Why was the "pick up artist" movement so popular in the mid 2000s to 2010s?

Cafe Society
341

I’m not calling him a liar, but his posts did not convince me that his assessment of the early days of PUAry was correct.

Mijin wrote that he got into it around 2005, when he bought a couple books and went to one or two events. He doesn’t say which books he bought, but we know The Game, an autobiographical account of a man who had gotten into the PUA scene and was coached by “Mystery,” was published that year. So what does the author say the teachings were like then? According to Wikipedia:

A good deal of the book focuses on how to obtain the elusive upper hand, or just hand, in a relationship. Strauss advocates various methods, mostly from the point of view of heterosexual men. He offers further guidelines for the process of seduction, which include preparing things to say before going out and telling groups of women surreptitiously impressive stories. He also uses “false time constraints” (a reason that the conversation could end very soon) to put the woman of interest in a situation where she must convince the man she is interesting, discusses how to very slowly increase the amount of physical contact, and more.

Mijin only gave a few examples of specific things he learned, but one of them was the false time constraints thing, or “make such interactions brief, politely walking away at a point where things are going well.”

What do you think–does that sound like “just basic conversation skills and self-confidence”? Does it sound like “99% the same as if you were talking to a guy or family member or whatever”?

Mijin does specifically praise the Real Social Dynamics seminars, saying they “had a lot of good social cues advice” and “a lot of generic social advice, not really pickup.” According to this article that was posted earlier in either this thread or of the other ones bleeding over onto this topic, these seminars grew out of the same coaching group that Strauss attended, and what they really taught was

how to intimidate attractive women into submission, using aggressive physical techniques and a knowledge of psychology.

“They would go from person to person and practice the same lines and routines, and in the process the person delivering these lines would let nothing of their own identity come out.”

Is this good social cues advice? Is it generic social advice?

Speaking of social cues, there’s also this aside:

So I found it useful to learn, for example, social cues that someone is trying to put me down to elevate themselves. There are lots of subtle ways that people do this, and it wasn’t always obvious to me.

It’s not clear to me whether he meant that he learned this from the PUA books and seminars or elsewhere. But msmith mentioned something interesting:

IIRC from Mystery’s show, the way he might deal with a “put down” from someone in the group is to turn it around on them and make them look like the jerk. like “who brought the fun police?” or “he she always like that”? Something like that.

So I get the sense that there was always this preoccupation in the PUA circles with put-downs and ways of verbally asserting power and one-upsmanship. I believe it was actually you who pointed out that being overly attuned to possible slights was maybe not the best thing, but he doubled down, saying “If you put up with little slights now, who knows what that person will do or say to you next.” Combine it with the Wiki synopsis that mentions getting the upper hand, and the much-debated negging, and I ask again, is this how you have a totally normal conversation with a family member or whatever, where you’re just reading social cues and being confident?

And then there was this:

Look at it this way: even if PUA is all just manipulative and cynical tricks (which it isn’t, IME, but no-one wants to hear what I am saying) it can still be beneficial to have gone through it. If it pushes you to just get out there and not immediately make excuses to stop trying that’s already a massive help.

I keep rereading this paragraph. Even if PUA is all just manipulative and cynical tricks…it can still be beneficial. Even if you’re manipulating and tricking a girl, there’s a benefit, for you. He denies they are manipulative and cynical tricks, of course. But if they were, he wouldn’t condemn them. As long as they help the guy.

Forgive my skepticism that this program just taught him how to socialize with women as people.

342

“I’m not saying he’s a liar, but…”

I’m here to share my experiences and have a good faith discussion.

I’m not going to waste my time trying to defend myself from someone who is not here to do the same.
But I will clarify about one of the techniques, for the benefit of other readers:

I have given lots of examples over the course of this thread, and it’s quite telling that the most objectionable thing you could find was…politely leaving a conversation at a point where it is going well. What a monster!

But, for the record, in case anyone is wondering about the time constraint technique, it’s very effective in general social and business situations. It’s specifically an approach for meeting people for the first time, so the “like a family member” comment isn’t applicable here, but yes it’s a technique for conversation in general.

343

What basis do you have for thinking that he taught something entirely different than what he was advertising? @Mijin’s experience with something else, years ago?

And advertising also spreads ideas.

And, while it’s certainly influenced by both evolution and socialization, it functions in a complicated manner that’s nowhere near as simplistic as the pseudo-scientific nonsense presented in the article.

The same person, acting in the same fashion at the same time, is very often attractive to one or more women present, repulsive to other(s), and may be neutral to yet other(s).

344

Moderating

…

You kind of ARE saying he’s lying. I get that you think what’s he’s relayed is not a fair assessment of the program, and that’s a perfectly valid observation to make. But try not to attack the poster.

I find it’s less personal to say, “he says this, but i think this is wrong, because…” than to say “I’m not saying he’s lying but…”

345

So … I am familiar with those popular press tell all style books, at least the flavor of them that seeped into the general media. That’s where my preconceptions came from, why I did not even hear what @Mijin was telling us at first.

And I’m not calling them liars but … :smiley: … I have enough experience to take tell all style books with more salt than is advised for a healthy diet, and do not place them as more authoritative than listening to a person not trying to sell something’s firsthand account. Publication bias, etc. …

Meanwhile. Are there actually techniques (short of actual assault) that a previously socially awkward man can use to intimidate women into submission? I don’t think so, so therefore these seminars were not actually teaching that. Even if that is what they advertised.

Did these seminars teach these men to think of convincing women to have sex with them as the goal? Nah. Pretty sure those who took these classes with learning how to do that as their goal already were thinking that. As do plenty of other men. Taking advantage of that was the scam sure.

So to what you object to.

Role playing initially meeting people with a standard set of lines? Not dissimilar to what happens in serious social skills training groups. The as if practice and knowing you’ll have something to say reduces anxiety when “in the wild”.

The advice to leave a new conversation while it’s going well, before there is a chance to have an awkward silence, before you have missed the cue that you have overstayed your welcome? Advice that would result in have fewer chances for those social encounters to end up experienced as failures? I fail to see that advice as toxic. Sounds good to me. Confidence grows with success slowly but drops quickly with failures.

And I agree with @Mijin … what’s a good treatment approach for social anxiety? Desensitization. Get out there with ineffective “pick up lines” hoping to “score” … go home alone but having had some experience talking to people and maybe even having some fun. Anxiety in future slightly less.

No these products did not take Barney Fifes and create Barney Stinsons. And role playing being in social situations using canned lines, giving advice that wold result in more social experiences that did not feel like failures, likely did some some good.

I still find the marketing approach offensive and in a broader cultural sense harmful. (As @thorny_locust points out). But not too much worse than ads promising to turn 98 pound weaklings into he men with six pack abs that women will swoon over on the beach while delivering a basic fitness plan.

@thorny_locust, of course evolutionary psychology can sometimes be just so stories and reality is always complicated. Still if I was single and going on a first date I’d likely take into account what I think my date might find attractive or unattractive. Wear different clothes than I do day to day. Make sure my beard is nicely trimmed. Be sure my breath smells good. And be a bit nervous about keeping up a good conversation. Maybe for this person a scraggly beard and scuffed shoes and awkward pauses would go over better but I’ll play my odds a little if I can. She can’t find out that I cook and clean and listen and make bad jokes that make her groan unless I pass first cut.

346

Some of the “sales mentality” that is used in the PUA format can be applied regardless of type of relationship. It can be applied if you want to remain a virgin until marriage. It can be applied to platonic friendship networks as well.

If it’s a platonic friendship network, the point would be to escalate (make an offer of further “friendship intimacy” - an activity with your platonic friend), make it a practice (no “oneitis”, don’t focus on a single friend, make friendship a life practice - keep making offers), also indifference to outcome (some will not take you up on the friendship or fall off over time, continue networking and building new friendships and maintain the ones that exist.)

The socially anxious tend to fall back on “niceness” as a reason not to bother other people. The interaction might go poorly, so I’ll just leave them alone. But friendships, as relationships, should be win/win, and you can’t have them if someone doesn’t make a move. You can’t help your friend with their alcohol problem when you never knew about it since you weren’t their friend in the first place.

So sometimes forward risks must be taken and “niceness” as practiced by the socially anxious can be a detriment.

347

I heard something years ago that was a life changer for me and I share it whenever I get a chance. I heard a Dr, say on a talk radio show that " People fall in love with the with the way they feel about themselves when in the company of that special person" It applies to all types of relationships in life.

348

One of the mistakes in my relationships has been lack of connection. In both cases I didn’t really know the women before we began romantically. Now I did “show up” for activities as asked. So even being physically present was insufficient. I need more connection. Either I need to choose situations where I’m more connected or build them. I have started working on this.

My way of thinking is would I rather be the guy who joins AA because his friends intervened with him, or the clean living guy who dies alone. I’d choose the former now. Some of the men that fall into the “nice” trap, it’s always the same “I’m a good looking guy, dress well, make a good living, why can’t I get a girlfriend?” Because frequently the things they are doing - working out, learning how to dress, being a good worker - are reinforcing their social anxiety rather than alleviating it. They don’t know how to make friends, and they’d honestly be better off worrying less about doing nice and good things and taking more risks. Some of these guys eventually do realize the trap they have set for themselves and become quite personally frustrated, even if they don’t wind up falling into a PUA or incel camp.

349

The way I see the PUA movement described (and from what little I’ve seen), it does sound very adversarial and predatory. IMHO it’s the difference between teaching “sales” and teaching how to run a Ponzi scheme.

What people are describing are pretty well known techniques used in sales and running a cult. Basically PUAs are targeting men who are frustrated with their status. InCels, recently divorced, shy and introverted men, or men who have been in a string of bad relationships, often losing women to men who are often more assertive or blessed with advantages such as good looks, popularity, wealth, etc. Such experiences can breed resentment over time and PUA marketing feeds on that. For example, referring to people outside the PUA community as “Average Frustrated Chumps”. No one wants to be a “chump”. They want to be “awesome” like the PUAs.

I see the benefit of learning some of the techniques and strategies. But as a community, the do seem to use a lot of aggressive terminology like being “alpha” and “high status” and “wearing down her confidence”. It’s like some bully stole their girl so they think the way to win girls is to learn how to be a bully.

350

Out of interest, where did you hear “wearing down her confidence?”

351

I’m returning to this.

@Mijin -

Obviously I now accept that the actual skills taught were, in isolation, helpful social skills to have, despite the marketing advertising how these were skills that would enable mad manipulative skillz of seduction, winning the objects of the game, sex with beautiful women.

I accept that some number of men benefited from that social skills training, and with improved social skills had less anxiety, which served them well both in non-romantic and in potentially romantic interactions. The actual training itself may not have been so toxic.

What though is your take on how the marketing (very effective marketing) was itself harmful to society at large, and how those who came into the program with misogynistic mindsets had those perspectives validated?

Selling with promises (implied or explicitly stated) of sex and objectifying women in the process was not and is not unique to this product. But were they perhaps especially egregious?

What do you think?

352

If they hadn’t marketed it that way they probably would have made a lot less money.

353

Well firstly, I think you may be disappointed by my answer, as I have to say again that I didn’t see it personally.

Yes, right from the early days it is true that books like The Game strongly made the suggestion that these techniques could enable you to sleep with lots of women. (It should be noted though, that even the Game has the protagonist meet the love of his life and settle down for the entire second half of the book).
But, in itself, having a lot of sex is not a bad thing if everyone is consenting; you would need extra baggage for it to be mean-spirited like trying to reduce women’s confidence or whatever, the kind of things people in this thread are saying, and I just never had saw any of that stuff.

From the ways some people have described the marketing materials that they have seen, it sounds cynical at best and self-destructive and harassing at worse.

This is a long aside, I hope it’s at least partly relevant to your question…

<long aside>
I remember back in the day, sharing a drink with a friend who had been on the same course as me. Both of us had been awful at the start – one of the first pieces of advice I had received was that I looked at the ground when talking to women and I needed to actually give eye contact. That was my level of social skill.

But both of us now had gotten pretty good. We didn’t need to go to bars, we could get dates anywhere. My friend even started running classes of his own.

And we wondered what would ultimately happen to the PUA movement. As the techniques get better known, would the whole dynamic of frustrated and lonely men and women dissipate? What would happen to bars, to speed dating, to ostentatious displays of wealth?
Yes, we were so impressed with the change that had happened to us, that we really thought it was going to be that big.

And it is interesting with this thread to finally look back at what the answer was.

Internally, it appears that with all the money to be made, it just got filled with douches. Who had no actual understanding or skill, and marketed their courses to the lowest common denominator. Until I guess everyone realized none of it was effective, and it all fell like a house of cards.

And, externally, society was happy to write it off as misogynist jerks that used tricks that somehow were both manipulative and ineffective.

Anyway, it seems the ship has sailed on trying to reform the word “PUA”, even when retrospectively trying to talk about the early days.

<long aside\>

354

I never heard that when I read the manosphere/PUA stuff.

Negging was part of PUA but just a tool in the toolbox. Actually making the woman feel bad has an undercurrent of anger that was never really there for the PUAs, that was more for the MGTOW or incels. PUAs would talk about trying to pick up other guys’ girlfriends or wives. Or if there was a woman specifically looking for a husband and father for her children (like a late 30s childless woman) seeing if they could lie to her and get her to sleep with them anyway.

They did the bit where the woman’s hind brand forces them to respond to certain things and to only pick the high value men. A couple of them admitted that some of the stuff was locker room talk, not really believed but done to try and self motivate, like a salesman might use some method and say he believes in it to have a belief system to keep him going when he’s getting shut out.

PUA wasn’t talked about so much when Tinder and hookups came into vogue. The PUAs mostly did not like online as much, didn’t think it required much game.

355

I don’t know if you said which program you subscribed to. It could very well be that some people taught courses that weren’t manipulative, but I think when most people talk about the PUA movement then guys like Mystery come to mind. This is a clip which looks like part of a seminar, complete with typical hotel meeting room carpeting.

It’s a 10 minute clip, but you only have to watch the first minute to see the manipulative, misogynistic rhetoric.

In the first few seconds of this clip, he’s claiming that there are five attraction switches which “exist in all women ubiquitously” and how to manipulate these attractions.

He first talks about “pre-selection” and that “we need to demonstrate that we are preselected by other women” and goes on to discuss how to effect this, including demonstrating that they need to show they aren’t affected by a woman’s attractiveness while saying something dismissive and looking away from the woman dismissively. He claims this is so effective he’s added this to all his scripts. This all triggers the hardwired pre-selection switch in her.

This claim and demonstration is within the first minute of the clip.

Is this something that never happened at all in the system you attended? Could it be that these manipulative techniques were also taught, but you didn’t incorporate them?

Or, was the system you bought simply how to improve your own social skills?

I don’t see how to generalize from one individual’s experience to say that the mad manipulative skillz were just marketing hype. They very much seem to be actually taught.

Perhaps for @Mijin, the system he purchased wasn’t actually manipulative, but I don’t know think we can say that the only things being taught in all of the programs were simply basic social skills. I would have absolutely no idea how to go about quantifying that.

Yes, learning basic social skills is necessary, and I would hope that men shelling out money would get that, but some systems do look toxic.

356

Once again: I am not the one trying to claim that the whole PUA thing was anything.
It’s other people trying to tell me that my experiences must be a lie because they are asserting what the entirety of PUA is and was.

I only know Mystery from him being mentioned in The Game. If I had gone to a thing that talked about five attraction buttons, or whatever, I would have walked out. It’s very obviously gimmicky crap.

357

The basis for believing that those magical manipulative skills were not taught is simply the belief that such skills do not (short of actual assault) actually exist. Whatever “teaching” of such “skills” that occurred was either scamming bullshit, or actual basic social skills wrapped with promises of sexual manipulation to sell. And I believe @Mijin that at least his experience was that those generalizable basic social skills were taught. His point that just getting out and having social interactions that you don’t experience as failures helps is on point too.

Now to be clear - basic social skills can be used to find partners who want any sort of connection, from casual conversation to a meaningful relationship to a fun one time sexual hook up in the bathroom. There are people of all genders who want each and other. Each their own. Finding each other and finding each other attractive, acting on it with mutual consent, is not manipulative. And maybe some bought products and paid attention based on the sex conquest packaging but left with more general skills.

I think though the packaging itself also had harms. I was wondering what someone who experienced benefit thought about that.

358

Honestly, that specific advice is something i work on as an adult who is slightly more social aware than i used to be. And i haven’t tried to “pick up” anyone in decades. But i do meet new people socially, and i know i can overstay my welcome, and that it is better to politely leave when the conversation is going well. So that rings very true as good general social advice, and I’m sure it’s helpful meeting potential romantic and sexual partners, too.

That being said, I’ve seen men talking about game, about being alpha, about how to bag women, in ways that were toxic and demeaning, and that were described as “PUA” by the guys taking about it. (And i use the word “seen” advisedly – i read discussions among men on internet chat sites.) I guess any movement that’s popular enough will end up covering a lot of ground, and is likely to have good parts and bad parts.

359

It may be a bit pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychology bullshit, but I don’t see misogynistic here. Unless you inherently think it’s misogynistic to go out and hit on women for the purpose of having sex. Obviously it’s all somewhat manipulative as you are trying to steer the conversation towards a desired outcome.

360

I think it’s pretty misogynist to talk about how women are “hard wired” to find this or that attractive, and that the uterus in her “chassis” drives that behavior.

Talk about objectifying women, and ignoring that they have individual differences.

Nothing wrong with hitting on women with the goal of getting laid, especially if you do it in places where women hang out when they are looking to get laid. (It’s pretty annoying to attractive women to get hit on when they are trying to buy broccoli, because that sort of thing happens to them a lot, and sometimes you just want to be left alone. But if they go to a pick up bar, hey, that’s why they are there.) But there is something wrong with treating women’s as machines that you can manipulate by pressing the right buttons.

(Some non-sexual sales training works that way, too. It’s also offensive, and it’s why certain categories of sales people have a bad reputation.)