explain to me how picking up girls can't be studied in a

>>8345962
Isn't that essentially what PUA is all about?

>>8345965
PUA is a bunch of psychology gimmicks that have been in use in the advertising/marketing industry for decades. somebody just finally got around to applying it to the hook up scene.

>>8345965
these board virgins love to claim is pseudoscience when it's just applied physochology.

>>8345962
there is a scientific method to picking up girls

it's called

being attractive

>>8345972
then how come fit is filled with virgins?

>>8345974
You also need not be socially inept.

>>8345982
in other words, know how to approach women.

women are literally slightly more advanced Skyrim NPC's.

just fucking figure out the conversation minigame by trial and error if you have to, womens personality types are so shallow and two dimensional that it shouldn't take long for you to memorize the different quick time events. if you fuck it up and get locked out, just wait a few minutes because another one will spawn soon.

>>8346002
>not reading about PUA shit for fun
lmao brainlet

>>8346006
i'd rather just read a real psychology book instead of some pretentious faggots take on decades old marketing gimmicks.

>>8346016
are there pshychology books on picking up girls?

>>8345986
Not just approach, not being beta it's a general attitude, not only when you're around women.

>>8346019
they aren't explicitly for picking up women, but its the same concepts. any book on social psychology or developmental psychology will serve you just as well.

>>8346025
what's the biological reason of being beta?

>>8346026
any good one?

>>8346028
>what's the biological reason of being beta?
fear of rejection. just hit on girls dude. every fucking girl you see unless hitting on them compromises your living situation, IE don't hit on your bosses wife or something.

even if you don't want to fuck/date them, just do it. don't give a fuck if they are 50 years old, flirt with that old ass.

its tough, but once you eat a few hundred rejections you become numb to it and you completely stop giving a fuck about what women think. then you win.

>>8346028
Human behavior isn'y explained only by biology anon. For being beta one of the main factors is the absence of (strong) male models, lack of experience and inability to learn from situations and adapt. The tendency to victimizing and not wanting to man the fuck up it's important too. Most betas don't get what works with women, but they are not willing to learn either.

>>8346042
>fear of rejection
That isn't biological, that's psychological.

>>8346047
it becomes biological when it initiates flight or fight.

>>8346046
>Human behavior isn'y explained only by biology anon.
Yes it is. The brain is strictly biological. There isn't any magical stuff happening. Of course, the brain changes with experience, but those changes are physical changes within the brain.

>>8345962
Scientific method works when you can isolate a few variables and determine their effect. People are too complicated. That's why psychology, while probably theoretically sound, has few practical applications and makes few good predictions. There are just too many variables. Its impossible to talk about with the scientific method, so its mostly just really good guesswork.

>>8346055
Are you so autistic to be unable to understand the emotional dimension in the interaction between people?

>>8345962
>implying social sciences are sciences

>>8346073
>not knowing the definition of science

>>8346073
/sci/ loves social science. IQ gets talked about all the time.

>eight types of women
>none of them fujo mathematicians

do i exist

>>8346081
is about their sexual preferences.

>>8346080
The fact that they take seriously IQ as a measure of inteligence, instead of other more sophisticated stuff in psychological measurement like the Theory of multiple intelligences says a lot.

>>8346063

I'm not that guy but you are mistaken in your suggestion that this one thing you just mentioned, your earlier sketch of beta men unable to relate to women, indeed sociology, psychology, etc, are somehow "outside" of biology (which, yes, in turn reduces to chemistry, physics, and so on).

You're using very unscientific language on the science board. You write as if emotions are somehow not amenable to analysis. Your first impulse will be to reply along the lines that psychology, biology, physics etc are all distinct branches of the sciences, and they are, but you cannot reasonably escape the simplicity that the one entails the other, and so on down the chain. The other anon is, given our present understanding of things, also justified in his reasonable opinion that there is nothing "magical" going on in the brain, whereas you seem to be suggesting that there is.

Vitalism, another form of "magical" thinking,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

was established to be bunk by way of the artificial synthesis of urea. This together with evolution and the abiogenesis experiments should reasonably bias you toward the above view about which the other anon is provisionally correct, given what we know at this time. This retort of yours therefore does not rise to the level of a counter-argument.

>>8345970
Yeah man physochology is a real science.

>>8345962
Claim it all you want, I won't believe it's a science until I see reproducible results.

Because 90% of attraction is how you look. Not autistic PUA flowcharts. Physical features and physical ideals have been scientifically studied and the ideal facial proportions and dimensions have been discovered.

>>8346092
>implying sophistication means anything
IQ is the only thing that produces reproducible results. The ebin "muh feels" intelligence does nothing.

>>8346077
That which has an underlying primary substance :^)

>>8346107
yeah, thats cool. just as long as you guys remember that its social sciences that give you that warm and comfy.

don't be hypocrites

>>8346107
Just because doing something over and over gives reproducible results doesn't mean said results are actually of value.

>>8346107
Nobody was talking about "feelings" here

>>8346117
>Just because doing something over and over gives reproducible results doesn't mean said results are actually of value.
Wut? You've identified a pattern, of course it's of value.

>>8346105

It is also the case that physical attractiveness is massively more important and central to a woman's overall sexual attractiveness than it is to a man's. Put another way, it's is far more important to a man how the woman looks in mate choice than vice verse.

You are making the mistake of equating male and female desire, when of course as any sane person knows, men and women are different from each other.

You are also making the mistake that men who sit inside and spend too much time on the internet make (this happens routinely on r9k): that Chad succeeds /only/ and /most importantly/ because he looks like Brad Pit or Ryan Gosling or whatever the fuck. While it is obviously true that their physical attractiveness has benefitted them and is to their advantage, it also remains true that man have a greater suite of things that they can try in order to become attractive mate choices: play guitar, tell a joke, become rich, become powerful, etc. Look me in the eye and tell me that you will happily go for a 300 lb hamplanet who is a bit of a bitch, runs her own business, and has a Ph.D. Meanwhile, high-value women willingly go for similar men. Hm, it's almost as if the two sexes have different algorithms for mate choice.

I would push it one step further. The number one most important male sexual attractiveness trait is somewhere in the neighborhood of social status and out-and-out confidence. It is a mistake to say that because in certain cases, confidence flows from being good-looking to begin with, that the good looks are the killer app, root cause, most important sexual value trait for men. This is false. There are plenty of mentally well-adjusted men who slay without the looks of a Pitt. And why? Social proofing, participation in society, etc.

I don't even agree that "facial/aesthetic attractiveness" as-such is the single most important /physical/ attribute in men. IMO, the single most important /physical/ trait is: height.

>>8345962
Too complicated. The very basic act of controlling the experiment inherently taints the experiment.

>>8346144
Blah-blah, males are either for money/social status but that's the case when she uses you and doesn't really likes you, or for attractiveness. Unattractive men can't be liked, deal with it.

There is nothing scientific about it. That's like asking for an equation that describes great music. Too many variables, too much subjectivity.

The only thing that seems to be empirically verified and unanimously anecdotally agreed upon is that the more women who find you attractive, the more attractive you will be to other women, who know about the other women attracted to you.

>>8346107
>autistic STEMtard with IQ of 130 makes $45k a year as a system admin
>business chad with an IQ of 110 but good social intelligence starts his own business and makes as $200k+ and actually enjoys life and has meaningful relationships

>>8345962
Knowing the physics of flight doesn't make you a bird...

>>8346266
Except IQ is a better predictor in performance than muh social intelligence, even in fucking sales jobs.

>>8346321
Do you have any proof?

>>8346229

>I'm right I'm right I'm right I don't want to engage with the substance of the argument I'm right you have to have a square jaw or life is shit~~~

This is you. This is exactly the same gainsaying and lack of awareness of reality that r9k exhibits.

You make a further mistake in the confused phrasing of your reply, but let's parse it. You seem to want to say that women only use the ugly men (or even, not smoking-hot men) for their money status etc, and that this is therefore supposed to be some sort of a disproof of something.

Maybe it's a disproof of one of two things. Maybe it disproves that women ever really like or are attracted to physically not-great men, in your telling. Or maybe it disproves the idea that male aesthetics are not centrally important. But while it is true that women use men for what they find to be desirable in them (their access, their resources, their status, and as tertiary/quarternary latter considerations, their cute faces when they have them and/or their dick size) , it also remains true that men use women when they can for what they (the men) find to be desirable in them (the women): their bodies, and when they're not being bitches, their charms. The point being that one respect in which men and women are alike is that they seek to use one another for that which each finds attractive in the other.

The current point being that everyone uses everyone else all the time, and so your objection that one group (hot women who will go for ugly guys) "uses" the other (the ugly guys with other traits) for a particular desirable trait is a moot banality which says nothing.

You are still making the error of equating male and female desire, and you are starting to show cracks of projecting. This is clearly false by taking a walk outside.

On the contrary, physically unattractive men are "genuinely liked" (as far as it is possible in our cynical treatment), tingled after, by women on a regular basis. See: the history of rock music.

>>8346321
Okay then buddy, so why are you so threatened by the possibility of there being multiple kinds of intelligences? I mean, don't you find it kind of obtuse to say that there is only one meaningful metric of intelligence?

I'm not even a feelingsfag or a brainlet, but there are definitely different kinds of intelligences each with their own advantages.

>>8346380
>sperg out because someone tells him his ad hoc emotional intelligence is bollocks
>you must be threatened
top kek the amount of projection

>I mean, don't you find it kind of obtuse to say that there is only one meaningful metric of intelligence?
I don't base my opinions on what sounds nice. EQ is crap and predicts nothing.

>>8346383
I'm not saying EQ is useful in predicting anything. I'm just saying that there is more than one kind of intelligence, and I was just hoping you would acknowledge that.

>>8346405
Why?
What if there is one kind of intelligence and smart people just elect to apply it to different things?

>>8346421
The point is that you don't choose what your intelligence goes towards.

>>8346436
>The point is that you don't choose what your intelligence goes towards.
That's probably the most retarded statement I've ever seen.

>>8346519
Not the same guy, but the point that has more than one measurable dimension, e.g. that guy who became known a few years ago for being a genius in mathematics, but easily manipulated by other people that take money from him. Or the musical geniuses who were a disaster in the other aspects of their lives.

>>8346102
>physochology
amazing! i never heard of it before

>explain to me how picking up girls can't be studied in a scientific way using the scientific method?
By approaching a lot of chicks (1 a day at least) and track how much you get laid.
It's differrent than an experiment in a physics lab, because while all females share the attribute of being female and still vary, all the "pic up" experiments are done by only you and much of it is working on you, hoe you talk, make eye contact, lead conversation, etc. It's not just ablut the subject (the woman / the semiconductor part)
I'm a STEM PhD student and youtube videos have gotten me laid. Then again, I don't think there was isormation that hasn't been there 50 years ago. The only ifference is that it's okay now for girls to meet people and fuck around as they please

>>8345986
You can know how to do something and simply be too afraid to go through with it.

>>8345962
http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/T/Th/The_Mystery_Method_The_Venusian_Arts_Handbook.pdf