Many PUA fans have some knowledge on psychology (although they ignore other aspects of mating than psychology). Unfortunately, their perception is limited to the interpretation of those studies served in PUA materials. Most seduction addicts are too lazy to read the studies themselves. How can anyone take seriously such guy as DeAngelo who claims his concepts are related to evolutionary psychology? Almost every evo-psy study shows the massive impact of genes on mate choice, and there you have a cult repeating the «looks don’t matter» mantra.
These guys often throw all kinds of studies at me. Papers I have never denied! Papers that don’t contradict the studies listed under «Reality Check» menu. But those last ones DO contradict the particular claims PUAs are making. So what’s the rational conclusion?
They say there is some truth in every lie. The trick gamers use is to point at a study very loosely associated with their concepts, and then commit a scandalous non-sequitur («Logical Fallacies» section) concluding that it proves their views. They claim all psychology is related to their ideas! It’s like I create a new economic theory according to which it is possible to end world poverty within a year (as unbelievable as the idea that any guy can be a chick magnet thanks to social skills). When asked to prove it, I quote classics of free market economy, since
I claim my theory is also somehow connected to capitalism (!)
For instance, recently some guy mentioned pre-selection theory to justify PUA nonsense. He wrote that men surrounded by attractive women in accordance with this hypothesis should appear more attractive in the eyes of other women. The «forbidden fruit» effect. So what?! Amazing! It’s really amazing that a person who read so much about mating hypothesis (although he probably just repeated PUAs interpretations of these studies), can be soooooo irrational.
Those zombies can’t comprehend that there is no contradiction between the studies I quote and pre-selection theory or any other of the hundreds of acclaimed hypothesis that have been formulated so far.
Do you PUA addicts really think that the studies about pre-selection theories showed that any time you surround yourself with hot women you appear more SEXUALLY attractive than the guy who came with his buddies to the party? Do you think those scientists tested it on statistically significant samples comparing guys of similar physical attractiveness? Of course not! They have never claimed such thing. They just reported a tendency, nothing more. A psychological mechanism that does not exclude the influence of other factors, such as genes or prenatal hormones. These are purely HYPOTHETICAL speculations compared to studies based on
REAL life partner choice. Real couples, thousands of them.
They put on the same stage studies showing very general preferences, studies that don’t say anything about the influence of other variables, with reports that examined real couples. If you examine real couples, your statistically significant study, whether you like it or not, covers all possible variables that could play any role in real life partner choice. When you ask a woman a hypothetical question about her preferences you are unable to control for other variables (not to mention the pseudo-studies where women have to choose between the «massive» amount of 3-15 male volunteers).
Do you really think that the guy with two hot wing girls is going to succeed any time? No, since there are thousands of other factors. Moreover, some of those other factors may be DECISIVE. Are your tiny gamer brains able to imagine a situation where various factors have some influence on the final outcome, but only one or two are decisive? Thus, it doesn’t make sense to try to use such hypothesis at all cost. It is not practical. Just as the study showing women find blue jeans the sexiest type of pants. So what? You gonna buy dozens of those pants just to use it in your advantage? In real life, if the guy wearing black pants is «her type», she is gonna choose him anyway even if his friend has the trendiest blue jeans on – genetic factors prevail. But when you show the same girl 10 photos of a male model, she is gonna choose the photo where he is wearing blue jeans.
Unless, you tell me that there was a study where they presented thousands of guys (here you take genes into account), and the female raters always chose the guys in blue jeans, no matter what.
The studies I quoted involved real couples. In consequence, if you find some correlations in real couples and this is statistically significant, it rationally means the factor you analyzed prevailed over other variables, such as the «advantage» of having some hot female friends or blue jeans on. Is this really so hard to understand?
For the sake of example: indeed pre-selection theory means that Cindy could choose Mike over his twin brother Jake when she sees them for the first time, and Mike is cracking jokes with three hot female friends, while Jake stands next to his nerd friend discussing rocket science.
But if those two were not identical twin brothers. If Jake was «her type» contrary to Mike, she won’t give a damn about Mike, even if he was surrounded by all Miss World contestants. Sure she would be intrigued by the situation, but not sexually attracted to Mike. PUA cult believers conflate personal attraction (I find someone «cool») and sexual attraction (I wanna fuck someone). So I am not denying pre-selection theory in general, I am only saying genes, hormone levels etc. prevail when it comes to mate choice.
How do I know it?
Coz otherwise, Dr Fisher, Dr Alvarez or all others mentioned in «Her Type» couldn’t have been able to find any correlations whatsoever. It would be all random. The guys with the best social skills would end up with the most wanted women, no matter their hormone levels, genes etc.
Coz otherwise, literally ALL Hollywood actors who work with thousands of attractive women would be chick magnets. Some of them are players, but NOT ALL. Some of them didn’t have even one tenth of the amount of hot girlfriends that any local stud had during his life. Maybe the alpha-lames think pre-selection theory doesn’t work in Hollywood?
Gamers sometimes try to rebut the unequivocal studies mentioned in «Her Type» and in «Genes and Personality Types» by emphasizing the fact that they concerned long-term relationships solely. Of course they did! It is a lot less troublesome to examine married couples than guys and girls who had a one night stand.
PUA fans came up with the lamest excuse according to which all those PUA psychological tricks could work in case of casual relationships (again just a speculation, no evidence).
But if those casanovas read any studies that distinguished long- and short-term relationships, they would find out that women do consider psychology a lot more in case of long-term relationships. When casual relationships spark up physical attractiveness plays the leading role. Nonetheless, some pseudo-intellectuals even ask me whether I am ready to «deny all psychology»!
The studies I rely on reported strong influence of genes and prenatal hormones in married couples and long-term partnerships. Now, imagine what happens when girls just want to hook up without going into anything serious? Here is what happens (a quote from Alek’s recent comment about the influence of physical appearance on casual hook ups):
Here are two of the leading evo-psychers in the world saying the same thing you (seductionmyth) say: