ok im a little tipsy but ive got this to say, jistme.
all this PUA stuff
ok i mean ur lookin too deep into this sh!t to justify your stance against it, but relax dude. from another viewpoint, all this PUA stuff is nothing but a social lubricant as a whole for society that encourages the flow of positive social interactions, which i think is a definite good thing. heeeyyy switchin from psychology to sociology here.
anyway its just another option for men to take so that they dont get left behind in the dating rat race or whatever you wanna call it.
now lets all sing songs or somethin

I have only gone as deep as you have suggested I go.. so far. You have referenced unnamed scientific studies to back your claims.. Indicating scientific validity, psychological base.. etc...
You guys take this stuff pretty seriously! The proof of that is not only in this thread, but in the advice you offer.

Two of the most recent:
Telling a guy to act the part of 'Beta male' to avoid being caught in a place where he might have to be truthful and/or potentially hurtful to two women.

Telling another to go and find a rebound or 5 to wash the bad memories of a failed relationship away.

Both of these methods are pretty self serving. Without consideration of anyone's feelings. In my humble opinion.. not something I'd refer to as positive social interaction.

You see dating as a rat race.. a competition against other men, maybe. Your method makes you stand out in the crowd.

I don't compete.
The way I see it is this. If a women gets my attention... She has my attention. Above all others. Generally, part of that is ~ I've got her attention too. Above all others. Anything less then that? Is not really worth pursuing, beyond friendship. Which I do not consider to be a curse. I've got more then a few valued friendships with women. Including a few with once intimate partners.

Competing with other men for a women's attention, seems to me to be a waste of energy.. and as desperate as sitting and crying in my beer over how I can't get the attention of women. So I don't go in either place. Or if I find myself in one of those two places.. I check myself and take some private time to work it out.

well if u actually want references, check out Sexual Strategies Theory by Buss and Schmitt (1993) and Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man by Trivers (1973 i think)
there are also many scientific books you can check out like the selfish gene by dawkins, the red queen by some guy, sperm wars by some guy... uhhh...yeah.

self-serving my advice may be for the most part, but it results in the best possible outcome for everyone. sounds pretty logically GOOD in my opinion.

and uh
if u dont compete...yeah thats kinda goin agaist human nature. i accept and embrace human nature and celebrate it's simple complexity. i don't just block it out and live with ideals against it.

Trivers concluded in his studies that the sex that invests the most amount of energy into offspring is the choosier sex when it comes to mating partners, and the sex that invests the least energy faces intrasexual competition where they fight amongst themselves over the resource of sexual opportunity. In the human species, women invest more energy with excruciatingly painful childbirth and connecting through oxytocin and whatnot, actually risking death in the process. the male invests an ejaculation...NOT risking his life. males face intrasexual competiton. its the other way around for seahorses.

if u wanted me to cite my sources i wudda done that from the getgo


So, according to Trivers and my own observations, it's really easy for a man to give his undivided attenion to a woman, but he is always competing with other males for HER undivided attention. Hey, maybe it just doesnt feel like a competition to you because you're already on top as alpha, but look behind you and/or under you and you'll see a lot of guys envious of your position. Or... you may have noticed the ratio of your attention-giving is pretty unbalanced.

hey PUA: free advice is not always wanted advice.

then dont take it
simple as that

or stop sharing

So that men who could really benefit from this stuff could continue wallowing in self-pity while they waste their lives away? I don't think so. If you cannot find any relevance in this material to you, then you have every right to avoid it yourself. I'll remind you that you are not the center of the universe.

Defensive much?



I'm neither alpha or beta. I know many psychologists tend to use this pack like dynamic in comparison to human nature... I dispute it's relevance. I'm not a wolf.. My knuckles don't drag when I walk. We aren't hunting and gathering.
I also know many men who subscribe to this thinking.. always in fear of someone calling them less then alpha. My Father was one of them. He missed out on a lot life had to offer because of that fear. I'd rather not continue the tradition.

I am capable of leading.. and sometimes I carry the ball ~So to speak~. Other times no.. I don't see myself as a leader necessarily... Although I have been pressed into leadership in many aspects of my life. Not in relationships though. My friends and intimate partners already have Fathers. In both, I believe in partnerships.

In meeting women? If someone consideres me to be an alpha male? They have a seriously misplaced admiration by any scale. I'm just an ordinary guy. Nothing special...nothing to be looked up to. Conversely.. I have nothing to inspire someones pity either.

I really don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that if I can get there, simply by making a decision that I needed to start acting like a man... anyone can.

I already wrote this down somewhere (not on this site) so I'll just copy and paste:

"We humans evolved to have specific mechanisms adaptive to our survival thousands of years ago in the days of hunters and gatherers. One giant force driving this evolution is called natural selection, which is what determines whether or not a certain characteristic or trait gets passed on to the next generation, determined by the trait’s adaptability in regards to environmental pressures and reproductive value.
...
All of these innate mechanisms evolved a long time ago and are basically set in stone within our human nature. There are those who argue that we human beings can and must suppress our natural animal sides to adapt to political correctness and to become “cultured.” While this statement has at least a little validity in terms of modern etiquette, we cannot do so completely because that would mean denying a major part of who we are on the inside. Besides, that’s impossible. Unless evolution takes a screeching turn for the worst, women will always respond to alpha male characteristics with sexual receptiveness and reciprocity (sexual attraction) and men will always feel an inclination toward these traits. Every single male in your family lineage successfully attracted a member of the opposite sex, which is the reason why you are here today. This is also the reason that men will always have the inclination toward alpha male characteristics; it was those very characteristics that led to the sexual success of every forefather you’ve ever had."

I don't mean to sound as though self confidence is found by being comfortable with seduction because it isn't. I was out with some friends the other night and my friend said "See that girl in the corner? Wouldn't it be cool to just go over there and start talking to her." So I asked him some questions about why he was afraid to go talk to her. He couldn't give me an answer. Men just have that fear of approaching women. Sure, he could use field tested lines and talk to her without being rejected, but that doesn't change his self confidence. Underneath, he'd still be the same insecure person. It just makes him less afraid to approach a woman. Self confidence has to come from a person being comfortable with themselves, not through routines. I apologize if I made it sound like anything different.



Agreed. The key is to just let go of the insecurities one has based on other people's opinions. This is for everyone....when you look around a room, you're probably concerned about what others are thinking about you. Relax. They aren't judging you. The truth is, they are just as worried about what people think of them. Now this is a line PUA's can use in field to create an interesting conversation, but it can help with self confidence as well...."If you could do anything in this world without fear of failure, what would it be?". Everybody should ask themselves that question. And whatever the answer is, just do it. They want to do it, but fear of failure is preventing it and that leaves a person unfulfilled. Even if you do fail, you can at least say you tried... and that's a lot more than most people can say.

hey hey hey u gotta cite your sources. that's plagerism
i know exactly where you got that from cuz ive got the same text

I didn't quote it word for word. In fact, I can't remember which book I read it in (although that same basic principle is talked about in all of them). But all of it is true. And I wouldn't have read it, or believed it if I hadn't found out about PUA's. Originally, I looked into it to get better with women. I won't deny that. Instead, it opened my eyes to the fact that it isn't about getting better with women. It's about becoming a better person. Some people might find it sad that I turned to "pick-up artists" to figure it out, but hey, at least I learned it one way or another.

true dat

I know all of the basis of this argument. However.. I believe it leaves out much of the entire picture.
I also know that as humans, mammals... we are a very adaptable animal.

If you take a domesticated pig and throw it into the wild.. it will evolve.. adapt to its surroundings. It's teeth and hooves will change... provided it survives. The next thing you know? It is a vicious wild animal.. A hog. It adapts.. drawing from it's instinct.
Then..if you put that same hog back into a domesticated environment? It reverts back.

Yes.. this is an unusual phenomenon..and like your point, only has limited relevance.

As each generation of the human race turns.. We evolve. What once worked is slowly repressed and replaced with something more affective. Hundreds of years ago.. people were more compact. Their environment demanded it. At 5'11" inches.. I'd be considered a large man. Someone 6'3" a giant.

So.. yes.. human nature.. or more so, animal behavior does have some influence.. but as time has marched on.. much less. There are those that either evolve slower or simply refuse to let go of traditions inspired by instinct and environment ~ that once worked, going back thousands of years. This is not animal behavior working.. It is a thinking issue.

ummm yeah but the stimulants we respond to are still very much based upon long-standing evolutionary mechanisms from the time of hunters and gatherers. not enough time has passed to change that. look up the mismatch hypothesis.

Sexual Strategies Theory by Buss and Schmitt (1993)

*Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man by Trivers (1973 i think) Actually.. your source material is Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. by Bernard Campbell (1971).

*You might be referring to a paper called 'Natural Selection and Social Theory' by Robert Trivers (2002) Which also had a basis in Darwinian theory on animal behavior.
In an article in the EP Journal
denotes something that pertains to this conversation.

"He also bemoans the lack of interest in his work from social scientists, and it is clear that the high hopes of sociobiologists for a widespread revolution in thinking about human nature have not materialized. This may not be surprising, given Trivers’ dismissal of psychology as “not, in fact, a real discipline, but rather a competing set of hypotheses about what was important in human behavior” (p. 257). Scholars tend not to take kindly to an outsider telling them their entire field is without foundation."

In other words.. These papers and works deal with a part of.. as opposed to the whole. All sound theory, which when put in practice in regards to human evolution..could be construed as an anti-science

Darwinian theory and all the expanded works over the last 1 1/3 century leave much to be desired in this discussion. It tends to lead that evolution is based on one motive. Expansion and success of a species. Which is very true in the animal world. Your choice of field studies and works as a support to your argument kind of surprises me! Since it's root is in animal behavior, as opposed to human Psychology... your chosen field of study. These theories tend to leave out the evolution of intelligence, cognition..

The most successful species on this planet are invertebrates.. that lack sense of self, cognition, intelligence.. because it is not necessary to locomotion, feeding and reproduction. Intelligence is not a "Rent free" phenomenon. It requires a great deal of energy. Much more than brightly colored feathers or a handsome set of antlers. The trade offs are apparently not something to be measured in species success, as it pertains to Darwinian theory. If our only motives were to be successful? We would be unable to have this discussion. We'd both be too busy, too stupid and very unaware of each others existence beyond how it might have an affect on our individual survival... I.E. locomotion, feeding and reproduction. You wouldn't be refining your skills as a first year psych student, I wouldn't be an engineer.. We both would not be able to afford the luxury of intellectual thought and specialized skill sets.


Recognising the evolution of human intelligence and cognition brings a whole new light to the subject at hand... Culture, and how culture has affected our evolution. Our ability and mechanism of thought, learning, memory and creativity... put in a historical context... competes pretty effectively with your claim that 'not enough time has passed'. Priori knowledge accommodates my entire ancestry. Each generation has a direct affect on the next. What worked and did not work for my Grandfather, varied as to what worked for my father...which is different as to what works for me. So.. in just a few generations.. a discernable, temporal distinction can be made.

Our success as a species is not the goal of our expanded brain pan and the flesh it encloses. It is simply a by product of it.

Right off the bat I have to say that you are mistaken - Trivers wrote the original paper and Bernard Campbell compiled or published it

and Trivers wrote a LOT of stuff, man. a lot of stuff.

ok im gunna read the rest of ur post now

That's a well-put argument, and for now I have nothing to say in response to the anti-science thing, but there are indeed evolutionary explanations to cognition.

First off, there's something called the Triun (spelling?) Brain Theory, stating that we have 3 brains: 1. Reptilian, 2. Emotional, 3. Cognitive, and that as licing organisms we started off with just one: Repitilian. This brain gave us our basic instincts and drives to survive and reproduce. As we evolved with competition, the emotional brain came to be and its purpose was to serve the needs of the reptilian brain. If we are emotional we feel stronger needs to survive and reproduce. Then, our cognitive brain evolved in order to serve the emotional brain. We are always cognitively trying to figure out ways to serve our emotions, and ultimately our reptilian brain.

Then, one must take into consideration the runaway sexual selection hypothesis. mate choice served to exaggerate certain attractive characteristics in a species. Ok, so this explains why some species of animals get really huge antlers that can even become maladaptive to survival, but what does that have to do with humans? One school of thought suggests that all of the cognitive ability and intelligence we evolved to have is all sexual ornamentation. This suggests that every potential spandrel resulting from our intelligence such as cultural differences between the generations is a result of intrasexual competition and sexual selection.

That makes sense to me, because one thing I've learned in the PUA community is that the sexiest thing in the world is novelty. So, these theories do indeed serve the argument that cognition has become necessary for reproduction. And is this a new step in human evolution? No, it's still from the EEA when we first started developing our cognition.

so you say, but what about maybe someone else? maybe they wants to hear?...but you are of course right in the fact that you are not wanting advice

as to the starter of the string... you are so right on the money!!!

Oh and fyi I have, and always will be an alpha male.

I have to look this up again as I read it years ago, but then again you can soooo , Look up a book called the Human Animal.

Interesting insights but then in order to accept these views you have to come to terms that you are little more then a monkey, me?.... pass the banana I gots to go.