As soon as she stood, I wheeled around behind her and slid into her seat. Now I was finally in the set, and she was lurking awkwardly on the outside. This was the science of approaching perfectly executed, like a good game of chess.[sic]
On a number of occasions, Pickup artists and gurus say that Pickup is a science. It is not. The previous paragraph comes from Style's book – The Game. Style is a pickuper that became number one Pickup guru. So, when I was asked for an opinion about his Challenge, I decided to do it as a peer review – as the corner stone of the scientific publishing process. This Challenge is a self-help book, a later work than The Game. It allegedly contains a proved, step-by-step program to improve your dating success. As read in a product description "the ultimate guide to landing the woman of your dreams from the best of the best".
My decision for the peer review stays on this ground: if people are being led into a belief that Pickup is a science by pickupers, people should be shown then, what the real science would say about Pickup. Note that I do not wish to flat the dead horse by showing the obvious. I'm just afraid that most people have no inkling what the science truly is. Particularly, how demanding it is, to do a science.
Ladies and gentlemen, sit down comfortably, the peer review begins...
Objective
Style's challenge (i.e. your objective) is to get a date in thirty days or less.
First of all, nobody is promised that this book will get him a date. Thus, there are two possible endings. (1) If you don't get a date, it is not Style's fault – you were not promised the date. (2) If you get a date, you credit Style. There is no way a Style could loose, because he did not promise any date. Notice as he just said that's your objective, but made no promise.
So, how does it compare to the following, Ian Rowland's writing on Cold Reading?
In this way, the psychic can defuse all possible skeptical challenges. She is effectively writing her own contract to suit herself. She cannot fail to deliver on her promises, because she has been careful not to make any. Nor has she made any promises on behalf of her particular discipline. She has not said it will reveal truths, solve problems or prove anything at all.
What transparent measures Style took to avoid such scenario? How does it come that Style himself warns us against Cold Reading, while saying that some psychics are trustworthy and some are not (page 104)? Also, on page 108, he tells us to never use Cold Reading in a callous, manipulative way.
Next issue goes with the term date. On page 6, Styles says that "A date is defined as a planned second encounter with a woman you have just met" [sic]. OK, so I went to a brand new greengrocery to buy an apple. But the salesgirl told me that all apples are already sold out for today, but there will be new ones, tomorrow. I know – it is a silly example. But take a look, as it fits Style's definition of date. It fits perfectly. Alternatively, a professionally smiling bartender could be another false positive. Or, a friend might wish to see you again, but have no interest to date you. And Style omits this fact. His so-called definition is vague, and therefore it does not hold up to scientific standards. As a further reading, see Forer effect.
Prize
The company of quality women, the envy of your peers, the lifestyle you deserve.
What woman is quality one? I found no definition. Therefore, there is a problem to evaluate the promise. Style does not tell us how to know, whether we are in a company of at least one quality woman.
Next, what is company? How many? What kind of relationship? Does it go for no-sex friends, lovers, long-term relationships, or just a sexual affair? Even if we would consider a casual small-talk with a group of lost tourists, which ask for a direction to e.g. railway station, it would fit into Style's description. The prize is not given in a concrete terms. It is the same problem as with the objective. Note that using of vague terms leads to Forer effect – a psychological trick, when people find vague terms as concrete ones.
Envy of our peers and lifestyle we deserve... this is a clear appeal on our emotions to accept Style's work. How does Style make sure that he does not exploit emotional stress of lonely men? How does Style make sure that such approach does not affect reported outcome?
Procedure
The procedure comes out of a principle that a man can increase his chances of getting a date, by learning something about social interactions. While this is true, it is nothing new.
Human has the ability to learn from an interaction with other humans. Maneuver a man into a position, when he would interact and he will learn something to increase his chances of achieving his goals.
Basically, Style tries to convince his reader that he will succeed, because Style tells him some working principles. As given on page 3: It's simply what works best and fastest. I do not agree with Style for several reasons:
- Style propagates Pickup, which includes several dating myths – i.e. assumptions, which do not hold. Moreover, Pickup originated on the pseudoscientific concept of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Style recommends NLP on page 60, law 6.
- On page 11, Style discussed a so-called limiting belief "I'm not good-looking, rich, or famous enough to be with a beautiful woman." Since Style does not claim that this book will make anybody (except Style, perhaps?) rich and famous, we end up with the question of a good look. Starting with page 26, there are missions for days 4 and 5. These missions are targeted on look improvements – not limited to hairs, clothes and accessories. Well, the tailor makes the man. But... Why does Style write this, if he claims, just 25 pages ago, that a care about one's look is a limiting belief?
- On page 34, Styles says about the approach anxiety: Psychologically speaking, it's less a fear of approaching than a fear of rejection. While the symptoms of approach anxiety correspond with increased dopamine level, and dopamine is linked with reward and danger, it does not justify the claim given by Style. What proves the idea that fear of approach is not driven by fear of rejection? Note the difference that Style makes.
- On page 48, Style claims this:
Smile when you approach. Even if a grin does not come naturally, fake it. It predisposes the woman or group you're about to engage to respond positively. On a subconscious level, it signals that you're a friend and not an enemy.[sic]
First, sincere smile contracts two muscles – zygomaticus major (mouth) and orbicular oculis (eyes). Therefore, it is easy to say when you fake the sincere smile. Therefore, there's no guarantee that the group will respond as Style says.
Second, what is the subconscious level? How does it relate to current scientific understanding of brain? In academy and science, this word is not used. However, it is being used in the already mentioned pseudoscientific NLP. - On page 48, Style perpetuates Mystery's view on energy in the seduction process. Mystery taught Style the so-called art of Pickup. The following is not the only reference to some energy.
Your energy level should be equal to or slightly higher than the woman or group you're approaching.[sic]
How is this concept different from the pseudoscientific energy that is used by so many healers to produce alleged physiological effects, while producing nothing, but a placebo effect in some cases? How does Style measure the energy and in which, SI-compatible units? Supposedly, this information is not given. - On page 59, in second law of learning, Style claims:
There is no such thing as rejection, only a feedback.
If you posses the ability to learn from your mistakes, then failure is impossible, because each rejection brings you closer to perfection.[sic]
Both statements ignore reality. An engaged, loyal woman that is in love with somebody else will reject you, no matter what you would do. More likely, a woman may reject you just because she does not find you physically attractive. In addition, the first statement redefines meaning of the word rejection to a something else. - On pages 60 and 61, laws 8 and 9, Style says this:
Don't look to friends or family for approval.
Be willing to test new ideas, even if they don't seem logical.[sic]
Why should not I ask my own family, or friends, for an independent opinion? How does it compare to Milieu Control [144], i.e. a concept that participates in a process of brainwashing, as described by psychologists?
Why should I do something that is not logical, i.e. there is no reasonable evidence that it is worth doing it? How does it compare to the concept of Open Mind, as described e.g. in [84]? - On page 76, Style recommends so-called Huna-way philosophy to strengthen the concept of so-called Inner Game. Not only there are objections against Pickup concept of inner-game, the Huna philosophy states, as Style writes: The world is what you think it is. In other words, he tells us to ignore reality. Thus, not to be objective.
- On page 78, Style recommends the New-Age, pseudoscientific energy based Emotional Freedom Technique [96].
- On page 92, Style gets to the Evolution and evolutionary biology. First, he recommends reading an excerpt on Matt Ridley's The Red Queen. A Pickup artist wrote the excerpt. Second, Style says this:
Your assignment is to read the report and discover the evolutionary logic behind many of the things you've been doing this month.[sic]
Looking at the previous objections to pseudoscience, which Style recommends in his book, I see no reasonable evidence that Styles understand the scientific topics himself, in the first place. Subsequently, it is reasonable to assume that a reader, who did not spot the objections, will fail to properly discover the evolution behind as well.
As I've reached 10 issues with the procedure, I stop pointing on remaining ones and continue with risks.
Risks
While Style's book contains several reasonable techniques, they have been known even long before the Pickup community was born. An unknowing reader is not told, so he can attribute them as a Pickup contribution mistakenly, and fall for Pickup mistakes subsequently.
Style propagates the Pickup community, which leads a man to belief that it is an admirable lifestyle to have sex with as many women as possible. This belief ignores sexually transmitted diseases apparently. Consider high-risk strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Thanks to the high occurrence of HPV in the population, isn't it likely that you will end up with one of these strains, if you would follow such lifestyle successfully?
I understand that Pickup artists do not discuss their health condition. However, I see it as a fair and moral principle to let the people to know the increased risks of having many sexual partners. The HPV high-risk strains may develop into a cancer and there is no cure, just a vaccination against two (out of much many more) high-risk strains only.
On the other hand, I would not say that Pickup works so good for one to be in a grave danger, unless you pick easy girls. However, it is about probabilities and the risk is real. See references [156, 157, 158] for details.
On page 33, Style writes:
Control your caloric intake and review your diet to limit saturated fats, refined sugars, excess salt, and food high in preservatives and carbohydrates. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean protein. If you're more than forty percent over you should be, consult a doctor about weight loss options.[sic]
What leads Style to a conclusion that it is safe to alter someone's diet, when he is not over the forty percent, while Style knows nothing more about his present health condition?
Book's preface states that solely the reader is responsible for any harm that may result from using any advice from the book.
Evidence
I found none. I found only subjective stories without any scientific control over experiment variables.
References
On page 193, Style writes:
The Stylelife Challenge is the result of lessons from thousands of approaches, years of camaraderie with the master pickup artists from The Game, feedback from students around the world, hundreds of books and research papers, and the contributions of the Stylelife Academy coaching team.[sic]
Despite the hundreds of research papers, Style did not gave a single citation of a scientific research paper. Let alone to be it a correct citation from a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor.
Instead, Style gave nicks of pickup artists – the community who acknowledged his position as a number one of pickup artists. I see a clear bias there.
Conclusion
As already noted, an ordinary man can learn from social interactions, including rejections. Subsequently, he can get a date on his own, as he learns to avoid mistakes he did. Style does not present a convincing material that an ordinary man would get a date because of Style's book. Neither methodology nor presented subjective testimonies are convincing as an objective proof.
Moreover, Style has done a number of offences against an objective publishing of facts, as science understands objectivity. This review contains only a selection of major offences.
S T R O N G R E J E C T
This review applies to first edition from 2007.
