Talk:Pickup artist

message: This is not an article that should exist on wikipedia. When there is any sources that could be mistaken for WP:RS referenced here, they are completely mispresented and the article's claims synthesized.
For example:
Academic research has also confirmed to some extent that "game" and attraction principles do have a factual basis in social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.
So this is a WP:RS claiming that "game" has a factual basis? The source linked is not readable anymore but this is obviously WP:OR.
Another reference described as academic is actually a blog post or a personal essay mispresented as a study. It is described:
An academic paper on the community, published in 2012 by Eric C. Hendriks in the journal Cultural Analysis, details the value system guiding successful members of the Seduction Community based on an international study including participant observation of bootcamp and "lair" meetings in Germany.
This is again WP:OR as the article referenced was not a study and did not refer to any such studies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esailija (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs rewrite or deletion

message: If you are making a comment on the content of this article, we request that you please be specific about what you consider to be wrong with it. Vague comments such as 'this is becoming spam' are not helpful to anyone. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should be modified. As it is, it mentions plenty of fringe figures with no relevance such as Johnny Soporno. Also, it is entirely uncritical. There is now a strong countermovement, first seeded by Barry Kirkey (Extramask from The Game), now there is PUAHate.com, which exposes the shams and frauds of this subculture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.252.101 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: site?! surely you mean page.... & btw PUAHate.com is smaller than Johnny Soporno I'd reckon. Mathmo Talk 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you mean article. :P --Devourer09 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This site reads like a commercial 

message: Propose merging this in, or possibly deleting as a copyvio from http://themodernsavage.com/2008/03/09/14-seduction-books-listed-in-the-game/ , as noted in Talk:Seduction literature.  I don't see any way it could expand beyond a section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seduction literature 

message: Editors of this article might be interested in the debate going on over at Talk:Mystery (pickup artist)#Requested move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on Mystery's article 

message: I really think there is a lack of information on the begineers of the seduction community, it have to be started by trainers at least from 1980s 1990s, but it only mentioned the newers workers in this area 2000s and above, I think it would improve this article to collecte olders trainers forgotten by the merchandising of the newers trainers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.105.14 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, more mention of the earlier guys would be good but unfortunately the way it works it is easier to find stuff on the more recent guys so it ends up that is what gets put in first. Mathmo Talk 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneers of the seduction community 

message: The first sentence of an article is arguably the most important one. I feel the current one as it stands -- "The seduction community is a loose-knit subculture of men who strive for better sexual and romantic success with women through self-improvement and a greater understanding of social psychology." -- is problematic for the following reasons:
• It does not incorporate the central role played by specific techniques;
• It fails to address the common emphasis on short-term "sexual and romantic success", which is ambiguous from the wording;
• It leans on two ill-defined concepts, namely "self-improvement" (vague) and "social psychology" (arguably has a distinctly different meaning within the scientific community from its common meaning in lay usage), making for an unclear or incomplete understanding of what the topic actually entails.
• It does not make reference to any of the controversies that surround the subject and which are well-documented.
I have no concrete ideas how to rewrite this at the moment, aside from changing "better ... success" to "greater ... success", which seems more correct. Any ideas? Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: many people who come in to the community are desiring to end up with a long term relationship, no need to put undue weight on the short term nature of many other relationships (after all the great majority of relationships that humans have in general are of a short term basis). Mathmo Talk 04:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: This article is  bout a nondistinctive part of the community , not different from any other purpose-oriented mutual support clubs, and could easily be moved into the main article. DGG (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd respectfully but very strongly disagree, as they are the foundation upon which the seduction community is built upon. They are the "community" in "seduction community". Mathmo Talk 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: My logic was that as a large area of the seduction community they are one of the most worthy subjects in this area to deserve a separate article from the main article. Mathmo Talk 02:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are " the foundation upon which the s.c. is built" then it would seem best to integrate it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is for no integration. The seduction community consists of seduction coaches, dating coaches, individuals who consume seduction media without affiliating with a particular lair or program, wingmen meetups, unaffiliated friend-groups who've all read the game, and, yes, both for- and not-for-profit lairs. Of those, lairs stand apart for being (1) unlikely to receive press and (2) foundational. What needs to happen, if anything, is that this article gets expanded and its intro gets incorporated into the main SC article.drunkenfight (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Seduction lair

message: ===History===
Recently some figures within the community have espoused more radical views concerning relationships.  Previously the seduction community, although rejecting conventional views on dating, to a large extent accepted mainstream views on marriage and monogamy.http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/01/polyamory/  Johnny Soporno has used the discourse of evolutionary psychology to challenge the institution of marriage and the concept of monogamy within society.  Stephane Hemon has also contributed to this debatehttp://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/042805/people.html, but approaches the topic using concepts from New Age Spirituality such as chakras and the attainment of higher consciousness.  While Hemon proposes alternative committed relationship arrangements that involve multiple partnershttp://www.wwwyou.org/index.php?s=7cd8fd38c0549b712565b4e18b80d6dc&showtopic=888&pid=3277&st=0&#entry3277, Soporno rejects the idea of committed relationships and the suggestion of ownership that it entails.  He asserts that ideas of monogamy developed only with concepts of property that were necessary for an agrarian society to mature.http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=22670430  While these concepts are interesting developments within the seduction community, they are still seen as controversial especially with the collapse of Hemon's independent circle which undermined many of his former theories.http://www.psychic101.com/articles/130/1/Stephane-Hemon-is-insane/Page1.html
There has also been a convergence recently between the seduction coaching industry and the porn industry.  Johnny Soporno, and Hoobie from Real Social Dynamics typify this trend.  Johnny Soporno has worked in the porn industry for almost 20 years and has released products targeting men and women interested in the industry based on his experiences.http://realmanconference.com/?speakers,4&ref=9b19a95d#johnny Hoobie created a website that merged seduction coaching videos with pornography.http://pickuppodcast.com/blogs/pickuppodcast/archive/2009/03/23/pickup-podcast-ep-85-hoobie-interview.aspx  
===Concepts===
The concept of social proof has received more attention now due to the theories that Adam Lyons has developed which he eventually consolidated into the theory of Entourage Game.  Entourage Game changes the emphasis of pickup from doing cold approaches to engineering your lifestyle so that you create a large social circle of women who you then can date if you choose.http://www.seduction-chronicles.net/2009/03/23/afc-adam-lyons-interview/  This method is alleged by Lyons to be a more natural way of meeting a long-term partner and consequently it requires less effort.  Lyons has also developed a formula for attraction:
(C - R) + Q + SE = A
which translates as 
(Comfort - Rapport) + Qualification + Sexual Escalation = Attraction
This is just pseudoscience. You can't even quantify this as a mathematical proof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.21.14 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam Lyon is not the first to talk about breaking rapport as a way to create attraction. Breaking rapport starts, at the very least, with David DeAngelo who spoke of "busting on a woman."Apollyon316 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I've lowered the protection so you should be able to make the edit yourself now. By the way, the highest heading in articles should be level 2 (i.e. use == not =). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it up now, thanks for lowering the protection and pointing out my mistake with the article heading! DRosin (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, as I assumed, this would get better advice here than I could give by myself. DGG (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content for 'History' and 'Concepts' sections 

message: The concept of social proof has received more attention now due to the theories that Adam Lyons has developed which he eventually consolidated into the theory of Entourage Game.  Entourage Game changes the emphasis of pickup from doing cold approaches to engineering your lifestyle so that you create a large social circle of women who you then can date if you choose.http://www.seduction-chronicles.net/2009/03/23/afc-adam-lyons-interview/  This method is alleged by Lyons to be a more natural way of meeting a long-term partner and consequently it requires less effort.  Lyons has also developed a formula for attraction:
(C - R) + Q + SE = A
which translates as 
(Comfort - Rapport) + Qualification + Sexual Escalation = Attraction
This is just pseudoscience. You can't even quantify this as a mathematical proof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.21.14 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam Lyon is not the first to talk about breaking rapport as a way to create attraction. Breaking rapport starts, at the very least, with David DeAngelo who spoke of "busting on a woman."Apollyon316 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I've lowered the protection so you should be able to make the edit yourself now. By the way, the highest heading in articles should be level 2 (i.e. use == not =). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it up now, thanks for lowering the protection and pointing out my mistake with the article heading! DRosin (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, as I assumed, this would get better advice here than I could give by myself. DGG (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concepts

message: Well, there's one completely unsourced paragraph in History, and surprise, it's the most suspicious :)
The body of knowledge in the field of "pick-up" has grown exponentially in the past decade as millions of men around the globe have taken an interest in the subject. Many write up their personal experiences and construct theories of the self and of social dynamics to share with other students. The combined material has the hallmarks of an interdisciplinary field of study and promiscuously borrows concepts and terminology from other disciplines in the arts, sciences, and pseudo-sciences. Evolutionary biology, neurolinguistic programming, and the psychology of influence are just a few of the fields that have been mined for concepts and metaphors germane to the practice of pick-up.
So it's a nice PR piece, but a lot of it is unverifiable, and pretty much all of it is original research, is my guess. I don't think there needs to be an argument for legitimacy. Thoughts on removing this paragraph?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.205.153 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: if you read even just quite a small selection of sources it is quite undeniable the amount of words/material they've borrowed/utilised from other sources. Mathmo Talk 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: PUAHATE.com is just a random forum that started up recently, and absolutely nothing more....  read WP:SOURCES etc... to see why nothing on that site is suitable for quoting in this article. Mathmo Talk 07:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material in History 

message: not every dating page on wikipedia needs to be full of spammy links to the mystery page.  If someone wants to make the claim that mystery needs to be singled out for special mention, this should be sourced and argued.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.78 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unnecessary promotion of 'mystery' 

message: This article is tagged with a concern addressing a worldwide view according to the United States. The undated tag instructs editors to refer to the talk page. Where is this discussion located? I've looked for it, but can not find it. It may be here somewhere within an ambiguous section. Where? What is the specific concern? If the issue is not addressed, the tag needs to be removed. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it and if anyone disagrees they can revert my change and preferably comment here as to why. Devourer09 (t·c) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I've noticed that many wikipedia articles are the victims of spurious tagging; it is a hit-and-run tactic that lowers an article's perceived quality without discussion and with little or no punitive action against the perpetrator. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important that readers are aware of problems with the article. If an article has no sources then a reader should be more skeptical when reading the information. I believe that sourcing is the most important problem with most articles. Devourer09 (t·c) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: I feel there are enough reliable secondary sources within the References section of the article to establish the topic's notability. Also, if you look in the archive of this talk page you will find multiple instances of people trying to gain consensus for deleting the article but failing. I'm just putting this out there so there is no edit warring over whether the article is notable or not. --Devourer09 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This whole thing is a problem in the US only and should be pointed out as such. No other culture lacks the social skills of people in the US. The shame of course is they pick a 'solution' that's so typical of them - and actually further propagates their own silliness. A little commentary on how pathetic the whole thing is would not be inappropriate and would only be opposed by stunted males from the US still acting like cowardly preteens. Put this article - if indeed it need stay here when so many really important things are systematically and wantonly deleted - in its proper context. And what would women and feminists say if they saw this rubbish? Thank you. previous unsigned comment by User:86.217.219.169
: In fact i have met with members of the seduction community in places other than the US. I am sure that, if you go looking, you will find references to lairs, courses, gurus, books and media articles on the topic, world-wide: including at least Canada, Europe, and southeast Asia. Also, while the question may be relevant, of whether this kind of social activity is pathetic, it is hardly neutral point of view. So, if you can write balanced prose on the topic, then please do. In fact commentary from women and feminists does exist. Inclusion of prominent opinions in a section on controversy would serve to improve the article. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are many lairs for PUAs all over the world. It's quite an international community. To write the article with the perspective that it's pathetic would introduce bias and would make the article not WP:NPOV. If you disagree with anything I've said then you are free to refer me to WP:RS that help prove your point. Thanks. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the OP's claim is nonsense.  The Internet doesn't know national boundaries, and PUA stuff was published in books and taught in creepy seminars for decades before the Internet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A Problem in the US Only

message: I stumbled upon an online seduction community and it was so filled with jargon and acronyms that the conversations were incomprehensible. The discussion on acronyms and jargon should be expanded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  acronyms and jargon 

message: Just wondering whether anyone else has problems logging into the asf site or forums?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick questions/queries 

message: Hi, this is a call to all puas. We need your humor to improve the parody of this article: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Seduction_community  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.224.188 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP TO UNCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE 

message: None of the claims of "the seduction community" are made in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually none of the "gurus" have any training whatsoever in psychology or the social sciences. It is preposterous that this article is allowed to present itself as "social psychology" in an unchallenged fashion. The claims of "the community" are utterly unverified and therefore pseudoscientific dogmatism; this fact should be reflected in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing to do with "psychology"

message: It has recently come to my attention that this section was used to advertise precisely one study by one author. I have edited the tone a bit, but kept the reference as it seemed somewhat relevant (notwithstanding the purported original intent). In any case, I would encourage others who are interested in the academic view on seduction (and the seduction community) to edit this section and include sources by reputable authors. For those who have the time and the interest, I would recommend searching pubmed for terms like "seduction" or "pickup" (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seduction ). A quick search of mine returned two possibly interesting sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24483605 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253794 - but I am certain there are many more. Chymæra (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Research

message: I think that pickup artist should be merged into this article as there seems to be a big overlap in the scope of the articles. Any thoughts? --81.4.180.206 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge pickup artist into this article 

message: What should the "slashed term" in the introduction mean? How could this be said clearly without the / ? --User:Haraldmmueller 08:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:SLASH has this covered: just replace it with "and". Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... sexual success with/access to women"? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: MOVED to Pickup artist, per WP:COMMONNAME. While many supported without stating whether they preferred the hyphen or not, others have pointed out that without the hyphen is more commonly used. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seduction community →  – Rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. No one refers to pick-up artists as a "community" other than pick-up artists. It borders on abuse of the word. The current article is the result of a merge between the Pick-up artist article and a badly PoV-pushing Seduction community article (both dating, under various titles like the malformed "Pick Up Artist", etc., to 2006). Many of the flagged problems of the latter article remain, but the merge should obviously have been to the better-written article and better-attested, more neutral term. Spelling-wise, "pick-up artist" dominates by a wide margin, followed by "pickup artist", and "pick up artist" last (because it's not really grammatical in most registers, in which compound modifiers are not written with a space). The lead section will need some massaging after the move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Having closed this discussion, I can't help but note that “Pickup artists” and “Garbagemen” should really switch names with each other. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 June 2018 

message: Hi! Shouldn't one rename :Category:Seduction community? , maybe you can help? Wikisaurus (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming category 

message: The article seems to be stuck in the 2000s. Much like early Marxism (an apt, and original, analogy — no offense intended to any Marxists reading this), many of the least radical/toxic concepts of the turn-of-the-millennium pickup community gradually percolated into the mainstream. In many cases, those happened to be the ideas that were most grounded in bona fide research (no surprise there).
Furthermore, while I’m sure someone somewhere is still running “bootcamps”, there is now a huge industry of dating coaches who clearly don’t fall under the definition of “pickup artist” (see my separate edit removing that “synonym” from the lead sentence once I finish writing my talk page comments). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on society 

message: A separate Context section (or first subsection of the History section) should be added, covering the relatively rapid mid-late 20th century changes in Western society’s courtship conventions, and other aspects of the sexual revolution, among other things.
Honestly, without that crucial paragraph(s), this article will remain a Wiki article, not a ‘Pedia article.
Other revisions to the layout might also potentially improve the article as well.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Societal context