I read the article which was linked to in full. As with most articles by shrinks (or people who are fascinated by psychology as this guy clearly is) I thought it would be worth sticking with as he does make some good points about the many deeper unresolved issues that many of us have.
For those who didn't read it here are the notes I jotted down while reading. These were just for my own memory originally so they might not make all that much sense.
Quote:
Good points on deeper issues
Good points on men who fail to improve through PUA then being troubled by issues from the past. It is as if we set ourselves up for failure through not being able to conquer game and get attractive women. It is then like we have failed twice. It is a big pressure if you think about it.
He also makes good point on PUAs not going for sex (prostitution) but preferring the validation of women through PUA. Game the stripper, but don't bang the hooker kind of thing.
Even if Mystery might be a narcissist if you choose to do game to get laid what is the problem? You are playing her ego, but that doesn't mean you have to become the person who interacts with her ego.
As self improvement it might not be representative of healthy behaviour - but then author doesn't seem to outline the answers - only his doubts on PUA.
Dubious on application of term narcissist and forgets we are all conscious beings. He said co dependents are conscious, but then goes on giving the impression that people who read too much PUA become "PUAs" and take on different personalities.
Good points on Evolutionary theories excusing women's behaviour (women have an evolutionary reason to give guys a hard time when approached, but they should be held responsible - just as men are held to account for rape or aggression which might have evolutionary purposes).
He is right to say PUAs blame themselves for failures while excusing her shitty behaviour on the basis that their game was not good enough.
Shit tests might be an egotistical thing that we are trying to get around. What is wrong with that? "I have a boyfriend" might or might not be a shit test if she gets hit on a lot. The author makes out a shit test is always a calculated test by the woman. Probably not true.
Makes a good point in telling men to value their time instead of being played, but he doesn't spend enough time talking about this kind of value. That would be the interesting article.
Good points on PUAs holding themselves to a high standard - trying to have a smart answer for everything. Is this possible for some people?? Again, setting ourselves up for failure with unreasonable expectations
I thought the article was good, but perhaps the author himself is somewhat egotistical. He is in the habit of diagnosing personality disorders from limited information, and showing little empathy when he does. This is dubious in itself, and is one of the worst traits of mental health professionals who engage in this kind of analysis. I don't know if he is or isn't a professional, but the concept of personality disorders is not set in stone. He seems to refer to them like they are a thorough way of defining and explaining everything.
As with all articles / theories and books on psychology. The article deserving of most praise will be the one which shows you how to fix the deeper issues in yourself - not the article that theorises on other people's issues. Anyone know where that article is?
CHAT
