alpha male pride thing. In an argument, guys rarely back up and admit that they are wrong (if they actually are) because they are afraid that they will lose their alpha male status in a relationship, while women want's to be equal to men. Try to remember when your parents told you that in their time, when they were young, they didn't have as many communication and relationships problem. Why is that? Because in that time, women were not allowed so many things (ok, instead of your parents, ask your grandpa). They were not considered equal, and for centuries, they were always the "lower" gender, they always did what they were told.
But in the last 100 years, or closer, women started to get more rights, and all this equal thing kicked in. So now imagine a conversation between a guy who is afraid for his alpha mail status and his ego, and a woman who got tired of being pushed around by men, and wants to be equal. You get a pretty nasty argument, and conversational hell.

@Beans25: I never said that what I'm talking about is from some PUA forums or guy stories. It's all from personal experience and field testing. A lot of cultures differ from one another, and no one can tell for sure what all women think, but even if I don't have any lab research, you can try and see that the next list would apply to a lot of women from modern western/European cultures.
Some attributes that women likes in a man:
Confidence (goes back to all that primal alpha male period)
Humor (laughing release endorphins which acts as an analgesic, and makes them feel good)
Personal Hygiene (ummmm.. nuf said)
Originality (to actually stand up from the crowd and not bore her)
Psychical Appearance (while not THE most important thing, it is still pretty important)
Intelligence (women like to be challenged intellectually, and they like to talk to intelligent guys because they always have a solution for a problem......... all that provider thing)
Well Educated (not to be confused with intelligent... once again, women are attracted to personality traits more than looks, so if you always have some interesting topic to discuss, they will love that)
Rich (I put this at the end. While being one of the least important, it IS still the factor. Specially with older women. They don't like to be "sugar mommas", they want a guy who can provide for her, and himself. If the woman is already working and has a good job, than she would like if the guy at least had enough money for himself).

I don't have any scientific proof for this, but just go out, do your research, and this is what you will find out in most women that you interview.

@KeoSilver: Kleptomaniac likes to steal stuff. Hypochondriac feels like he has every disease in the world.

Edit: The above part about body language and woman's brain is from "The Definitive Book of Body Language"
I really need to learn how to do that multiple quote post thing...

 

[ReservoirRed]

Too much tension built up between this many virgins isn't good. Back to warcraft guys.