dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 That's pretty silly. Next thing you know you'll be telling us driving instructors should be former NASCAR or INDY drivers and personal trainers should be former Mr Olympia contenders. The researchers studying attraction in lab settings can guage, with quantifiable metrics, physiological reactions in test subjects based on a vareity on stimuli. It's the application of this research knowledge that lets you get better with attracting the opposite sex, which is exactly what pickup artists and dating coaches do for their clients. The research and application are two wholly separate disciplines, although the application side of things tends to have it's own discovery process for what's applicable on an individual basis. Humm I see what you are saying. So the driving instructors are nascar thing doesn't really work as driving instructors don't teach you how to drive racecars/that isn't their job. However, the personal trainers are better (but still not ideal). The problem is there is usually very little physically preventing these eggheads from becoming world class pickup artists. They can talk, and can walk, therefore they can pickup. There are things limiting the personal trainer from becoming the next Donovan Bailey or whatever - natural physical ability. The other major problem is the best pickup artists laugh like hell at what the scientists come up with for dating advice. They DON'T get their data from eggheads AT ALL. It all comes from 1000's of approaches (ie. experience), and communicating with many other people who have done 1000s of approaches. It also comes from the fact they have all likely slept with +100 women. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that number was laughably small.
BS76 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 The other major problem is the best pickup artists laugh like hell at what the scientists come up with for dating advice. That's not always the case. It largely depends on if the science matches reality, and in many instances it does. They DON'T get their data from eggheads AT ALL. It all comes from 1000's of approaches (ie. experience), and communicating with many other people who have done 1000s of approaches. AFC Adam cites research now in his bootcamps and instruction. Many do actually because most of what they're teaching is application of what's only now really being studied in an academic setting. It was a little cart before the horse, but there's tons of research that supports what dating coaches have been teaching for years. It's a vindication of sorts. Still, some of the research has been around for decades and it does go into what they teach. It also comes from the fact they have all likely slept with +100 women. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that number was laughably small. This is where you have to be careful you don't fall into the trap of hero worship, which in this context is the logical fallacy appeal to authority. Just because the guy got laid doesn't mean he actually had good game. In fact he could do things that are quite contrary to what research suggests and still get the girl. That's because it's as much of an art as it is a science.
Sphere Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Science makes everything in the world tick. Science and human relationships go hand in hand. This cannot be denied.
Sphere Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Attraction is Science, everything in this world that exists is Science. Science is unavoidable, it is apart of every aspect of our lives.
purgatori Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Humm I see what you are saying. So the driving instructors are nascar thing doesn't really work as driving instructors don't teach you how to drive racecars/that isn't their job. However, the personal trainers are better (but still not ideal). The problem is there is usually very little physically preventing these eggheads from becoming world class pickup artists. They can talk, and can walk, therefore they can pickup. There are things limiting the personal trainer from becoming the next Donovan Bailey or whatever - natural physical ability. The other major problem is the best pickup artists laugh like hell at what the scientists come up with for dating advice. They DON'T get their data from eggheads AT ALL. It all comes from 1000's of approaches (ie. experience), and communicating with many other people who have done 1000s of approaches. It also comes from the fact they have all likely slept with +100 women. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that number was laughably small. Nice to know that your idols in life are guys that have 'slept with 100+ women.' Does the guy with the highest score by the time he has reached his senior years win? Or is it more like Pokemon/collecting baseball cards, where it's more about the diversity of your collection, and the rarity of the items therein?
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Humm I see what you are saying. So the driving instructors are nascar thing doesn't really work as driving instructors don't teach you how to drive racecars/that isn't their job. However, the personal trainers are better (but still not ideal). The problem is there is usually very little physically preventing these eggheads from becoming world class pickup artists. They can talk, and can walk, therefore they can pickup. There are things limiting the personal trainer from becoming the next Donovan Bailey or whatever - natural physical ability. The other major problem is the best pickup artists laugh like hell at what the scientists come up with for dating advice. They DON'T get their data from eggheads AT ALL. It all comes from 1000's of approaches (ie. experience), and communicating with many other people who have done 1000s of approaches. It also comes from the fact they have all likely slept with +100 women. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that number was laughably small. Not all dating advice is about sleeping with large numbers of women. . . I'm not even terribly judgmental about people doing so (if they're honest about it, though I imagine that usually makes it impossible to do unless the fellow is extremely attractive), but it seems to be worth saying. The advice for finding a sincere partner would be much different than finding 1000+ women to sleep with or even bedding all the attractive women you meet or whatnot. (This study tells little about either, but just sayin')
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 That's not always the case. It largely depends on if the science matches reality, and in many instances it does. AFC Adam cites research now in his bootcamps and instruction. Many do actually because most of what they're teaching is application of what's only now really being studied in an academic setting. It was a little cart before the horse, but there's tons of research that supports what dating coaches have been teaching for years. It's a vindication of sorts. Still, some of the research has been around for decades and it does go into what they teach. This is where you have to be careful you don't fall into the trap of hero worship, which in this context is the logical fallacy appeal to authority. Just because the guy got laid doesn't mean he actually had good game. In fact he could do things that are quite contrary to what research suggests and still get the girl. That's because it's as much of an art as it is a science. The majority of them (I would go so far as to say vast majority) don't cite any science articles. It would more be the case that these guys started practicing methods in books, then figured out **** on their own. If the science happens to coincide with what they do then that's "vindication". The question is vindication for who? That scientists occasionally find the right things, or that the dating experts are doing the right stuff? The fact is the dating experts/these mPUA's are doing the right stuff (this is known, because they can go out and prove it). Scientists have no way of completely proving coorelations. Yeah I'm being too far reaching though. You are right. Obviously not ALL research isn't very good. I'm sure there's a fair bit that is good. And I'm saying the information comes from 1000+ approaches and 100+ lays. I'm not making any comments about the context of their advice or whether it's morally right or wrong. Or if even that's a goal of mine (probably isn't, as nice as it would be to be as good as they are).
sagetalk Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Science makes everything in the world tick. Science and human relationships go hand in hand. This cannot be denied. Science itself isn't really anything. It is merely a structure of rules to observe and study the natural world and human behavior. What makes the world tick are humans, the natural world, and some would add the spiritual world. Science isn't able to factor in the latter.
OceanTropic Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Thats a load of bull. Some women like guys with more feminine features, while others don't. Me for instance, I like dark and rugged, masculine men. Whereas my friend likes hairless, bright eyed blondes (which I find nasty). It really depends. HOWEVER, research ALSO shows that when a woman is ovulating, she usually opts for the more feminine looking guy. Hmm...
Recommended Posts