The scientific validity within the Science Of Dating

The book The Game (2005) by Neil Strauss is a bibliography about Style, Neil’s alter ego who infiltrates a secret society of Pickup artists (PUAs).He has never had a girlfriend in his life, he feels pathetic and is clueless among girls – Until he meets Mystery and the others. I stumbled across this book when searching for supportive evidence for Psuf10’s blog entry, November 18, 2011 Chivalry is dead. Style meets a lot of interesting personalities and a few mentors with different philosophies in the question How to pick up women, all in a different way answering the question – What do women want?

ImageAfter reading the book, it was necessary for me to evaluate this book from a more scientific point of view.  One character mentioned especially caught my interest. A man who calls himself Mystery whose real name is Eric Von Markovic and the author of The Mystery Method (2005).
Sigmund Freud would have a lot of things to say about this man, deprived childhood, father issues, rejected sexuality etc. But that’s not my point here.

Mystery has spent 20 years of his life, finding the way to create attraction, seduction and a way to unlock a women’s hearts. He has developed certain techniques over the years that always give the same results (Heavy amount of induction). Mystery, his wingmen, and rival mentors have all tested every technique they have developed in “the field” with women all over the world, perfecting their hypothesis on how to get the perfect girl – the perfect 10.

They use a Scientific Method by testing the same thing over and over and if the result supports their alternative hypothesis it is supported that this technique works – And they will teach it to others. However, their Null hypothesis is weak – It doesn’t work.

A man called Savoy wrote an E-book I also read called Magic bullets (2007). In this book, the following words can be read “The Science of Dating”. Believe me, this line caught my attention!
Suppose they all use a scientific method to find supportive evidence, they repeat their experiment over numerous of subjects, and mostly get the same results.

  1. A scientific method is used.
  2. They use an alternative and null hypothesis.
  3. Their experiments are repeatable.
  4. Nothing can be proven, only supported because of Induction.
  5. Some devoted their life to the art of picking up women.

The methods used to attract and seduce women, and most of all keep them, is by these men considered a Science. And they devote all their time to perfect the art and science of dating.

References

Strauss, N. The Game (2005) The Game, United States: ReganBooks.

Savoy,N. (2007) Acknowledgements. Magic Bullets (1st ed) (pp.5-10). Retrieved from: www.magicbullets.com

Markovik,V.E (2005) The Mystery Method, The Venusian Arts Handbook (2005). Mystery Method Corp. (ebook) No longer available.

Advertisements

Can Labeling really be avoided at all times?

After reading Rosenhan’s (1973) ‘sane in insane places’ I can agree about the dangers with labeling, and I also agree with the APA that one should always be cautious*when labeling groups during research. Even after a discussion with Dr Martin, the conclusions were that labeling is always bad, and we should never label or judge other people. We even learned from Dweck’s paper, Self Theories: The Mindset of a Champion, (2000). That learning styles are not real, they are imaginary and results of the placebo effect. And by labeling ourselves and others a learning style, we restrict our learning capacity and knowledge.

Despite all of these theories (facts) People judge and label each other all the time. We receive a first impression about someone, from their cloths, their accent, and their hobbies or just by their appearance. Judging someone takes 2 seconds, and we are not even aware of that we are doing it. It is a subconscious act of our brain. Malcolm Gladwell (2005) explains this as Rapid Cognition in his book ‘Blink’. There are lots of more books to be found on how to judge people, “read other people’s minds” and such. However, if labeling always was bad how could we justify all these books that tell us How to judge others?

Giving someone a label is always easier than to get to know someone in depth. It gives us an idea about someone and whether we a likely to like this person or not. Is he friend or enemy? Biologically this behavior of labeling could be necessary to our ancestor’s survival, instead of rushing into things out of curiosity; they labeled something as Dangerous and survived. Labeling and judging would therefore have been necessary for our survival.

* I my first entry it said “One must always be couscous”