Marca - SEDUCTION DOES NOT EXIST

SEDUCTION DOES NOT EXIST

Read this before you spend your money on products and seminars or even worse, before you lose a lot of priceless time in your life trying to put into practice concepts that have been made up by greedy con artists or obsessed daydreamers.

*Seduction* is the biggest SCAM played on men in history! Just like the “get-rich-quick” schemes, only this time it’s a “get-laid-quick” scheme.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying average Joes cannot pick up hot babes. It happens sometimes. Only the real process going on has nothing to do with the distortion of reality that people call “seduction”.

I am not only saying this “art” has never been proven effective. Oh no… I am saying much more… I show on this website that seduction does not exist at all. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is: I can take any bet against the seduction community. I elaborate it in “A Job for the MythBusters.”

We are discussing a worldwide movement, a multimilion dollar industry, and I am only asking for 1 (one) fair scientific experiment proving it. Just don’t tell me about a poll taken near a seduction boot camp.

PUAs use a smart trick when they are asked about scientific evidence:

These gurus point at research proving VERY GENERAL concepts like “women pursue men of high status” (we all do! If you have two identical twin sisters, with the same personality, education etc. wouldn’t you choose to enter in a relationship with the rich one??)

Of course it is not what seduction is all about. Seduction is the belief you can “create” sexual attraction in the head of a woman who previously hasn’t been attracted to you (for ex David DeAngelo frequently repeats that you can “create attraction”). This particular claim has never ever been evidenced.

As a matter of fact, you can test the effectiveness of all that seduction techniques yourself. Make an effort, don’t just go out approaching women and assuming something worked when you succeed. At least once try to verify all that seduction philosophy with a simple experiment that I describe in “Do Yourself a Favor” section.

If you believe in things like horoscopes leave this website. But if you are a rational person ask yourself the question: why hasn’t any scientist ever produced any evidence for the existence of such happening as seduction? After all, it’s a multimilion dollar industry: books, downloads, CDs, seminars sold worldwide! Renown journalists began to seriously examine the subject after Neil Strauss had released the bestseller “The Game”. The answer to this question is included in the question itself: it is a multimilion dollar business. You don’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, do you? Just like in case of seduction, horoscopes have their advocates, who publish thousands of books, run websites, even produce TV shows, although both of these ideas are beyond crap.

People have always considered love and sex as magical or divine. As always when people didn’t know how something worked they turned to magic or other superstitions. That’s why the belief in the art of seduction has its long history. Seduction patterns are just like spells in magic. It has as much to do with science, as chemistry had to do with alchemy. Pseudoscientific terms mixed with success stories without any rational connection whatsoever.

I must admit that there is a fraction of the whole seduction “science” that can be useful after you remove the ridiculous alpha male ideology. I mean all the tips on self-confidence and similar advice based on pop-psychology. But it has nothing to do with seduction itself. These “inner game” information can be found in a public library under the psychology section.

Yes, all you Wanna-Be-Casanovas heard me right: there is no such thing as seduction! Seduction is just a cultural label, nothing more.

RATIONAL THINKING

I am a “beta male”, I don’t use pick-up lines, negs, patterns nor any other techniques recommended by the pick up artists (PUAs). I am still “myself”, and I DO pick up HBs, I mean attractive women. I also DO believe many PUAs pick up (but not seduce) attractive women. I just DON’T believe they do so because of the skills they claim to have.

I DID give seduction a try years ago. It’s not like I am criticizing something I don’t know at all. I ’ve been there, done that.

That’s all about me. A lot a people take this whole topic very personally. I cannot understand it. There is nothing more annoying in a discussion than someone who criticizes the opponent instead of the opponent’s views.

I will be happy to exchange thoughts (even harsh but material arguments) with anyone who:

- focuses on the facts – it’s not like someone made up all that seduction stories, right?

- respects science – after all some even call it “seduction science”,

- and most important of all: follows basic laws of rational thinking. If you gonna say something about your intuition, karma, stuff like that, realize that in fact you are just saying: “I don’t agree with you cause I like blue, and you think red is much more better.” You are not arguing, you are just expressing what you like or dislike. Remember, there is no such thing as illogical thinking.

“Logic is the underpinnings of reason and argument. To be logical is to follow a pattern of reasoning that doesn’t contain flaws or weaknesses. A true logical debate puts forward the best possible arguments from both sides and allows the evidence to carry the conclusion rather than fallacies that appeal to attacks, emotions, or trickery.”

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic

Pick up artistry appeals to emotions and trickery. This is one example of common flawed reasoning:

Is the lawn moist?

Yes, it is.

IT MEANS => it has rained.

WRONG. The gardener could have watered the lawn.

The PUA picked up a lot of pretty women?

Yes, he did.

IT MEANS => his seduction techniques do work.

WRONG. It could have been his looks or a million other things you didn’t even think of.

Here is the TRICKY PART:

most people automatically associate that other option (the gardener in the first example) only with money or being good looking. So when those two are eliminated (the PUA turns out to be average in both financial status and looks) they reason => it must have been his skills! They simply have no clue about stuff like the „Self-Seeking Like Theory“ or maybe a million other undiscovered yet factors. The bottom line is until you PROVE IT with FAIR experiment, you cannot assume it works.

Why we accept that such fields as economy, politics, law or even sports should be understood in accordance with the laws of rational thinking, and at the same time we don’t use logic in the field of dating? For sure not as carefully as in other areas of life. Most reasoning is very shallow, very superficial: “I have seen many hot girls around this guy, so he must be successful with the babes.” Really? How successful? How did you measure it? Maybe the girls you have seen this guy with amount to just like 0,1% or less of the number of chicks that he approached last year. So his success rate is 0,1% or less!

STICK TO THE FACTS

You playas take a lot of things for granted! For ex. the player is not a stud, he scores a beautiful babe, so all guys immediately exclude “looks” as one of the reasons that accounted for his success. Hold on! You just assumed that “looks” is the same thing as “beauty.” The world we live in is much more complex. Read “Reality Check”, in particular section “Her Type.”

Short history lesson: yes, there was life on this planet before Ross Jeffries opened the Pandora box of seduction. Men hit on women all the time, and sometimes even “average frustrated champs” (AFCs as the Neo-Casanovas say) picked up beauties – ask your parents or grandparents. So next time you hear some seduction addict trying to sell you enlightening stories about his average looking PUA master who just scored a “perfect 10”, ask him how can he be so sure that it wasn’t a coincidence? How can he be so sure that his success had anything to do with his “skills”? Does he score 9s or 10s on a regular basis? Are you sure it’s not like 1 pretty babe for every 100 girls he approaches?

There is like a million things that can have influence on attraction between men and women. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? No, not the dumb teen movie starring Ashton Kutcher. I mean the scientific theory. The Chaos Theory sure works in the field of dating. If there are millions of things that may be responsible for a hurricane in US, even a butterfly in South America, then imagine how many variables are there when you are hitting on some girl? The PUAs treat this subject in a very superficial manner. They just take one element, like some pick-up line or NLP anchor, ignore thousands of others, observe what work, and come up with a seduction theory. Wow! This way I could prove a lot of Harry Potter’s spells do work!

The PUAs could ask why be so sure about genes theories? (read more in “Reality Check”) Couldn’t the Chaos Theory also tackle these ideas, as there are millions of other causes that can affect mate choice? The huge difference between the Self-Seeking Like Hypothesis or Dr. Fisher’s theory and all that seduction stuff is that genes theories were proved by carrying out experiments that are almost impossible to question. All that couples’ faces by accident seemed so similar to all those volunteers? No, there is no room for coincidences, so millions of other factors are eliminated. Helen Fisher’s theories are also based on research that involved thousands of couples. She ruled out other factors and focused on the patterns she could find. This is not just the impression that some PUA and his wingman got after a night out. These are years of meticulous research. Also confirmed by the choices of thousands of users of Chemistry.com.

References:

Why Do Women Have to Change?