Aula Virtual CEIP AS MERCEDES

This section is dedicated to ideas for an experiment that could once and for all establish whether seduction is possible.

Is it possible for men to “create” sexual attraction? 

We need to run a test carried out on a statistically significant sample in accordance with all scientific requirements.

So far what we have established is this:

- study carried out or at least supervised by academics from a distinguished university,

- statistically significant groups of straight male and female volunteers,

- all most renown schools of seduction are challenged to take part – PUA gurus don’t take part in the test as players (to rule out the influence of fame), but agree to coach free of charge randomly selected guys from each of the 10 groups,

- male volunteers rated and measured according to all possible categories including even star signs,

- first two ratings are about facial and bodily attractiveness on a scale 1-10 – volunteers photographed in the same clothes, which they are also obligated to wear also during the speed dating event,

- so obtained 10 groups of male volunteers are afterwards randomly divided into further 2 groups: A) and B)  - number and genre of groups to be established yet by university experts.

- group A) receives intense coaching from each school of seduction for a sufficiently long period of time, like 4 months before the speed dating event,

- group B) is coached by ordinary psychologists who give regular mainstream online dating advice – same period of coaching as group A),

- each participant agrees to be videotaped during the test,

- information about the participants just before the speed dating event are also revealed to the public – published online so anyone can place a bet and this way help finance the study (speed dating event organized in a place where gambling is legal). This way the PUAs also don’t have the excuse to avoid taking part in the study, since no one prohibits them from betting on their own students from the ten groups. The study is also financed by selling publicity rights to the media,

- the female volunteers are chosen just before the speed dating event, to avoid bribery and other forms of cheating. The female group should also be statistically significant, so lots of women must sign up for the test, but in the end just a part of them are randomly chosen and brought to the speed dating event,

- female volunteers rated and measured in accordance with the same categories as the males 

- to determine the winners of the online bets, the results of the online bets from each of the 10 groups of volunteers are compared

I often  debate members of this PUA cult who point at various studies purportedly proving PUAry. But when I ask for details it turns out these studies  consists of a set of hypothetical questions, and answers like: “90% of the interviewed female participants prefer funny pickup lines than the regular approach”.  So these champions of logic conclude that by mastering your cocky and funny approach you can pick up 90% single women!

Sponsored Ads

Looking For Single Girls To Chat With? Try Loveawake Free Dating Site:

Online Chat With Girls From Berlin |  Bangkok Ladies Chat |  Perth Single ladies Chatting |  Women Chat in Dublin | Chat Site For Manila Girls |  Chat With Cambodian Women | Cape Town Girls Chatting

How about this: there was a studying reporting that 80% (I can’t remember exactly) of women consider blue jeans the sexiest type of  pants. So by wearing blue jeans you can score 80% single women! Blue Jeans School of Seduction LOL

The funniest thing about it is that PUAs often repeat we men shouldn’t pay attention to what women say, but rather to what they do.  But when asked for scientific evidence – they do the exact opposite! They point at studies that are nothing but a set of questions and answers given by the interviewed women! And of course they ignore studies that are about examining REAL LIFE partner choice – such as the papers quoted in “Her Type” and “Genes and Personality Types” section.

Why Real-Life Choice Matters

The below may be obvious for most of you, but some PUA cult members still don’t get the implications of the Self Seeking Like Theory:

I told the guy who I debated that the ending of this section is about him

So he immediately replied with something like: no, not all studies confirming PUA are about asking questions! In some studies female participants had to choose from like 3-10 guys or rather rate them on a scale 1-10. He also mentioned “field testing” carried out by Dr Victoria Zdrok, PhD, Playboy playmate, what else? Prof. ex-gangsta rapper? LOL. Yes, you heard me right, some people actually find “field testing” a scientific tool.

A few guys being rated by female volunteers – is this not the same as asking the question “How would you rate Mr A on a scale 1-10”? No, for him this was WAY different! This guy also saw no problem in the fact that such studies limited the women’s choices to like 3-10 guys. They were FORCED to rate 3-10 guys!

What if none of those guys was “her type”?

What if some factor (not even included in those pseudo-studies) is DECISIVE?

The consequences are tremendous: if there is one decisive factor (proven in “Her Type” section) then all answers given in such pseudo-studies mean shit! The girl is forced to rate like 10 guys, chances are low that any of them is genetically “compatible” to her. So her answers have absolutely nothing to do with her choices in real life. During a weekend night out she can meet literally thousands of guys, and if the guy who approaches her is not “her type”, she simply rejects him no matter what (unless she is really desperate). So all PUA deliberations about sense of humor, confidence and so on, mean shit.

What Real Couples Reveal

Unlike those questionnaire studies or rating studies, the researches I base my opinions on (sections “Her Type” or “Genes and Personality Types”) compared people who were together IN REAL LIFE. So the women in those couples in fact chose this guy from the thousands of others. These are of course statistically significant samples. Consequently, if we can find some correlations – this actually means something.

How can they explain the hormonal correlations found by for ex. Dr Fisher in the thousands of couples she examined in accordance with PUA theories?? There is something clearly wrong. If only skills matter, there should not be any correlations. All would be random, as far as genotypes and facial features are concerned.

On the flip side, I can easily explain why women answered that they prefer let’s say “funny PUA teasing”. What did you expect? “No, no I prefer the regular boring approach to dating”?! But does it mean that in REAL LIFE the guy using PUA teasing will always get the girl? Hell no, cause in real life there are other more important variables, such as facial features (not simply beauty).

Below you can find Ron’s comment with a passage from a study involving speed dating. It confirms our speculations with regard to the importance of physical appearance. Looks have been found to be even more significant than most evo-psy researchers thought, as they dominate women’s attraction feelings even in case of long term commitment:

You will love this research article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x/full

“For women, only two partner characteristics showed a statistically significant correlation with their attraction: physical attractiveness and sport activity, indicating that women are strongly drawn to men who are good-looking and athletic. [...]

This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship.
[...] Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research —whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters. In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. “