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

10 comments on “The scientific validity within the Science Of Dating

  1. lealeason says:

    When you told me about your topic I thought it would be easier to comment on it and to literally rip your comment apart but I have to admit: It´s not.
    I don´t think that one can argue against what you said with the scientific method. Indeed the experiment follows the scientific method: Characterizations, Hypotheses, Predictions, Experiments. The most important question is, if there IS A TRUTH. Even if we can´t prove things, the emphasizes is on seeking truth as Ibn al-Haytham has already pointed out more then 1000 years ago. Can something which is as subjective as dating have a truth? A global concept?
    I would love to know how big their p value is when testing hypothesis 😉

  2. psue3e says:

    A though-provoking post as always! Very well done!

    What methodology did they use exactly? I red a few reviews of the book but could not find any further information than a description of the narrative.

    There is one thing that strikes me, though. Dating is not a recent phenomenon; the techniques people use during that process have been subjected to interpretation and on-going debates for years. Stereotypes of how to attract, seduce and please women are well-known and spread beyond the academic and scientific realm; they are stereotypes for a reason – because they have worked successfully over and over again with different women in different settings. Therefore, reliability in this instance, is not hard to achieve.

    Additionally, the mere fact that the characters’ findings seem to support their experimental hypothesis takes them even further away from what science implies. They are stuck looking for evidence for the same thing every time, there is no scientific progression. Due to the problem of induction, proposed by Hume, the alternative hypothesis cannot be proved, but simply supported, irrespective of how many times a phenomenon is observed.

    In view of this, does the book really illustrate the ‘science’ of dating?

  3. Haha Lea! That is a good point. of course the answer is pretty simple, at least I think it is.
    They don’t have a P-value, if they had one – I’de place my bets on P= 0.5.

    The scientific progression of which psue3e speak, is that they are looking the most effective, and fastest way to attract and seduce a woman. They are perfecting their styles and methods. Thats the scientific goal, to put Occams Razor into practice. maybe skip a few “stages” in interaction and conversation. And yes, The science of dating is a direct quote form the book..

    • lealeason says:

      😀 Yes.
      I have to correct myself. The question is not if there is a truth. Don´t know what was wrong with me.
      How ever, we could never generalize findings since there are a lot of more important factors then the right strategy (e.g. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-33123-001) .

      What I do not understand if you want to say that dating is a science itself or if we can analyze it in a scientific way.

  4. However, the following things are never mentioned. What about a Unifying Theory, Falsification, and Ethical guidelines?
    The science of Dating don’t have a unifying theory (But neither does Psychology, mind you)
    And Psychology is a science according to the British Science Council (Source: http://www.sciencecouncil.org/content/our-members#B. under B for BPS. )
    They practice falsification by tested their methods over and over, in different ways to try and puncture the “pick up line”*

    What about Ethical Guidelines then? There are none, zero, squat, nada. Nothing is stopping the PUA’s to do whatever, besides their own moral. Most of them use Hedonism, some consequentialism. But maybe one can apply Virtue Ethics, saying that actions are ethical if they are committed with intention of good – Good towards me anyway.

    * Disclaimer: There is no such thing as pickup lines. Supported by Savoy,N in Magic Bullets,2007.

    http://www.sciencecouncil.org/content/our-members#B

  5. psuf10 says:

    Hey Mr Northernstorm

    I really like the idea of the post however is it dating really scientific. The people you refer to in the book, don’t end up dating until the very end and for one its a disaster (mystery) while the other manages to get the girl after countless pickup about 5 years into after the story starts. This shows that they really don’t date the girls they mention in the book they use the methods on. This makes your augment a little weaker unless you are arguing that picking up a girl for a one night stand is considered dating. Also “subject pool” for these women in these books are normally limited to girls who go to night clubs and bars. Which is quite a limited number of the population. Thus the writer of magic bullets cannot officially the science of dating due to he has a very limited subject pool to chose to. The term dating, is far to generalized to be called a science because there are far to many variables for each girl to have a perfect dating life each time you meet a new girl (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080620121014AAC9hV9). However what these guys are really showing that there is a science behind attraction which is a part of dating which really involved turning on the a women sex drive and putting it on to over load. Another study which could be seen behind the science of attraction is this http://www.physorg.com/news199509031.html which talks about being attracted to people who look like our parents. According to your argument this could also be the science behind dating

  6. The Psychodynamic approach suggests that we do have an attraction to our parents, however this cannot be falsified or argued, therefore is not really a science.
    To be able to date someone, you first need to be able to Approach and Attract that person, and approach an exciting person can be done any time of the day, anywhere. That is the main goal of Magic Bullets. To make yourself more attractive to other, but also to yourself ( Help you create a lifestyle that you enjoy)

    You suggests that the characters in The Game only meet women during the night in nightclubs, this is not entirely true either – However most of their field studies are being made within Nightclubs. And they Do date women in the book, but that’s not the Point of this blog!

    Their subject pool is limited to women in these books, but the same ‘Attraction switches’ apply for men as for women (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/dating-advice/Attract-Hot-Guys-Like-Crazy-3). But it is the general opinion that it is the Guys job to start conversation and “pick up” the girl.

    If dating were to be a science, it would fall within the frame of Psychology, which is a science according to the British science Council ( View my comment on Psue3e’s blog ).

  7. fjwbu says:

    An intriguing idea indeed mrnorthernstorm. Where’s their falsification, just to clarify? When it doesn’t work?
    Berne, (1964) defines a game as a series of moves with a snare/gimmick that is differential from other such similar acts by its ulterior motives/qualities and the pay off the game will result in. Every game apparently is dishonest, which reminded me of the content of your entry. Berne, considers games to be not only serious, but desirable and necessary for all social interactions. The only issue being whether the game being played is going to lead to the best results for the individual, much like the womanising ways of the characters of your entry’s source; using their expertise to ensure they don’t go home alone if they don’t want to, based on the content of your blog, without much consideration for the way they are manipulating the women.
    The game of which your blog is centred, in Berne’s book is known as the “Rapo”. A game of, to be blunt, adult kiss-chase. Flirtations and compliments are carefully chosen to yield the best results. However, interestingly in Berne’s book it is the male who is more victim to the female than as in your own text. A skilled male player will avoid this game or be capable of keeping it under control by distinguishing between genuine emotions and moves in the game.
    Berne, E., Games people play. The psychology of human relationships, 1964. Penguin Group, New York, New York City.

    • I am sincerely impressed by your comment, it was worth the wait. Yes, that is their only falsification. But, here is the thing: Nothing does ever NOT work – if that makes sense. There is far more to be read within this subject, and if I am to write down it all and every aspect and theory i would have to write till my keyboard was full of blood!

      “A skilled player” (a natural) doesnt need the game, or to Game, he already “knows” everything there is. I would even go so far to say that, there is nothing known as Game, or Gaming. It’s just real social dynamics (Durden,T. PUA). If a person is completely handicaped in social situations, openers and Routines are great. Because you dont have to think about what you are going to say.

      Gaming being dishonest? Yes, of course it is. Ever seen a girl with makeup? or heals? extension? These are all fake attributes. But talking to people, knowing what to say or do to achieve what you want , is that More dishonest then showing off fake attributes?
      It is a game for women aswell as for guys, girls have guys to do all different kind of stuff for their amusement,stringing along if you wish. Having guys buy girls drinks is the most common example. “Gameless” guys often does everything a girl wants him to for just a little piece of attention – Gaming is just turning the table.

      The women might feel “used”, but only if the “player” is bad. A skilled played, called PUA, would never leave a women thinking that she was used for his amusment. The PUA makes sure that the women is enjoying herself as well, and is having a good time.

      A guy who attracts women to show off his “skills” to other guys for ackowledgement and “street cred” is a seducer, a failed player
      A guy who uses women for his own(sexuall) benefits is a Player, a failed PUA.
      A guy who respect and enjoys female company but also takes his responibillity of amusing the women without the need to show off his skills to others, is a PUA.

      http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/
      Markovik,V.E. The Mystery Method, The Venusian Arts Handbook (2005). Mystery Method Corp. (ebook) No longer available.
      X,D. (200x) Be relentless. Seminar available on Youtube.

      This got a lot longer then i thought i would be…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s