Talk:Pickup artist/Archive 3

Please provide SPECIFIC criticms
To people who want to critique this page: Saying things like the article is "biased" or "looks like an advertisment" isn't useful unless you also provide specific criticisms or quote passages that you consider problematic. I don't have time to read the article every day, and it takes me a while to read through the entire thing and try to figure out what you consider wrong with it (your idea of "biased" might be different from mine). If you are specific, then I can just snap to the passage, see if I agree with you, and then try to improve it if I do. --SecondSight 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's basically an underhanded way of saying, We don't want this article here; please delete it. 129.174.73.132 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My edits to make the page more NPOV
I made these for a reason. So Mathmo, if you don't like them, please discuss it on the talk page before reverting them. I thought it would clear why I made those edits, but perhaps I should explain them: In general, it's imperative to avoid using seduction community jargon in the article without explaining what it means. Also, jargon has to be used from a neutral point of view, meaning that it must be put in quotations (at least the first time mentioned). If we use jargon on the page without those precautions, then it looks like the page endorses all the assumptions implicit in those terms. I removed the stuff about IN10SE's value elicitation because it was written with jargon that would be incomprehensible to most people, because it assumed the effectiveness of the techniques, and because it lacked a source (and I dislike red links; if it is possible to write a properly sourced article on IN10SE, it might be best to do so before the page discusses his theories). Also, while writing the page, we have to pretend that it's unclear whether seduction techniques work or not; the page must be neutral about whether they work. That is why I changed "negs serve various purposes" (which would imply that negs are successful towards those purposes) to "negs are intended for various purposes". I know these rules are a pain, but this is how the game is played on wikipedia. --SecondSight 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bit curious as to why you mentioned me specifically by name? Not as if I've had any trouble with your edits now or in the past, or you with mine? If so, sorry and I haven't noticed them before? Although there was the removal you just made of Steele, that kind of surprised me. Anyway, I've mentioned here I've put him back him and I expect when you take a second look you will realise he should be mentioned. Not too bothered about you removing that IN10SE stuff, though something about that general stuff could be included as it was then I did think it could perhaps be written better anyway. Also remember even though you personally don't like red links, they are not fundamentally bad (rather I'd say they are the opposite, and red links are essential to the growth of wikipedia). Mathmo Talk 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned you because I thought it was you undid my attempts to make the list of techniques more NPOV. As for Steele, I had to take him out because there were no sources provided, and that is why he will have to be taken out again (I could instead use a citation needed tag, but I don't like having those on the page).  I am not sure of Steele's connection to the community, either.  We need sources documenting this.  I've heard of him, but not actually as a member of the community.  We need evidence that he considers himself a member, and that he has been influential. --SecondSight 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than reverting back the mention of IN10SE stuff once, I doubt I've ever been in disagreement with your edits? Generally I think we are working in the same kind of direction. As for that bit about IN10SE's stuff, you seem to feel about it much more strongly than I do so might as well leave it out (I'm only slightly leaning towards including it as it was written). As for Steele, if you check out the links in the very same section that he is mentioned you will see that he is mentioned in them. Thus there is no need to include even more links into the section, will start to cram it up. But... if you really really really want to know more about him (such as you wondering if even considered himself part of the community) then I could probably rustle up some more stuff such as his original website and his postings to Usenet etc...  Mathmo Talk 11:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanded controversy section
I expanded the Media Coverage section, and renamed it "Controversy" to better reflect its content. I found some articles with criticism from feminists, and included those. In a couple places, bloggers are cited, but I only include quotes that already appear in news articles. I put in external links to the blog posts so readers can go verify the information and see the quotes in their original context. --SecondSight 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That change of name seems like a good idea, after all it wasn't generic media coverage. Plenty of that is included in the references etc... rather that section was entirely of negative coverage in the media which is aimed against what they are doing, hence "controversy" does sound like a much better title for it. Mathmo Talk 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the practies it looked like a walktrouh and was totaly pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.107.137 (talk • contribs)
 * Walkthrough?? Not so at all, it is a useful part of the article hence I'm restoring it. Mathmo Talk 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy the Strauss promotion
The intro paragraph seems highly specious to me. The idea that Mr. Strauss, because he's had a temporarily popular book out, brought this concept to major public attention strikes me as absurd self- or loyal-fan-promotion, since it is almost blindingly obvious that the idea actually hit the public consciousness with force after the release of the movies Hitch and Wedding Crashers (and even Magnolia, to an extent, though Tom Cruise's character wasn't quite in this vein), and a followup epsisode of CSI:Miami (I think; they show so many CSI reruns these days, I sometimes get the three shows mixed up). I'm going to flag this with Dubious as to the claim, not as to the fact that Strauss is an author, though I honestly think a Disputed or other major cleanup template is actually more in order. The bias seems funky-strong to me, especially given that Strauss is used as an allegedly reliable source later, the article gets into guilt by association fallacy by pointedly mentioning Mitnick connections, etc., etc. This whole article needs a lot of work, really. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit contains some good points that could be worked into the article. While surely the publication of The Game is had a very large impact on the visibility of the seduction community there are those other lesser factors you mentioned. I'll cut out a word from the sentance you tagged, but I'll leave changing the rest of the article for later. Mathmo Talk 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is without merit. This article is about the *community*, not about dating coaches or some random guys with rules on how to meet chicks at parties. I think the simple metric would be: did membership of the community massively increase after any of these events you note? Answer: only after Neil's book came out - the London 'group' for example went from ~250 registered users to ~1800 in the months after the book came out. I think you'd find similar trends in any other community group. 132.185.144.15 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, The Game almost certainly had the biggest single impact. But numerous other coverage also undoubtedly had their effects too. Mathmo Talk 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is so crazy about the idea that a guy who wrote the first book on a subject for a popular audience brought that subject to public attention? If you look on Google trends, searches for "pickup up artist," "Neil Strauss," "Mystery Method," and "Ross Jeffries" (but not"David DeAngelo") dramatically increase around the end of September 2005, right when The Game was published, so clearly it made a splash. Neither Hitch, the Wedding Crashers, Magnolia, or CSI:Miami mentioned the seduction community explicitly.  Strauss' book did.  None of those things explored the outlook and practices of the community in any detail.  Strauss' book did. In fact, the only reason that many people know that Magnolia, Hitch, etc. were related to the community was because of The Game, or news articles and reviews relating to The Game.  After The Game came out, a lot more news articles related to the community, usually centered on The Game, appeared.  I did most of the research for this page and found most of the sources for it.  References on the community before the The Game were usually sparse, but became more common after the publication of The Game.  This article certainly does need a lot of work, and it would help if people would be specific on what they think can be improved. --SecondSight 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Section
I'd like to add a section about the community moving more mainstream. Salient points I want to make are: Mystery's upcoming VH1 show, VAH being taken on by a large reputable publisher, and the fact that main-stream brands are starting to advertise in the community (I note the PU podcast guys have been given iPhone's by Apple to offer as prizes, and I've heard through the grapevine that they'll be running RightGuard(!) ads soon). Anyone think of any other particularly good examples? I'd love to use the alleged film of The Game, but I have doubts on if that'll ever see the light of day, tbh. WoodenBuddha 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of that sounds good. Btw, why do you have doubts that the movie will see light of day? --SecondSight 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Neil purchased the rights back? As such it would appear production is moving backwards rather than forwards. Mathmo Talk 13:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another good example is Wayne and Johnny's tv series (Seduction School) with those three guys (tall, short, and fat guy). Mathmo Talk 13:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another example: Let the Game Begin. This movie is in post-production and it looks like Zan Perrion is in it playing himself. I don't know what this movie is about, but I don't think this is Neil's movie. Or is it?


 * More info: yahoo movies news at feverpitch buddytv.com The evidence is all saying this movie is for real. Can't see any link with Neil Strauss. This must be a different movie to his one. Mathmo Talk 22:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this looks like the real deal. Here is the movie's MySpace page with a mention of Zan in the synopsis, as well a picture of him on the set with Adam Rodriguez and the other main actor. There's also an extensive video montage of the movie.
 * Thanks, looks interesting. I'd say sometime in the near future we would be able to make an article out of this from the increasing amount of information available. Mathmo Talk 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thesis from University of Texas
Picking Up and Acting Out: Politics of Masculinity in the Seduction Community Mathmo Talk 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mathmo, is this published yet? Where did you find it? --SecondSight 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An american friend pointed it out to me, it would be in the University of Texas Library I presume (I know in NZ the university is required to have a copy of all the thesis's by their students). Mathmo Talk 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
It seems that this article is too much biased in favour of the views expressed by "The Game". The existence of communities of people who excange information about seduction and practice it massively may be a noteworthy phenomenon, but this article doesn't seem to offer good coverage of it.

The article seems to merely present the language and the positions of a few, self-proclaimed, pickup gurus, without providing information about the possible validity of those claims, the actual extent of the phenomenon worldwide and its prevalence in different geographical locations and ethnic and social groups.

In fact, the article claims that there exist a "community", albeit loosely organized and fragmented, rather than possibly multiple communities of people holding different views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * What exactly is your point.... because there is nothing strange about about stating the observation that within a community there could exist various sub communities of various views. For instance inside the community of runners there are varying views on ways to train etc....  Mathmo Talk 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to cover the various views, if any. It seems just focused on "The Game" and little else.
 * Thanks for voicing your concerns. One reason that information on Neil Strauss' The Game plays a large role in the article is that he publicized the community, and also because so much of the media coverage is centered on his book.  There are many views on the community that I would love to cite in this article, both pro and con, but I can't because they aren't written in reliable sources (and are instead in media like blogs that are unciteable on wikipedia). If you think that this article is biased in favor of the views expressed in The Game, you would need to back up this claim with specific quotes from the article.  As for "the actual extent of the phenomenon worldwide and its prevalence in different geographical locations and ethnic and social groups," I would truly love to know this information, but we don't know, because nobody has done any scientific studies on the seduction community.  The lack of that information doesn't invalidate this article. However, partly thanks to this article, some researchers are taking notice of the phenomenon (see the link to the thesis above, though I can't cite it in the article because it isn't published, at least not yet).  Another improvement would be to better describe the different schools of thought in the community, but again, this goal is constrained by the fact that some schools of thought get lots of media coverage providing us with citeable news articles, while others get none at all.  --SecondSight 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Banter
The use of banter is often suggested by the seduction community, the rationale being that sexual tension cannot exist without polarity; thus, teasing and otherwise "messing with" the person can actually create attraction. (If you just have a bland conversation about work or something, it won't create that polarity.) Captain Zyrain 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Commonalities among different seduction writers
If you've ever read The Lolita Method (by PRED), you may have noticed some similarities between it and The Professional Bachelor by Dr. Brett Tate. In fact, it was so striking that I thought it might be the same author: Maybe these are all just universal concepts for seducing chicks in the U.S., I dunno. 129.174.73.132 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both devote a considerable amount of space to bashing feminism and modern women, especially making references to their rotundity and to the undesirableness of older women;
 * Both classify females into several overlapping categories, many of which are strikingly similar (e.g. Pred's "old yeller" is similar to Pred's "the ugly girl" and there are other parallels with the sex freak, romantic artist, gold digger, etc.)
 * Both talk about the need to watch out for what her friends will say about you
 * Advising never to volunteer advice or opinions but just to humor her as she talks on and on

WAY too complicated.
This whole "pickup artist" fad has gotten way out of hand. I fail to see the difference between these "artists" and any other smooth marketing ploy. There is nothing more to this other than if you're an attractive guy who hits on every woman in site, you're going to get laid frequently. Everything else is just a ruse to remove fools from their hard-earned dollars. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.

Can someone who isn't buying into this nonsense help me discredit these charlatans?

JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpthepickupartist (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this just your opinion on the article, or are there some actual changes to the article that you have in mind? --SecondSight (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems absurd that this article would exist in an encyclopaedia... Is the objective of the Seduction Community to find a lifetime partner or to wrangle a date? Either way, it seems to be more a forum for amateurs (without a clear objective of what they are trying to accomplish with women) of superficial depth to recommend a "pickup" skill set. This online encyclopaedia is fast-becoming a tabloid for contributors of rudimentary thought... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it absurd that an article exist in an encyclopedia just because some people find it distateful? Pickup artists have a whole range of goals, from finding lifetime partners, to wrangling dates, and many more, but that matters, why? The merits of having this article on wikipedia are independent of the perceived merits of the seduction community itself. Do you have some specific criticisms of this article that you would like to share to help us improve it, or is it just that you don't like the subject matter? --SecondSight (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Added New Text
I added under controversey...

In addition to the criticism heaped on the seduction community by women, many men who suffer from involuntary celibacy and/or love-shyness criticize it for teaching men that they must change their personality to suit a woman's needs and pretend like they are someone they are not. These criticisms of the seduction community are often found on YouTube and internet discussion boards. Just like some women, these men feel that the seduction community is more appropriate for attaining one-night stands than long-lasting, meaningful relationships. Others feel that the community simply reinforces the long-standing tradition that men must initiate a relationship, a tradition that may not be justified in an increasingly complex world.

Please do not delete. I didn't delete any text to add it. I just wanted to emphasize that it's not only women who find problems with PUA.


 * Your contribution is true, but it really needs a source to be included in the article. See Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. I think it's a valuable perspective you have added, and I hope we can find a source for it so we can keep the text in the article; otherwise, it must be removed. --SecondSight (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but unfortunately, the men who decry the seduction community are still an underground movement. I just don't like how the article suggests that women are the only critics of PUA. Personally as an involuntarily celibate (I've been with a prostitute though) 25 year-old male, I find PUA just downright offensive. It tells men that there's something wrong with being quiet and introverted. PUA assumes that guys only ever act nice because they think that's what women want, but don't realize that some guys are just naturally that way. It acts as if guys who don't like to drink and party aren't worthy of women's attention. I could go on and on, but I realize this isn't a discussion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.138.61 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, we just need actual sources for those criticisms before we can mention them. But I really would like to see more male critical perspectives in the article, though we do have a couple already (though not from the standpoint of incels and love-shys). Yes, PUAs have a particular view of what women want, and they attempt to react to their perception of women's preferences. Their view of women's preferences isn't completely right, but it's actually pretty close if you look at current research on women's preferences (see some of the research I summarized in nice guy for instance). Some of the mindsets and practices in the seduction community will indeed be damaging to some men, such as incels, but in the big picture, the seduction community is one of the strongest forces fighting involuntary celibacy. --SecondSight (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can find quotes from top seduction guys themselves about problems with the seduction community. I know I've seen this stuff, I just need to remember where. Anyway, I'm on it. Camera123456 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of guys who are critical of the seduction community, or even of the idea that one should put on a different persona for dating purposes. Those who identify as "love shy" or celibate would only be a small fraction of the total. Wouldn't there be an "undue weight" problem even if published sources were found to back that up? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article please
This article really has no business being on Wikipedia. Just consider it outside the scope of what the average person wants to know or is able to process and delete it. The seduction topic is too complicated and too scientific, yet also inexact and even still nascient. I'd rather not see this information on here at all than see it oversimplified or reduced to the insulting category of "folk psychology." (Note: I do admit that the article is well written otherwise). Again, I don't need to quote sources, I'm just voicing my wish for a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.174.76 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * are you aware of what criteria is for deletion? you haven't made a case for that, plus the place for that is through AFD. Thanks though for saying the article is well written :) Mathmo Talk 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)