I very rarely use this blog to trash my competition (the exception). Partially, this is because I don’t really spend too much time thinking about the other guys in this business of teaching pick up and dating to men, but it’s also because I think it’s a bit unprofessional to speak poorly of your competition.
But sometimes you have to speak up.
If you’ve been following the blogs recently, you may have noticed that Jeffy from Real Social Dynamics has gotten a bit of negative attention from the press. It seems as though (edit: the friend of) a writer for Jezebel went on a date with RSD Jeffy and wrote about her negative experience. This caused other women to speak up about their stories about RSD Jeffy, including a professional escort, and several others. Nobody had anything nice to say.
Common themes include: meeting on OkCupid, Jeffy being pushy in the bedroom, Jeffy freaking out and berating women who won’t sleep with him, and generally being an insane douchebag. I highly recommend you read the articles above for the full story.
This is doubly ironic coming from guys who go on and on about the “inner game” of picking up, and being “unreactive”, and getting in touch with your “true self”, while “pimping” the club. Of course, a lot of that advice is actually pretty good. You should focus on your inner game, you should be unreactive, and getting in touch with your true self is probably a good idea. But when you’re learning how to do this stuff, who are you taking your cues from? People who have their act together? Or people who are deeply messed up?
There’s a saying in medicine: “First, do no harm”. And that’s something I take seriously when I’m teaching guys. If I give 90% good advice, and 10% harmful advice, am I really helping the guys who come to me? If 90% of the time I’m teaching men how to be more confident, in touch with themselves and competent in their relationships with women, and 10% of the time I’m indoctrinating students with my own insecurities, am I really helping them? Or are we just trading one set of problems for another?
This is the problem with a lot of the PUA scene. You have a lot of guys out there who give 90% good advice and positivity, and 10% bad advice and negativity. And what’s the result? Students who just trade one set of relationship problems for another. Students who feel the need to keep coming back for more and more advice, because every bit of good advice they get is laced with a “poison pill” of insecurity and bad inner game. You get dependence, instead of independence, insecurity instead of real self confidence. And little teasers of success and validation instead of real positive changes to the way you relate to people and to yourself.
And when someone sets themselves up as an “inner game guru”, without having their act together personally, they wind up doing exactly that – indoctrinating students with their own hangups and negativity, and actually holding their students back instead of helping them.
The cognitive dissonance must be killing them.
Update: Clarisse Thorne has written an article for the SFWeekly Blog.