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.
14. Seduction Energy
A number of seduction gurus keep on talking about some energy. What the hell do they actually mean by that? On a number of occasions, such as dating myth 12, I have shown what a non-senses it would be, if they would talk about the physics' energy. So, I would not say that they talk about a scientifically proven energy. Just for a single reason – it is quite obvious that they would not be able to defend their claims in such case.
I see two options:
(1) The first option is as an explanation that their energy stands for something else. So, they take the deserved credit of physics' energy, while giving it a new, twisted meaning. Just one question – if they know that it is not energy, why do they call it energy? To me, this is a deception – a pseudoscience at its best.
I don't require them to understand e.g. citric acid cycle. But hey, they could at least try to obey the law of energy conservation. Or, am I asking too much? This is high-school stuff.
Note that if we would take the feelings of having a lot of energy to do something, we actually talk about increased levels of particular neurotransmitters. Considering it as energy, it is a mismatch of energy and feelings terms. Such feelings do not imply that you've got some energy. You may be even spending more energy than usually.
So, if we would take these feelings as energy being spent, e.g. while having a sex, we talk about energy expense – i.e. negative energy. Then, the dating myth 12 applies.
For example, to say that you spent some energy, while thinking about her, that's actually true. To stay alive, body takes some energy to power its biological processes, even while resting. To have a spontaneous, wild sex, the power consumption would rise as the body moves. Also, glucose utilization would rise as the glucose would serve as a primary energy fuel in such scenario. In both cases, you radiate waste energy as a heat (depending on the gradient as given in myth 12).
On a contrary example, to say that you emanate a sexual energy that attracts opposite sex, it is just a common saying for having an attractive body. Or, it is a blabberish whose corner stone, the sexual energy, was never defined properly by the myth-tellers. If you find something to seem as valid in such sentences, it is because of psychological tricks such as Forer's effect and subjective validation, present personal beliefs and lack of scientific understanding of energy.
Some pseudo-scientists try to deceive people with quantification. Science quantifies anything (i.e. energy including) to be objective, when making a judgment. So, these pseudo-scientists come up with numbers and claims of (allegedly proper) quantification. However, the numbers either came out of thin air, or they were allegedly measured with a non-functioning technique such as rod dowsing (why not to move with a rod over a naked body? ;-). With a little bit sense of black humor, it is also quite funny to read statements of money-back guarantees, where a righteousness of claim is conditioned with a non-functioning measuring. For example, the mentioned rod-dowsing is the ideomotoric effect, when measurer believes. Or, it's just a con, when measurer doesn't believe. In both cases, it measures nothing.
As a folklore curiosity, there's a (seduction) energy vampirism. You know, virgins and night robes, a throat naked tastefully, and a vampire sucking victim's blood as a source of life energy. Apparently, today's myth-tellers just left out the blood and kept the energy, while modernizing their vocabularies with New-Age non-senses. Do you see as we get far more away from the scientific understanding of energy? Not mentioning that there are simpler explanations for the so-called vampirism (just like they are there for the old-fashioned vampires).
(2) So, as physical energy claims fail to hold, the second option is to describe the alleged seduction energy as non-physical energy. It is the pseudoscience deception that's well known from CAM (complementary and alternative medicine). As such, it is dangerous as it makes, may be a small, yet a constant pressure to accept CAM non-senses as valid concepts. Especially, I'm worried when they present it exactly the same way as CAM does. This enforces belief into miraculous properties of a non-existent, pseudoscientific energy. Let me remind that this causes a collateral damage, such as:
- Alleged non-physical energies cause no physiological changes. They heal nothing. You may just feel like being healed. This is entirely about the placebo effect. As a result, you may decide to seek a medical care, when it is too late.
- It may result into long-term, unnecessary financial expenses, if you pay for it. Note that it is possible to spend the money in a better way.
- It is unethical as it perpetuates false hopes, while it heals nothing. Do not get me wrong – if there's no hope, it's OK to ignore it somehow. However, if there was a chance and you've missed it because of alleged energy, then it's a different story.
Based on my observations, I realized that an energy-talking seduction guru is quite likely to be involved in a pseudoscience business. At least, guru claims left me with this: such guru does not care about matching his claims to proven facts (especially when logic and the science contradict his claims), while presenting the claims as being proven. Thus, I consider guru advices as a pseudo-psychology and pseudo-psychiatry. Be aware, because it plays with your mind. There are no physiological damages to be seen, or sensed as a clear warning. And on top of it, a believer just doesn't see the danger and a con-artist will simply lie to you.
I hope that it's needless to say that a non-existent energy cannot get you a girl. If you attribute your success to such energy, you are wrong. The real success comes from knowledge. Knowledge you have not, most probably, got from a pseudoscience guru. It is far more realistic to assume that you've learned something new with each rejection, until you finally made it to a date. Just be self-confident enough to keep the credits you've earned and deserve for yourself.
Let us draw a line between realistic assumptions and between dangerous non-senses. Especially, when it comes to non-existent energies, which are so close to alternative medicine.
15. It does not matter what you say, but the way you say it
First, let me make a review of the following text. I split an interaction with a woman into two parts, according to the discussed saying. First one goes for body language (the way you say it). The second one goes for word selection (what you say).
To say that it does not matter, what you say, but the way you say it, it means that the second part is more difficult to be done correctly, than the first part is. So, we can say that the second part is supposed to have greater complexity, aka decision or computational costs.
I consider an existence of two functions, one per each part of the saying. First function gives words to say; second function gives the body language. Then, I show that the first part, the word selection, has actually greater complexity than the second part - the body language. So, I show that this particular saying does not hold, because it contradicts reality.
Well, the review is done.
So, let us a make a little detour into the computer science. There's a so-called big O notation. It states computation costs for a given algorithm. The higher number it is, the costs are greater. The costs depend on number of input parameters.
Regarding the body language, we need just one good body posture to contribute to making of a good impression. Let us take an example: do we talk to at least one woman? True or false? If true, let us take the appropriate body posture. Otherwise, false, the body posture does not matter. Such algorithm has O(1).
Okay, some may object that we can use some sophisticated acting show to increase the complexity (on a purpose). However, such objection is not valid, because we can accomplish our goal with the O(1) complexity algorithm for the body language. Anyway, the complexity would not get higher than the complexity for the world selection, as there's a finite set of input parameters, which are identical for both algorithms.
In one sentence, woman tells us n words. To react properly, we need to analyze all the words – the least possible complexity is O(n). In fact, we would need to count a size of large piece of previous communication. So, the complexity is higher, because we deal with an adaptive algorithm.
Okay, now we have a math proof that it is harder to think up, what to say, than how to say it. Therefore, it is a non-sense to say that it does not matter, what you say.
Wanna proof? No matter how you would say to me that the previously discussed energies of seduction gurus exist, you will not convince me without a valid, holding proof – i.e. it matters what you say, regardless the way you say it.
Just to point out that women like a certain body posture and a firm voice, it is not enough to tell that this is all what it takes. Also, showing the myth on trivial examples, such as Hello vs. Hi, is wrong, because there's no significant difference between these greetings.
There is a more complicated example available. Consider two guys, which found they've got brand new antlers. One of these cuckolds is looser without self-respect; second one has some self-respect. Each adulterer tried to present her treachery in the best light, as if nothing wrong happened. They used all the smiles and a nice tone of voice. Looser gave her another chance, the second one did not. Why? Remember, if you would like to derive significance of words from such situation, you need to realize that it cannot be done. Both outcomes were given by personalities, before the adulterers started talking.
Any expert handbook on social engineering would confirm my conclusion. It's just not enough to look good and behave friendly. You need to say the right words as well. Btw, I know there is a saying that words account just 7% out of 100% of communicated message. Actually, this was never proven. Even the author of 7% did not interpret his findings this way.
Consider a lonely guy, who does not approach girls, because he still thinks about what to say to minimize the chance of rejection. If you would implant him a false belief that words do not matter, you would get him to approach the girls. And this is the real problem with the pseudo-psychology motivation – the consequences.
16. Myth Debunking
A myth may be classified as trivial, virtual or elaborate.
For example, a myth stating that look does not matter is a trivial one. Anybody finds some people unattractive. So, everybody knows a counter-example that disputes this myth. Also, such myth is virtual one, since everybody knows the counter-example. So, the actual myth is that the alleged myth exists. But that's what you are not being told...
Virtual myth is a useful tool for a deceiving guru, who tries to pretend his proficiency. Since the fundament of virtual myth does not exist at all, you are free to come up with whatever you imagine. Virtual myth may be elaborate one as well.
I consider myth number 2 as elaborate one.
In addition, while debunking a myth, the debunking itself may be contaminated with misleading terms, half-truths and other forms of psychological manipulation. People like simple answers and articles named like "5 accidental mistakes that can ruin your date". Deceiving gurus know this as well. They know how to get your attention. So, be on alert.
The merit of the get-attention trick is that people want to hear a simplistic answer, even when there's no such answer. While a scientist insists on valid, but complex answer, people turn to a con-artist that gives false, but simple answer. And when the con-artist gets the attention, he starts to create an appropriate bunch of non-senses to justify his false answer. Let us consider the following two examples:
First example, how soon should I answer her sms? Well, it depends on what she wrote and what happened between the two of you. For example, if you quarreled a little about something and she says she is sorry, there' no point to wait about two hours. If she asks about something that is not urgent, you do not need to answer immediately. And some sms do not even need to be answered at all. So, it really depends. However, you may get a simple answer to e.g. always wait two hours before responding – be it an advice of a con-artist, or an incompetent advisor.
Second example, should I eat more vitamin E? Yes, if you have an adequate shortage of it (in general, this is quite unlikely). But, if there's no shortage, do not. Vitamin E dissolves in fats, so there are health risks because of overdosing. However, non-practitioner of science-based medicine would happily recommend getting more vitamin E, because it has allegedly (and wrongly) no side effects, only possible benefits. That's allegedly because vitamin E helps to align flow of jing and jang energies (or whatever alternative non-sense you like).
The phenomenon of deceiving debunk is well-known from the field of alternative medicine. Despite a solid and holding evidence, there is a plenty of so-called debunks, which prove scientific medicine to be wrong – allegedly. It really does not matter, if we talk about dating, medicine, or something else. They built on luck of understanding of scientific method and the topic by an ordinary man. Quite often, yet not limited to, they utilize emotional context [144] and make appeal to ignorance [84] by personalized stories instead of providing real evidence*. Another popular approach is fear injection, e.g. by describing even a helpful process in such manner so that it sounds terribly to a laic, because he has no expert knowledge on the topic. Some of these "debunks" are even signed by doctors of medicine (perhaps, doctors just technically by diploma they received several years ago). It's a shame and as I said already – be on alert.
Sometimes, you may see an advice that contradicts itself; it's inconsistent with other advices; it's obviously wrong, or it's just an outrageous lie. And on top of it, you can see as there are people, who reason that the myth-teller is doing good job by giving such advices. As their position is not based on logic, you've just encountered a belief that fuels the myths and cons.
It is possible to fake myth debunking as well as the myth itself.
*The girl suffered from cancer and her parents saw her dying before their eyes. As they were desperate as the science doctors were unable to help, they came to me. I instructed them to feed her with a specific herb tea only. After two weeks, the girl got her health back. Not only there is no real evidence that this ever happened, yet the girl would die quick and painfully with such diet (as she would have no painkillers and no food).
In dating, one could say: Follow my advices exactly, learn from her responses and you will get a date in less than 30 days, even if you are a beginner. All you need to do is to instruct (and make to obey) the beginner to approach a sufficient number of girls. Since you already gave him instruction not to repeat anything that girls did not like, he will get a date just because of the number of approach girls. There is no magic, nor expert-ship behind this. Just the problem that beginner might have adopted a number of non-senses from you, since he believes you anything now, because you got him a date, allegedly. In fact, it was his credit to get the date. So, for the third time – be on alert. It is easier to pretend to be an expert than you might actually think.
Picture: Leslie Nielsen and Lysette Anthony as Count Dracula looking at Lucy's sexy throat, while he did not need to say much... Taken from the movie "Dracula – Dead and Loving It".
Regarding the personal experience and subjective feelings, there is a phenomenon called Phantom pain. People experience signals, such as the pain, which are related to a limb that is no longer a part of body; e.g. thanks to an amputation. Generally, the effect is called Phantom limb sensation. Not limited to, the sensation can be a feeling of touching, heat rising, pressure and itchiness. Do you see? These are the same signals, which people report, when they suppose they feel some pseudoscientific energy such as Reiki. Therefore, personal experience does not prove Reiki, because people can feel the same effects without the alleged reiki energy.
Okay, some people experience these sensations regularly, on Reiki sessions. It is possible to explain this with a conditioning – the Pavlov reflex. Instead of having a salivating dog, we just have a believer in Reiki and the session is the trigger.
To prove Reiki, we would need a device that would measure the energy. Such device would not have a brain and therefore would not be prone to the phantom sensations like a human is. So far, no device has ever measured the reiki energy (so credibly as e.g. ammeter measures the electric current). Perhaps, as a consequence, reiki devotees insist that their energy is non-physical. Therefore, we cannot measure it with a physical device. However, available evidence supports a much simpler theory – reiki energy does not exist at all.
With Reiki, we are asked to believe that a reiki master* absorbs a cosmic/universal/life/etc., reiki energy. Then, he channels it allegedly to a patient’s body. Regarding the energy, a description about supposed effects is available. However, I never found an explanation on how the channeling is done. Therefore, I consider the Reiki explanation as vague and a red light flashes on, because I am aware of the Forer effect, aka Barnum statements.
*Reiki master can be a man or a woman. Just for simplicity, the following text uses man. Principles of given arguments apply to any healing method that utilizes a pseudoscientific energy.
To me, it’s quite interesting that I really saw no explanation or instructions on the channeling. Reiki masters just keep on telling us that they pass the information personally. So, it’s kinda strange that with so many friends of Reiki, no one published the information yet. Statistically taken, the probability of leaking the secret grows with the rising number of the friends. Is a Reiki master a true-believer into a pseudoscientific energy, or a con-artist that is well aware of the real nature of Reiki? What could we find behind the proverbial curtain of mystery?
Consider a photovoltaic energy source. It collects Sun-emitted energy to channel it as an electric current into a power grid. Such description is vague in the sense that it does not give details. However, it is very well known that there is a detailed theoretical explanation available and that it corresponds with the available evidence. Perhaps, once we would start looking for more examples of such channeling, they would appear altogether with a scientific explanation and evidence. For example, a chimney channels smoke from the fireplace. Actually, smoke rises up thanks to the heated air. To heat the air, it is necessary to give it some energy. Thus, the chimney actually channels a thermal energy.
Looking at such examples and considering the Forer effect, I do not wonder that people accept vague statements about the reiki channeling. Since the statements are vague, people try to complete them on their own. In the process of subjective validation, they supply what is necessary to trick them into the reiki-belief. To cite Ian Rowland [84]: "If you know how the deception works, then you cannot be deceived by it. If you do not know, then you can."
In addition to the explained psychological trickery, there is a medical, evidence-based scientific research on Reiki [142]. It states that within randomized clinical trials, none of Reiki claims has been proven. Thus, we are left with a reasonable explanation that Reiki’s placebo effect "heals" by the power of suggestion [96]. Today, there is even no reason to suspect the placebo effect to have an important clinical effect in general [143]. It just affects the patient-reported outcome.
I found it almost possible to disprove Reiki in terms of the classic physics. Any mass, such as human body for instance, can hold only a limited amount of energy. Adding of more energy produces a waste heat. Over-heating human body leads to hyperthermia. Since Reiki masters do not usually die because of hyperthermia, we would inevitably face such rhetoric that the amount of added energy is not measurable by the classic physics. So, let’s move to the quantum physics directly. You know, many CAM healers are quite fond of using the quantum physics terms to support their claims. Actually, it turned out it be a very elegant approach to object the Reiki in the field of quantum physics.
There is a so-called principle of duality. It states that a mass exposes particle and wave behavior. We can say that a human body is a set of organized particles. For the energy channeling to happen, the body must accept the energy first. One possible way is a particle interaction – for example, a fermentation of the Sunday lunch. Or, there is another possibility to add energy as a wave. For example, sun light is composed of photons and it is a wave. Sunstrokes and sunburns prove photon-delivered energy.
So, what would happen, if one of the human-body particles would receive an additional energy? Per say, somewhere on your elbow? It would affect its neighbor particles immediately. The propagation of energy would change accordingly to the particle’s neighborhood. There is only way a brain can learn about this. It is a subsequent interaction of particles from the elbow up to the brain. I would say that it is quite clear that the brain would learn about it far too late to affect anything. Note that it goes for reiki master brain as well. To make the point, we talk about the fact that the energy must be buffered into the body first and that nobody has the ability to affect this process.
By showing the necessity of buffering, we hit on the Reiki concept. The concept says that reiki master does not loose his "default" energy, while channeling. Thus, he looses the buffered energy. Laws of nature do not give him any other choice, if he has to keep the "default" energy.
The law of conservation of energy says that it is impossible to create or destroy energy. While one mass receives energy, another mass must release the same amount of energy plus an additional energy to cover transmission loss. Direction of energy flow, i.e. who receives the energy and who looses it, is given by energy potentials and other things such as energy levels – see the quantum physics on wavelength. The important fact is that no brain can alter the laws of nature. When touching another body, the direction is set up long time before a brain even gets a signal that you’ve touched another body. Thus, no reiki master can control a direction of any energy flow. It is even possible that he would drain energy from his patient.
By showing that the particle interaction, especially the flow direction, does not depend on the brain, we disproved the Reiki concept.
One can meet a saying that reiki energy is intelligent. Perhaps, they faced the brain argument previously. For a human body, it is impossible to have a brain in the place of skin, so it would direct the energy flow somehow. Subsequently, did reiki masters had no other choice but to declare the energy as intelligent – aka self-directing? No scientifically proven energy has such property.
Perhaps, reiki masters already heard arguments like these. Otherwise, why would they tell us that the reiki energy is non-physical? And even if it would be, it still messes up with a physical body. So, it has to start to obey the laws of nature at some point. Thus, the presented arguments apply.
Various presentations of Reiki exist, this is the common foundation of all those I saw. Particular variants differ in the amount of deployed psychological-manipulation techniques to persuade people into believing in Reiki. I have never seen a proof or a plausible theoretical explanation.
Summing it up, Reiki seems to be popular thanks to the Forer effect that is supported by the strong similarity with proven physical effects. Despite its long history, Reiki fails to give plausible theoretical explanation and evidence for its claims [142]. Reiki succeeded only as a proof of the power of suggestion and conditioning, which can result into a reporting bias [143]. Under such circumstances, there is an associated risk of buying into something that does not exist. This may range from a continual stream of financial expenses to rejecting a medical care that is really needed.
Reiki just make some people to feel like being healed.
No credible evidence given for physiological effects.
Picture: Good-bye Reiki
Once upon a time, a man asks: what the inner game actually is? It is a concept used not only*, yet extensively by the Pickup seduction community and there is no plain answer to it, or a definition of it. Generally, there are two possible answers available:
- A description on how the inner game manifests in person's behavior – the so-called outer game. It is like staying calm, being self-confident, having relaxed body language, etc. whatever you desire to be. In this case, the manifestation of inner game is given explicitly.
The catch is that you don't know whether a person has "a good inner game" for real, or if it is nothing more but a fake. The latter one is not Pickup, it is Social engineering – a real science. - Alternatively, it is a description of rules on how to behave. For example, if you take some time to react to a disturbing situation, you appear as calm to the outside world. In this case, the manifestation of inner game is given implicitly.
The catch is that you don't know whether a person has "a good inner game" for real, or if the person just follows some advices. The latter one is not Pickup, it is Psychology or Psychiatry – real sciences. Your parents and life experience are sources of such advices as well.
Having the inner game manifestation described explicitly, or implicitly, we still don't know what it actually is. However, we see that referring to a real sciences creates an illusion that the merit of the inner game is something known.
But wait, how do we know that the inner game is even possible, if we are given just the description of its manifestation? We do not know, we can only believe without evidence. A number of other principles cause the same manifestation. Anybody can fit something onto a vague term thanks to the Forer effect and subjective validation. Both are tricks used in a psychological manipulation.
Let me explain with a comparison to a real mental skill. May be, it won't be a pleasant flashback for everybody, but try to remember a written exam from math. By the way, it applies to grammar, history, etc. as well. A question number one: what is necessary to pass a written exam? Is it to understand the discipline? Not necessarily as you can cheat and dupe the teacher.
- Taking it explicitly, if you fake it by copying your desk-mate correct answers, you can pass the exam. The social engineering, a real science, wins. If you manifest "a good inner game" just by writing onto a paper, you will not win. Pickup loses.
- Taking it implicitly, if you learn the math theories (grammar rules, historical dates, etc.), you pass the exam. A real science wins. Otherwise, the inner game relies on a fluke that you will guess the correct answers out of a thin air – an intuition. This way, you will not pass the exam. Pickup loses.
One should note that it is possible to identify an optimal social interaction using math, so the math is not an irrelevant comparison here. The respective branch of math is called The Theory of Games.
Reviewing the evidence, I see the inner game as a pseudoscientific concept. Also, one should note a strong similarity with the scientific terms of mental health and mental hygiene. However, the difference against real science does not prevent the inner game from having a persuasive presentation and a number of believers. Rebranding of scientific achievements as (not only) Pickup's fruits contributes to the misunderstanding.
The point is: if you see a guy that is attractive to women, there is no need to assume some spiritual, pseudoscientific inner game. While such guy does not necessarily realize it, he derived some rules from his experience with women – intelligence. Also, we can assume that he took some advices from an external source – extelligence.
As you learn "inner game" and it works, your brain actually learns procedures and facts. As a result, you don't stand baffled before a woman any more. Yet, some people just tend to see some inner game instead of a rational explanation.
All that blisters is not gold – Shakespeare, 1597
Non teneas aurum totum quod splendet ut aurum – Alanus De Insulis, 1280
Picture: A poster to The Comebacks movie with a subtitle "Keep your eye on the ball".
11. Law of Attraction
Well, there is a number of different laws of attraction. In this particular myth, let us take a look at the false belief that exposing of particular traits attracts opposite sex with the same traits. It means, be funny and you'll draw attention of another funny person. The same goes for look, smiling, kind hearting, opinions, education, etc.
People consider this so-called law as valid, because e.g. educated people draw attention of other educated people. For instance, university professor meets another university professor on a daily basis. But hey, do not forget the selective thinking. Because, you'll see a serious flaw in this law then. Tell me, does our fellow professor, e.g. on his way to his office, meet university professors only? No way.
Do robbed people run in the night through parks, while robbing other citizens? Who, presumably, robs there as well :-) As you can see, it really is a non-sense, nothing but a wishful thinking. Men, be glad this "law" does not hold. Otherwise, you would need to become women first in order to get yourselves at least one. And what would we do with so many lesbians, thereafter?
Okay, you may object that the law does not state that you will meet people with given traits only. So, let's get back to the professor thing. On a daily basis, he also meets other university stuff that does not have bachelor's degree at least. And do you know what is interesting about this? They meet other stuff without bachelor's degree as well as they meet professors. See? I've just changed input condition to the opposite and nothing has changed on the output.
Common interests are not the law of attraction. While common interests play a role in a relationship, the "law of attraction" does not hold.
12. Radiate Positive Energy
Think for a moment, what is this positive energy? As Albert Einstein proved, E=mc2. So, energy is a property of matter. Half of the mystery is solved. But, what about the positive?
Speaking strictly on behalf of physics, where energy rightfully belongs, positive and negative have no meaning, unless you define a system, in which they denote a direction of energy flow. Ever heard about vectors and gradients? For instance, (negative) energy emitted from sweating body goes away from the system – the body. And (positive) energy from Sun is absorbed by the body and triggers body's cooling mechanisms – sweating, i.e. (negative) energy flow. Altogether, we've just described a part of body's energy interaction with its environment. And it happened in accordance with valid laws of physics.
The trick is that positive, or negative, is given by the direction – i.e. the gradient. Thus, it is an oxymoron for any mass (human body including) to radiate, i.e. to emit, positive and negative energy simultaneously. Also, it is a total non-sense, within a given system, to say that one mass emits positive energy and that another mass emits negative energy simultaneously, while their gradients agree on emitting, or absorbing.
Okay, the previous paragraph might have been too theoretical for some readers. So, what about an example? In practice, mainly energy healers and some self-improvement gurus insist that one person radiates positive energy, while another radiates negative energy. And, some even claim that both variants are possible for a single body. Since every human body obeys the same laws of physics, their claims are false. At the moment, I have no positive words on what they commit in the name of energy.
In dating, the positive energy is nothing but a distorted physics. You can be sure that dating gurus, which speak about positive energy, have very little knowledge of physics. Moreover, you can assume they even have some serious shortcomings in the dating field as they use such vague and misleading terms instead of formulating precisely. Of course, the bad guys mislead you intentionally for a profit, possibly drawn from your wallet.
By the way, there is a phenomenon, called Casimir effect, when two plates are attracted together. Interestingly, negative energy is required for this to happen – i.e. to create the attractive force. So, you should, in fact, radiate negative energy:-) But such advice would not sell as good as positive radiation advices do.
To radiate positive energy, it usually means that you should think positively, smile at girls, be funny, etc. Sure, it helps, but alone it is guaranteed as much as the previously discussed law of attraction is.
Some myth-tellers leave out the word "positive". So, there is a number of therapies, courses and self-improvement procedures so that you can increase amount of energy to radiate. But wait a moment, why should I want to do that? As the law of attraction does not hold, it remains a mystery to me. Nevertheless, some people say it possible and profitable, and some people buy it.
The following paragraph does not cover the topic completely, yet it covers what you are being promised most of the time – significantly increased level of energy.
If you feel more energy, just because you smile more, then you are under a spell of some psychological effect. Because, if that would be a physical effect, it won't be so funny. As long as human body temperature is higher than environment's temperature, human body radiates energy in a form of a waste heat. To increase amount of radiated energy, it means to increase amount of the waste heat. It means that body temperature will be rising, because you are warming it up. As a direct effect, the body will try to cool itself by sweating. The trick is that sooner or later, this constant energy addition will overcome possibilities of the cooling mechanism. In such case, you will experience behavior change, spasm and finally, death. In medicine, it is called hyperthermia.
It's funny, how many "proven truths" fall apart once exposed to facts.
Picture: In Mel Brook's Young Frankestein movie, Gene Wilder as Dr. Frankestein, Peter Boyle as The Monster and Teri Garr as Inga. Notice Inga's attraction drawn by The Monster. Perhaps, The Monster radiates some positive energy from a lightning? :-)
- Forgotten in a week
- Frustrated men
- Horror movie
- Those women are better
- The word "date"
- The right tool
- Scientific level
- Seduction gurus
- Negs
- Average values
Dating myth is an erroneous misconception that is being uncritically passed on as a truth. Such myth usually lacks supportive evidence, or the counter-evidence is ignored. The latter one could be done on a purpose for a financial gain as well as a result of strong belief in particular myths.
This article presents my own opinion on listed myths and therefore you can consider it as my personal disillusion, if that would help you feel better. To say it explicitly, I do not deny the possibility that there is (or was, or will be) at least one true seduction expert out there, who fairly promotes precisely formulated and accordingly working seduction technique. But I leave it on your personal judgment to decide for yourselves, which one he is (or ones they are).
Self-deception could be developed without being intentionally manipulated into it by somebody else. Therefore, I do not declare anybody as a deceiver. I've just happened to have a different opinion. Some extrapolation has been also involved.
1. She will forget you, if you don't call her within a week
Have you ever forget someone you like in a week? Most of us still remember our first love. If she has positive interest level, she won't forget you. Moreover, some discussion forums features a question "Why did not he call me the whole week?" that is asked by women. How could she ask, if she would not remember him?
Not to call for a week has some advantages and therefore you might be instructed to do so. At least, you will learn how much she is interested in you and what her world looks like. If you do have a life, you might have a program for the week as well as she might have one. This might be true as well as it may be nothing more but a plot as the difference cannot be usually told right at the beginning. Such plot helps to establish perception of high social value – see myth number 9.
However, some men are not sure about her interest level, so they are compelled to call her soon [2]. Some men feel lonely, so they are compelled to call her soon. Some men have low self-esteem so they actually believe that she will forget them in a week. So they are compelled to call her soon. Some men love to get mushy and this could be a self-deception to justify the idea of calling her ASAP. Perhaps, we could come up with more alternatives including the one, where men are convinced that the delay simply does not matter to a significant extent.
You should not wait exactly one week, but you should realize that you cannot force her to like you more just by seeing her more frequently. In such case, the opposite would be the likely outcome. Actual timing depends on what happened between the two you.
Note that the cca week pause applies to phone only. Facebook, ICQ, e-mail, etc. do not have this important property: telephone number gives the impression that you are not going for a friendly relationship. It suggests that you are going "for a kill" (date, romance, sex, and may be more). Therefore, she might rationalize that you're an attractive, but a busy man, if you don't call her ASAP. As a result, some women even call, or send SMS, sooner than you do – if they have positive interest level in you.
With a long term relationship and common living, you see each other on a daily basis. Therefore, with the week pause we have to be talking about the beginning of a relationship – i.e. the first dates.
2. Most men are frustrated by their affairs with women
This saying is usually accompanied with a list of what you could be. Expressively, it states how much good you could be with women. Take a look at any seduction school's offer to get an idea, if you've never seen one. Inversely, the list features your shortcomings, previous disappointments, delusions and rejections. Therefore, they are able to recall sad memories, after which you are confronted with an incredible offer not to ever go through such pain again. Here you are already being psychologically pressured. Any normal man ever loved a woman, was rejected and almost died on the desire to get her back. It is normal to recall past frustration with such memories, especially if you are alone at the moment.
Visual sense is significant to men [45]. Have you noticed as these lists are usually accompanied by e.g. number of hot looking women? For instance, along a general (and vague so that anybody fits in) analysis of your present situation, we can start with a decently and good looking girl, wearing a warm smile. Later on, as we can get to the promise of getting her somewhere, where you will enjoy some privacy, we would deploy another image to drive you crazy on a purpose. Just imagine her. 
So tell me, did I need any proof to get you interested?
Therefore, you very likely feel some frustration at this phase. You've either recalled some past frustration, or you are frustrated anyway. And here goes the next trick. You do not consider your present situation to be known to the myth-teller in advance. For instance, when you read a book that is already few years old. Thus, when you are presented with a statement on your current situation and you find the statement to be true (which you will on the frustration), then you are highly likely to assume that the myth-teller is right. And as he is assumed to be right at this point, he is subsequently assumed to be right at other points as well. Such thinking is OK, since you cannot go through life and suspect everyone of deceiving you. But in fact, the statement could either have sufficient statistical probability only, or it cannot be ever proven wrong – see later in myth number 5. The point is that the statement does not need to be valid or holding to convince you.
As you are under a psychological pressure, you are more open to accept dating myths. The pressure distorts your perception of reality. There is no way how to guarantee that you will be loved again only and only if you accept the incredible offer. Just by looking around, we can see people getting new relationships without even knowing about these offers. And that might be the trick... These incredible offers are likely to include teaching of dating myths.
If you are able to deal with a break up and find new relationship, you are able to deal with the frustration that was caused by the rejection. Thus, until you've been confronted with the above-mentioned list, you were most likely fine. Therefore, you would deal with the artificially induced frustration over time. Since the frustration will pass anyway, it is possible to mistakenly attribute this effect to that of learning a particular seduction technique* – the incredible offer. With this last step, you've fulfilled all necessary conditions to accept the presented information as a truth. Including the belief that you would stay frustrated without the technique, which is apparently a false assumption.
Since it is too obvious, gurus are being confronted with this fact from time to time. They usually argue with helping the others, who are not as lucky as you, the skeptic. There always will be people, who have relatively little experience and especially those, who do not conform to guru's teaching exactly. None of this is a problem since particular "working" teachings deny each other, and there are fresh supplies of teenagers every year.
I'm happy for all people having dates, but I cannot help but to notice as they sabotage their own efforts by doing known mistakes. It would not have happened, if they would pay attention to my teaching.
Although, such statement might seem fair, it is absurd in the way it interprets having dates. If you would do it so wrong, you would not even have the date in the first place. If you wish so, there is always a room for some kind of improvement, but believing a dating myth will not make it. Notice, the guru acts as a multi-level marketing recruiter, who advocates the scheme by stating that most people would use more money.
*Any seduction material is most likely to remind you that you feel better, because it has explained the dating principles to you. This is related to "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" [116]. Myth number 8 and Cold Reading [84] explain how it is possible for myths to be so persuasive even without actually being correct. Few well formed sentences are capable of inducing the feeling that your problem is well known. People usually tend to assume that if someone knows the problem, he knows the correct solution as well. Especially, if the guru act kindly and confidentially [103] towards them. This is an exploit, not a holding implication. Another completion of this exploit is to state something, it could be even wrong, and then to give your situation as an illustrative example.
If the seduction technique includes dating myths and you've adopted them as truth, they might actually harm your cause. The seduction material is likely to address possible troubles as a warning that it takes some time to master the technique. In the meantime, you can de-facto eradicate most of the myths from you repertoire e.g. by trials or third party source, so the eradicated myths no longer prevent you from succeeding with women. As you can see with listed myths, particular statements cannot be ever proved wrong and therefore it is possible to attribute the overall success to the technique. Notwithstanding that you had to get rid of technique's teaching first. Without critical thinking, your imagination will let you to develop a reasoning that the technique actually works. As with cognitive disorder [111], this is a possible way to deal with irrational beliefs** such as that non-functioning technique works. This contributes to credibility of seduction gurus and their teachings – see myth 8. The only way to eliminate the psychological bias is to adhere to the scientific method. Most preferably, to use a holding math model as it cannot be deceived, or forged, with trickery. Alias welcome to the world of The Theory of Interest :-)
**The other possible way is to admit a simple fact that the non-functioning technique does not work. However, this is not always possible, e.g. because of a firm believe in the technique.
Terms such as seduction school, material, technique, or guru are meant generally as I saw people to accept sophisticated illusions and apparent non-senses as well as working solutions. Of course, sophisticated and apparent is my subjective point of view. Nevertheless for an example, enneagrams [96] are well documented, yet they are accepted as astrology [96, 112] is. It is interesting as Barnum statements and Cold Reading itself [84] are also well documented. Apparently, well documented does not stand for well known, or well understood.
3. It is easier to have sex, when you watch horror movie
This generalization is based on an assumption that she will seek protection in your arms, when confronted with a horror scene. First of all, this is an expression of a romantic desire to hold a girl you love in your arms. Second, not every girl loves horror movies. Some do, some do not. Some actually prefer movies such as Mamma Mia!, PS: I Love You, French Kiss or Sabrina. And they feel relaxed at it. Especially, when there is champagne and strawberries. Such scenario won't be a romantic projection only, but it would be a real romantic situation. However, if you'll do it all the time, it will get boring and e.g. horror movie might be the desired change. Thus, it was not the horror movie, but it was the change, what worked to your advantage.
In addition, some horror movies are just too much natural than to get her relaxed and some are just way too stupid to gross you both out. These details are also being omitted.
Once you start thinking of possible origin of this myth, teenagers might cross your mind. Such idea gets realistic especially as you consider Halloween Eve. He might have been told by his friends of this guaranteed procedure and she might have been instructed by her friends to endure the horror movie. Under such conditions, it is apparently a mating ritual and it would work because they both agreed on what will be going on, since it is a well known fact.
Although this myth is given with horror movies, we might have seen a similar myth to go on in the American Pie movie. Instead of horror movie, there was a prom night. And guys believed that chicks would do it on the prom night.
While the horror-movie ritual won't at least do no more harm than about hour and half of watching B or C class movie*, it might not turn out so well in other situations. For instance, prime A-class horror movie will not get her relaxed, if she does not suffer from a suitable deviation. But, a fine movie might be at least appreciated for its qualities. However, if she did not like it, she did not like the date either. Actually, you worsened your chances to get her on a next date. Let's hope that she still has enough of interest level to accept next one.
*Regarding horror movies, I would not say that it is better to prefer B class as C class is likely to be so stupid, so it can function as a comedy of its kind, when you both start commenting it. Once again, it is not the horror movie what raises your chances. But the horror-myth-tellers somehow don't tell us about this aspect, although one might expect them to do so, if they are as good as declared. See myth number 8.
4. Women from somewhere are better in something
Refer to Cold Reading manual [84], especially the technique called "Greener Grass".
Ratio of men to women varies with age and geographic location. The more men than women in her society, the less she needs to behave nicely. Laws of free market apply here.
5. If you would not had used the word "date", you would had the date
First of all, you might not have had the date just because she did not like you enough. This possibility is linked with the following myth.
Because of high self-esteem and moral principles, some women refuse to mislead men. Therefore, they do not go on dates, when they are not interested. If such woman considers you as her friend, she might go out with you. However, once the word "date" is used, she rejects the offer. As long as you deceive her by pretending a different motive, she might keep going out with you. However, it is a self-deception by ignoring her true interest level in you.
Sometimes, especially when they are in relationship, they might decide not to see you again once you proposed the date. This is not because of the word as this is because she previously made a bad experience with someone, who did not take the rejection well. Sadly, such behavior could be completely unfair to you as you might have no option to prove the opposite. It would be viewed as a persuading and thus you'll be classified as a man, who does not know when to stop. Aka her previous bad experience.
Another possibility is that some men act needy, or over-confidently, when they use the word "date". So, it is not the word, what lowered her interest level, but the inappropriate behavior.
Notably, this self-deception belief shares a common trait with the true believer syndrome [96, 106]. As the above given facts may be used for reasoning that it is better not to use the word "date", it is not completely illogical to believe in this myth. Once you are rejected, it is impossible to prove that it always was not because of this reason. Thus, if the myth would be correct at least one time, it could be correct several times more and therefore you can still consider it as a truth.
I remember a girl that responded with reasoning that we should not call it a date, just rather a meeting. I stood my ground and kept calling it a date. She accepted and wanted to see me again after the date. Another one was apparently delighted with the fact I used the word "date". Notice as this counter-evidence could be easily suppressed as the myth is de-facto a post-mortem analysis. Because of this and the fact that it does not explicitly deny the given scenarios, the myth cannot be proven wrong.
Anything that cannot be proven wrong cannot be tested for validity, because there is always only one result possible, no matter what the actual testing conditions are. Therefore, it cannot be considered as valid.
6. It is possible to seduce any woman, you just need the right tool
We can find this idea for instance in the Hitch movie. It completely ignores the fact you are not physically attractive to every women. Additionally, it ignores the very fact that some women are loyal and having a relationship.
The previous myth is also related to this one. Once you accept the erroneous belief that you can have any woman, there is only one conclusion left. You have not used the right tool right.
Persuasiveness of this myth comes from its notion as it resembles a statement, which cannot be proven wrong. Frequently, it is given in a more vague form with almost any woman. Let us consider a situation, when you fail to seduce one particular woman. If you would used another tool, you might have had succeed. But how to prove it, once you blew your chance? Let us consider a friend of yours, who succeeded. So, he either used the same tool but the right way, or he used a different tool. Since any sane, normal woman seeks a relationship, she will eventually get seduced one day. Globally, this statement cannot be ever proved wrong. Per single seducer, it does not hold.
This myth is also available as a statement that the top seduction gurus are capable of seducing 90% of women. Any woman, no specification is given. None of available statistics was ever objectively, critically and independently reviewed accordingly to scientific standards. Next matter of interest is that seduced women shared some common traits such as they were all strippers [35]. Apparently, the top seduction guru would have a hard time to seduce 90 of 100 women, if such pre-selection would not be in effect.
At this point, let me remind you of an important psychological factor. Just in case you would consider challenging a guru. To him, there's no problem walking up to a girl you point out, and present you as a frustrated, poor negativistic guy. Once the presentation is completed correctly, she will cooperate with him just because of solidarity or feeling pity for you. This way, you made him a hero in her eyes. There always will be some believers. So, think twice, before you make deceiving guru a martyr, or another icon, with a power to influence much more people. The best way is to spread the knowledge and promote critical thinking.
Let us assume that 50% of women are in relationship and 50% of them are loyal. It makes 25%, which cannot be seduced. Thus, we are already down to 75% from 90%, and still without considering other factors. You can go outside and ask each woman, whether she is, or is not, in a relationship. Obviously, more than 50% will be in relationship. Accordingly to demographic data [32], about 30% people have one person household. Yet, they still can be in a relationship. Of course, this is not a deep analysis, but it shows the trend. Perhaps, one should sweep spinster apartments to get supportive data for this myth – the above mentioned common trait. Or, isn't there such think such as bars for singles – pre-selection? Next, if most of population would approve adultery, it would not be perceived as a bad thing. But it is actually perceived as a bad thing. Thus, both 50% hold and we can clearly refute this variant of the myth.
Apparently, 100% were obviously too much, so 90% were chosen as it looks more realistic, yet admirable by potential believers.
Another variant is a saying that 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. This particular variant comes from the Parreto principle [114]. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. With a large set of participants, there is such 50 < k < 100 that k percents is taken (generated) by 100-k percents. A popular example is made of 20% of clients, which make 80% of sales. With women, 20% of entire know-how generates 80% of total attraction. Such statement would be valid in its principle. Generally, it does not have to be 20% and 80%.
The sleeping variant seems correct without examples, if one does not understand that the word "taken" is a synonym for a word "generated" here. Aka 80% of sales are generated by 20% of clients. Aka 20% of population generated such income so they could hold 80% of Italy land. Just because there are 20% and 80%, the statement does not automatically become true as it resembles Parreto principle. That has to be backed by statistics and it's still the same situation as with the previous variant.
To cope with presented counter-evidence, there are at least two ways available. The classical one is the impossibility to deny that among all those milliards of men, there's no one who could have such success. This would be especially persuasive argument, if we would deploy celebrities. As the second way, it is a matter of what the term "seduced" stands for. Accordingly to Merriam-Webster dictionary, it stands for "to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty" as well as it stands for "attraction". As a deceiving guru, you should define the term so vaguely so that your believers can actually have feeling of achieving it, yet you would stand above them so they can still admire you. It is possible to combine both ways.
Also, this myth shows how it is possible to interpret a scientifically proven numbers to fit a given teaching. As another example, we can take 50% as the required minimum for a success. In articles "Dating Is a Game" and "Equation of Interest Level Motion", I have shown that efficiency of used strategy must be greater than 50%. To a deceiving guru, it is possible to say that you should meet at least 50% of required conditions to succeed. Such statement is vague, looks like a common sense and those 50% have been proven somehow reliably – i.e. believers and less-educated people won't go through the proof (given they know about it). In reality, number of conditions and efficiency of strategy are two distinct things. Moreover, if anybody would really use the common sense, he would know that one has to meet all required conditions. Otherwise, they would not be required. Obviously, the word "required" is problematic here. But if guru would not mark the conditions this way, it would be apparently useless to talk about them. Thus, he has to emphasis them as required by other words or context.
7. Some seduction technique is way too practical to be treated on a scientific level
Anything that works for real could be treated on a scientific level. If it works, it is possible to exactly and independently measure its output in specific numbers.
Scientific method requires tracking of used literature, precisely formed description, measured values and most preferably having a math model. This is obviously at odds with people who are trying to make money by selling you nothing. Also, it is obviously at odds with people who firmly believe in myths and worship associated gurus.
Accordingly to the scientific method, I made an experiment for myself. For some time, I observed a selected number of nicks, which were considered as a professional source of advice on dating web forums. During that time, I learnt from their public posts that some of them were not even over 18. Yet, they were giving information on things they had none, or a little experience with. For an example, 17 years old boy gave a presentation on a subject of living with two women in a single household. And no, it was not about sister, mother, or grand mother, etc. Just one nick objected by pointing out this very fact of his age. The other discussing nicks bought it as truth. The common trait for such cases was to firmly state given statements as facts, although no evidence, or proof, was given – i.e. to act as an authority [113]. It is said that men don't take advices on driving and love [2]. From this point of view, I have to say that it is a right decision. And now, consider the easiness for a skilled deceiving guru to exploit lonely people.
8. The seduction gurus are the only ones, who have the superior knowledge
Whatever might seem as a golden insight to one person, it might be nothing more but well known information to a well-educated person with high social intelligence. It is just a matter of the presentation – see [84] for a topic with the same name. Also, people using pseudoscientific jargon do appear as if they understand the topic, while the opposite might be true.
Let us try an illustrative example on using Cold Reading [84] to impersonate an expert in psychology.
A healthy, full-grown adult can be rather a quiet, long-term relationship material, but when the circumstances are right, he can be quite a life and enjoy the pleasure of one night stand.
As we can see, the statement is just right. It perfectly corresponds with the reality and no one can say otherwise. How is that possible? It is possible, because I told you nothing. I just slightly modified an example for Rainbow Ruse technique as it is given in [84]. Nevertheless, we can still improve the statement by a technique that is called Whitening in cryptography. We need to add something that looks like a reliable fact. For instance that people in love have some illusions about their partners. This is related to another technique called Fine Flattery aka making client to feel good about him self. If things go wrong, the client is simply told that his partner was not long-term relationship material. Or, that she was too rigid for one night stand. Deceiving guru just need to choose an appropriate variant accordingly to client's wishes.
Numbers of people, which are considered as seduction gurus, teach dating myths. As seen with myths 5 and 9, it is impossible to prove that a given technique did not work in all cases, so that it is possible to reason that it could work at least once. And if it could have worked at least once, it could have worked several more times and therefore one cannot rule out the technique as non-working. Although it is ill logic, it justifies ignorance of counter evidence. This is linked with myths 7 and 10, cognitive disorder [111] and pseudoscience's characteristic traits. Myths will be spread out as long as they have appealing presentation and the recipient is either not well informed, or lacks critical thinking to figure it out on his own [84]. Notably, you don't have to actually understand the topic to come up with a persuasive argument to act as an expert. All you need is an audience that is ignorant of facts and critical thinking. The more eager they are to get what your promise, the easier it is.
Skeptical research on a particular seduction technique takes days at maximum. Consequences of erroneous decisions might take years. However, skepticism has a negative connotation for some people. As seen in this article, it stands for critical, rational thinking. Such thinking allows you not to buy wishful thinking and deception as facts. On the other hand, some people may end up being happy with a firm belief in myths and super abilities of gurus. Hence the term "feel-good psychology" that is sometimes used to refer to seduction techniques. Taught myth acts as a magical mantra that bestows believer's self-confidence, which is what the likely-to become believers actually lack.
As a fame of particular teaching grows, it attracts people just because of their curiosity whether the teaching could actually work, or not. Since the teaching deals with myths, the fame cannot not be sustained for a long time. Especially with a growing number of people as the probability of attracting those with critical thinking and respective knowledge rises. There are two ways to slow fame's degradation. First one is to include, e.g. by refactoring (see myth number 9), some working stuff*. Second way is to tell people that you don't want to see them after some time- threshold. Although it might look like a guarantee of functionality, one should not omit the very fact that people with no need for mantras would dismiss the teaching in the threshold, because it simply does not work as presented. This way, a deceiving guru raises chances of having ex-members, which still perceive him as a nice and honest person, who really helped others.
*As dating myths are erroneous misconceptions, realistic claims cannot be derived from them. Such claims are the bait, which attract believers. So, the dating myths form a central dogma. Adding of working stuff will modify the teaching to a limited extent only, because a deceiving guru will not deny his central dogma. The counter-evidence will be ignored, or the guru will give alternative interpretation of the counter-evidence. It may be as simple as a plain lie, or it might involve a straw-man fallacy [116] for instance. This fallacy is based on a misinterpretation of opponent's position.
As we can see due to skeptics, who vastly come from academic ground, things are being sold, even if they do not work as presented, or they do not work at all. Thus, if something is being sold, yet it does not mean it really works. What it does mean is that a care has been taken to perfect the presentation as of a working product. This was enforced by the rules of free market to deal with competitors and freely available materials.
Since a deceiving guru cannot win over an intelligent reader with respective knowledge, he has no other choice but to quit the battle and seed doubts into hearts of those, who prefer simple statements. It might look like this:
The skeptics have so closed minds, so they would never admit the simple truth that these techniques actually work. They would rather come up with more and more sophisticated explanations, why we cannot be right.
Accordingly to Occam's razor, one could reason that we should dismiss presented opinions in favor to simpler hypothesis that the questioned teachings are actually OK. This would be indeed true, if we would just omit the counter-evidence. See Cold Reading technique called "Open Mind" [84].
To deal with skeptical insights, the false dilemma could be employed. Reader would be given a set of invalid statements to choose among them. Beside the false dilemma, the insights could be marked as negativistic, paranoid, one-sided, ignorant, full of anger, harmful or even forbidden. The last option could be carried out secretly as it would harm guru's fame in eyes of potential believers, when done publicly. For instance, on Internet, it is possible to censor comments for particular words, or to block users known for referring to opposing materials. Another possibility is the proverbial thief that yells "catch the thief" to disguise himself as an honest citizen. And the historically grateful option is "all those believers cannot be wrong". Do you remember days, when Earth was flat?
Also, a well written counter-comment might come from a so-called unprejudiced person to aid a guru. Sometimes, it's a believer, sometimes it's the guru himself.
Another deceiving strategy is to pretend adhering to the scientific method. Or, it is possible to openly say so-called public secret as well. For instance, one may point out known inconsistencies on what is being told and what is being done. Accompany it with charts, citations, etc. and the expert-feeling is here. Just by the presentation, it is not always possible to say whether it is an intended-deception, self-deception or truth. For example, a guru could acknowledge that all major techniques are great, but results are poor because of ineffective teaching methods. As there are techniques to successfully present even unrealistic claims as possible ones, you have to pay attention to the teaching itself. To reality, error stays error no matter how it is being taught, practiced or presented.
Self-help improvement is the proverbial paradise for deceiving gurus. If anything goes wrong, the guru is never guilty. It is always client's fault that he did something wrong, or did not tried hard enough to approach sufficient number of women.
9. She will like you more, if you neg her
Neg is a technique that is aimed to lower her social value, so that by lowering hers, you're relatively upping yours. Therefore, she should like you more and qualify to prove herself worthy to you. If she does not respond well, some consider the possibility that she has some complex.
Obviously, this is an attempt of manipulative technique. Basically, she has two options. First, she might explain or make some counter-comment. This is being viewed as a qualification and therefore a success – see myth number 6. The other option is to leave. Classy, intelligent lady with high self-esteem leaves sooner or later, because she simply doesn't need to put up with this.
Men tend to give her extra credit because of their high interest level in her. This includes overlooking her shortcomings such as e.g. the low self-esteem. Or they do not, sometimes perhaps intuitively rather than on a purpose, as they would get their way easily with such women. For instance, a macho might seek a woman with low self-esteem this way. And because he considers himself as a great person, one cannot expect him to admit such simple fact. However, such two people could make a pair for a long term.
Manipulation provokes negative feelings and therefore she won't feel comfortable with you [109]. Long-term wise, you cannot keep woman with high self-esteem this way. Short-term wise, it depends on how frequently and intensively you put her down. As some negs are rather insults, it might take just one to loose her, especially during the first contact.
Now, pay very close attention. You cannot put her down only. Sometimes, you have to appreciate her. Seduction technique entailing this myth teaches to do both on a purpose. Go back and forth. Bait with a promise of hope, turn away for frustration. And now, let's name it for what it is. Alternating between approval and disapproval of somebody, inducing positive feelings to replace them with negative feelings and over again, this could cause a stress. With a noble jargon, we would call it entropy as there is uncertainty involved and the term comes from science. Whether it will cause the stress, or not, it depends on mental health and IQ of potential victim, used technique and its completion. However, it is possible to force her to develop emotional attachment to you, if you put her under such pressure. And to note it for the record, emotional attachment is not necessarily love, i.e. high personal interest level. For instance, it could be pity as well (so much for being Alpha).
A reaction to such stress could be considered as an example of defense mechanism of identification, such as new born babies form emotional attachments to nearest powerful adult because of probability that he will ensure child's survival [113]. Well known example is the Stockholm syndrome. What I personally consider most dangerous of particular seduction teachings is the possibility of creating true believers, which propagate and use such kind of manipulation.
Loyalty to abuser is common among victims of domestic abuse [113]. Does it ring a bell to you, when she stays because of the forced emotional attachment? So, once you see what a game is being played with you, get away as fast as you can. Even faster and no matter how attractive or honest he looks like. That's my advice. There are already numbers of pre-prepared persuasive lines to present the manipulation in a noble light. And they know them, perhaps even believe them. Have you considered the possibility that it might not end just with few bad memories only? As these techniques are often accompanied and justified by another erroneous teaching on how to become Alpha, it would be plainly illogical to assume that such practices will cease over time. With respect to common sense and Stanford Prison Experiment, it seems to me more likely that they will become everyday part of your life, if you choose to stay.
During first dates, there is obviously not enough time to create such pressure as with the Stockholm syndrome. It would have to happen incrementally, so there is a time to recognize the warning signals and leave in time. One is likely (not guaranteed) to leave because of repeatedly feeling uncomfortable, which is one of warning signals [109]. As an example, you might be thinking that the procedure works fine during your dates, and then she left like out of the blue.
From the psychological point of view, it is also worth to consider a question of alter ego possibility. A person that feels anger and frustration from received rejections might have developed, or adopted, an alter ego that uses negs to play "you need me more, baby" superman. Beside negs, such person is likely to deploy other technique to forge an impression of high social value. Aka rich man does not need to tell he is rich. However, some of them cannot be clearly identified as a fraud, since you have no proof that presented indicators of high social value were forged. Therefore, such techniques are being used, because they work as desired. Whether it is justifiable, or not, that I leave on your personal judgment as I would have to discuss one's motives and present situation as they can be used without negs.
Unlike the proverbial dark side, a neg could be used by a person that just believes it works. The belief could have been built e.g. upon watching as it worked on a woman with low self-esteem. Or a woman with high self-esteem that was just polite, or had such high interest level that it took some time to lower it. Once again, we can see a common trait with the true believer syndrome as it is impossible to prove this in every case. Therefore, one may reason that negs actually work as desired. Additionally, such belief could have been accepted just because an authority said so [103].
Saying no when appropriate, not being a pushover, and keeping your opinion is not a neg. Playful teasing is another example that is sometimes being recognized as a neg, although it is not. While mismatch might have several reasons such as low social intelligence, or unfamiliarity with the topic, it could be also done on a purpose*. The term "neg" is connected with the fame of seduction gurus and therefore just by using it, one may try to look like an expert to others**. Interestingly, some negs and "lame sentences" are being classified as playful teasing. Such misclassifications help to establish credibility of negs and experts, who recommend them.
*Different names could have been used on a purpose as a refactoring. In this case, the term refactoring stands for presenting information acquired somewhere else and using different names, so the deceiving guru appears as the original author to attract believers [115]. Refactoring is then a tool to perform a fraud. As seen with myth number 7, citations are not desirable for deceiving gurus. However, they still can cite well known works, only to change their original meanings.
**Although we might refute dating myths, a myth-teller cannot be clearly designated as a deceiver, if he tells what he believes in.
Notice the possibility for reasoning that as long as the playful teasing works, we should not dismiss the expert just because he uses wrong name for it. In such case, you've justified why to believe a source of flawed information. This is another symptom of the true believer syndrome.
The myth about negs could be used to reason myth number 6 as a truth as no particular attitude traits are required. However, other limitations have to be ignored in order to succeed with such reasoning. This also includes the major drawback of negs – difficulty of keeping her personal interest level high. Even some seduction gurus state that long-term relationship is a different game. Apparently, there is "something" fundamentally wrong with negs.
I definitively do not say to be honest and open up to the point, when you effectively give up control over your life. But some practices looks to me like if they came right from sickos' world.
Perhaps, a long-term relationship takes more than seeing your partner as a piece of nicely packed meat to be handled with manipulation? But try telling it to a man, who was rejected with scorn, or true reasons for rejection***. So, it won't be such wonder, if his moral principles would break down. Especially, if he is attacked with a well-engineered deception. And notice, he is frustrated – see myth number 2. Do not ignore that deceiving insinuation seeds doubts. Thus, even if he was not rejected with scorn, he might start to think so under the influence of propaganda. And because of all those noble statements, he starts considering the manipulation as a fair recompense for his rejection. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Only, he has a little problem of thinking straight right now. On the other hand, he may still agree that a manipulation is a bad think, if this fact is given clearly to him. In such case, it is possible to disarm guilty feelings with a little bit of reasoning and ill logic. "As long as you can tell what a bad thing is, you won't do harm. You just make both of you happy by becoming and giving her the man she desires." So, is it clear to you now, how it is possible that a manipulation such as e.g. this myth could be considered as a good thing?
***Some people claim they will be happier with being rejected clearly as they get sick of lame excuses, when they don't catch the drift soon enough. It's simple – don't ask for things you cannot withstand. Don't blame her for excusing or radio silence, since you should already know that she deals in concrete terms, when she wants to see you. Telling a sicko to back off could be a dangerous task. So, it is better to use some excuse instead of plain facts.
Think of the power of social engineering and self-deception first, before you buy into any "sure-fire" seduction teaching that claims to make you happy. Think of the possibility, what could happen to your personality. But nothing of what is described here could not have happened to you, right? She's not necessarily the one, who will get manipulated. She might leave as she feels uncomfortable, or recognizes true nature of your game. But before you will even attempt to manipulate with her, you have to believe that the given technique is at least worth of a try. In a case of deception, it simply means you are not aware about what is going on. And asking you to give the technique some more shots (if the first one did not work) is a legitimate appeal as any working technique takes its training time. The more time you devote to the technique, the more you let them to work you. When dealing with a deceiving teaching, first to fall are people with minimum of dating experience. Teenagers don't have enough of previous experience to tell, what would happen if they would not start using the technique. Lonely people will improve their lives as the community welcomes them. Even if no woman will decide to stay with them, there will be an improvement. Thou shall praise thy guru.
10. Some claim is true for most of the population as it is based on average values
Anything has average value. And if anything goes wrong, it can be always attributed to those extremes, which were not covered by the claim. Obviously, the claim cannot be proven wrong then and therefore it cannot be considered as scientific one. This is related to myth number 7.
Moreover, having correct values simply does not imply that a correct procedure has been applied to interpret them. Just take a look above. Of course, we took the simplifying condition that the myth-creator actually used correct values. Deceiving guru, or a myth-believer, might have decided to use forged values, even if he had correct ones at his disposal.
Have you ever considered the possibility
that it's nothing more but smoke and mirrors?
PS: If this article looked to you like portraying women as the better half of mankind, exchange women with men and read it once more. Although, the article is given from man's perspective and therefore you might need to adjust few things. However, I'm sure you can handle it;-)
Picture: Blind Guardian – A Twist in the Myth
