If (as is being claimed) the principles underlying PUA are useful for becoming the best man you can be and succeeding in all areas of life, and discussing those principles is beneficial for those reasons, and (as is also being claimed) signaling alliance with PUA alienates women and nonheterosexual men and is bad for the community for those reasons, it seems to follow that it’s a good idea to do the former without doing the latter: for example, to talk about the underlying principles as they apply to “holistic self-improvement” and “improv[ing] social relations in general” rather than as they apply to sexual attraction.
But instead I’m seeing people who endorse the first claim respond to the second claim by dropping the subject altogether.
That would make sense if it turns out that there isn’t a post’s worth of stuff that comes out of PUA research that isn’t about sexual attraction. But that would be evidence against the claim that PUA research is useful outside of that area, and I’m not seeing people updating on that either.
I tentatively conclude that the discussion has been more of a set piece than an actual exchange of positions. Which is sort of a pity, if true, though understandable.
Mating is perceived (and mostly is) a zero sum game on the level of every individual human. There is a constant evolutionary arms race between everyone and especially among the sexes in this regard.
I hope this clears up some of the psychology around this, especially why it seems so tribal or dare I say mind killing in nature.
I notice that I’m confused.
If (as is being claimed) the principles underlying PUA are useful for becoming the best man you can be and succeeding in all areas of life, and discussing those principles is beneficial for those reasons, and (as is also being claimed) signaling alliance with PUA alienates women and nonheterosexual men and is bad for the community for those reasons, it seems to follow that it’s a good idea to do the former without doing the latter: for example, to talk about the underlying principles as they apply to “holistic self-improvement” and “improv[ing] social relations in general” rather than as they apply to sexual attraction.
But instead I’m seeing people who endorse the first claim respond to the second claim by dropping the subject altogether.
That would make sense if it turns out that there isn’t a post’s worth of stuff that comes out of PUA research that isn’t about sexual attraction. But that would be evidence against the claim that PUA research is useful outside of that area, and I’m not seeing people updating on that either.
I tentatively conclude that the discussion has been more of a set piece than an actual exchange of positions. Which is sort of a pity, if true, though understandable.
Mating is perceived (and mostly is) a zero sum game on the level of every individual human. There is a constant evolutionary arms race between everyone and especially among the sexes in this regard.
I hope this clears up some of the psychology around this, especially why it seems so tribal or dare I say mind killing in nature.