Some Stuff About PUA (very long)

[KJS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is probably a lost cause thanks to the awfulness of the OP, but I wonder if by heroic effort this thread can somehow be turned to the conversation I wanted to have, i.e. pragmatism vs. idealism and their interactions with each other, as applied to PUA, and not the conversation we're doomed to have, i.e., Cardo and Cardo [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

cardo i like you but this makes no goddamn sense.

i have no idea how pragmatism or idealism apply here. unless you're saying that an idealist hopes that some chick notices how good he is at fencing and they develop a rapport and eventually start [censored], whereas a pragmatist is ensuring he establishes kino within two minutes on all the bar chicks he's relentlessly hitting on.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is this.

Take this argument, with its two kinda-fake-but-still-kinda real sides. Strip all the logical fallacies and name-calling and [censored] and I still perceive the essential core of an argument that basically goes like this.

PUAs - "Look, get real. This is what works, this is what the world is like, this is how it is."
Nerds - "But it's wrong!"

Even after you sort out all the [censored] you're still left with this, and they're both cases with merit.

This argument is old as time and has a thousand different faces. Pragmatism vs. idealism, being a man of the world vs. being a saint, being 'successful' vs. being 'pure,' etc. etc. ad infinitum. It's the contest between... the one word I know to describe it is 'arete,' a Greek word meaning, essentially, 'commitment to excellence,' and the concept of virtue found in Christianity and various other big-time religions. They've been shouting at each other for thousands of years, and that's what I see here, too. I have always been naturally inclined towards the latter side of the fence, but I think true wisdom comes from a synthesis of both of them, and that's really, really hard to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cardo, I think perhaps you are not making a clear enough separation from the tools, the application and the results.

So what i am observing here is that the apologists are quick to point out that the tools are just that, tools and follow it up with "don't hate on it because some people overdo it". When people who are not apologists or critics chime in with "there is some good stuff in there", they are validating the tools. Not necessarily the application [see references to misogyny etc] and the results ["great for picking up incest victims"] however.

Your critics side seems to not address the tools at all, focussing heavily on the application and results. The "it's wrong" does not focus on the tools that the apologists say are good (ie, having confidence, projecting a strong self image) but rather the application of those tools--which in the wrong hands can result is the mistreatment of women or a degree of "success" with women that the critics find discomforting.

Like bison, El D and some others in this thread have pointed out some synthesis is achievable. This is where your personality comes in! For me the truly wise pay attention to the source of wisdom but not to a degree that they are blind to any possible usefulness. So I may not agree with all the subtexts of PUA but I will admit to being intrigued by some aspects. That alone is a reason to not discount it out of hand, for me.

KJS