The Difference Between Good and Bad Dating Advice - What ‘Pick Up’ Conveniently Ignores

There are an enormous number of different ways to destroy or damage any object constructed by man, these ways for the most part require less skill and intuition than it would take to construct that object in the first place. Furthermore, any one mode of destruction can almost always be applied equally successfully to the destruction of a large number of different individual objects: objects which may belong to entirely different classes or categories, and involve vastly different processes of construction. Destruction is a general phenomenon then, construction a specific one. For, when it comes to the successful construction of man-made objects, each particular object is constructed in a manner and a sequence particular to it, and it alone, we might call this its unique context.


In this post I would like to argue that romantic interactions between men and women operate in a way not unlike that of the construction and destruction of man-made objects in the example given above. In other words, each romantic social interaction occurs and unfolds within its own unique context, and as such it is impossible to prescribe with any consistent degree of success, positive universal specific rules, or ‘do’s’ for a successful interaction i.e. the precise words to say at precise times, the correct moment to try to kiss a lady, how long a date should last, where it should take place etc. But that it is in fact, only really possible to generalise (and even here we must exercise great caution) about specific modes of speech, behaviour, timing etc. which might generally be expected to destroy or to have a detrimental effect upon most social interactions. In other words when it comes to situationally specific dating advice, it is not possible to prescribe general ‘do’s’, but only - and with some caution - general ‘don’t’s’. Anyone familiar with modern ‘pickup’ thinking, will of course be aware that the prescription of general ‘do’s’ is precisely what ‘pickup’ attempts to achieve; as such I would venture that this is one of the several fatal mistakes in ‘pickup’ thinking, and one of the major reasons why ‘pickup’ is a pseudoscience, comparable to say astrology or alchemy.


Now, it may be contended here by some that there are in fact general ‘do’s’ that may be prescribed with some consistent degree of success, and which are in fact applicable to almost all romantic social interactions e.g. “wear clean clothes”, “make sure you’ve taken a shower that day”, “arrive on time” etc. But a closer analysis of these apparently general positive prescriptions soon reveals to us that they are in fact general negative prescriptions after all; in other words, they are not really ‘do’s’, but ‘don’t’s’. You see when we say: “wear clean clothes”, we are really saying “don’t wear dirty clothes”; by “have a shower before hand” what we really mean to say is, “make sure that you don’t smell”; in insisting upon punctuality, we are in fact pointing out that arriving 30 minutes late is almost always likely to have a negative impact on a social interaction, and that therefore, it is something that one ought generally not to do. By extending our analysis here to make a quick comparison with a few of the general ‘do’s’, the like of which are commonly prescribed by people from within the so-called ‘pick up community’, and which collectively make up almost the entirety of ‘pickup’ doctrine; we shall be able to see quite plainly the difference between the general ‘don’t’ contained within a statement such as “wear clean clothes”, and the general ‘do’s’ contained within statements such as: “first comment on her appearance, by making an assumption about her nationality e.g. ‘You look so Italian, you are from Tuscany, no?’”, or “after ten minutes with her in the first cafe, slam your hand down on the table, look her in the eye, and say ‘right let’s go’”, or how about, “In the second venue after about thirty minutes of light flirting it is time to go for the kiss”. These pieces of advice are universal specific ‘do’s’: universal in the sense that they are intended to be followed in all interactions of a certain class irrespective of the unique context of each interaction; specific in the sense that they prescribe a specific thing to do or say, or in that they prescribe a specific moment for doing or saying a certain thing. As such these pieces of advice, so quintessentially ‘pickup’, are unhelpful, and can never offer consistent success to those who follow them - more often than not in fact, they can have the very opposite effect - since they ignore the fact that each interaction, and every part of each interaction takes place in its own utterly unique and unpredictable context. What I mean to say is that in ‘romantic interaction A’, occurring and unfolding within its own unique context, it may well be that “going for the kiss after thirty minutes of light flirting in the second bar” is a good idea, or at least isn’t a self-sabotaging one, whereas in a separate interaction - ‘romantic interaction B’, occuring and unfolding within its own unique context “going for the kiss after thirty minutes of light flirting in the second bar” may be entirely inappropriate to the situation, and thus will more likely than not serve to sabotage the whole romance.


Thus does ‘pickup’ deny thousands upon thousands of men the opportunity not only of partaking in the joy of spontaneous social interaction with women; but, by thoughtlessly prescribing universal specific ‘do’s’, it denies them the opportunity of developing their social intuition; and means that when they do finally have a successful romantic interaction it is only through sheer luck - in the sense that on that particular occasion, the unique context of the interaction just so happened to be congruent with their routine. For, ‘pickup’ is like an even less reliable version of the proverbial broken clock; for if, as the saying goes, ‘even a broken clock is right twice a day’ - a ‘pickup’ routine, is right only once every now and then. It is more like a broken thermometer really.

Understanding this reality then, may help men to better judge the value of the kind of dating advice being offered to them from various different online sources. Asking oneself if the advice being given is ‘principle based’: aimed at making the right personal choices in view of the prevailing conditions of contemporary social reality, and thus fundamentally changing oneself for the better, thus making oneself permanently more attractive in the long-term; or, whether the advice is ‘technique based’ claiming that personal attractiveness is a ‘skill’: and focusing mainly on the content of one’s speech, body language, and physical gestures, and the timing and sequence of these things. Asking this simple question, in light of the practical considerations which I have outlined at the beginning of this post then, might save a lot of wasted time and money.

For useful advice will always be based on general social principles, and consist in helping a man to make the right choices based upon those principles, principles rooted in a close observation of the real world and the prevailing socio-sexual conditions at play. Such an approach aims fundamentally at raising one’s overall sexual market value or at least maximising it by making the right personal choices, and minimising bad ones; whereas the latter category of advice is a kind of nostrum prescribed by the romantic equivalent of a snake oil salesman, and claims to help a man effect a kind of of Sexual Market fraud on a consistent basis, by teaching him to mimic the speech, body language, physical gestures, and sequence and timing of these things utilised by genuinely attractive men. It’s easy they will say, anyone can do it!

 

So true! I’ve never taken it upon myself to think about this particular aspect of ‘pickup’ strategy in any great depth before, confining myself mainly to a close consideration of the principal absurdities which stem from reducing personal attractiveness to a ‘skill’, but of course you are dead right! ‘Wearing disguises’ what a brilliant way of summing it up! That really is the essence of it.