We are not chimpanzees. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The sexist pseudoscience of pick-up artists: the dangers of “alpha male” thinking

We can mock the men in silly hats who claim to be experts in picking up women, but their weird anthropological worldview – of “alpha males” competing for “targets” – is a nonsense that has bled out into other sexist discourse. 

“[PUAHate] confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are.”

- Elliot Rodger, My Twisted World

[12:39 PM]: rape is low inhibition, DOM and alpha. its the ultimate DOM move

[12:40 PM]: what's your rape count

[12:40 PM]: rape is pretty beta

[12:40 PM]: if ur havent raped someone by age 22, ur prob a truecel [celibate] for life

[12:40 PM]: not rape rape, but date rape

[12:40 PM]: Not DOM enough

[12:40 PM]: date rape is the behavior of masculine blacks, and very alpha

[12:41 PM]: who is gonna be the next elliot rodger on this chat? i nominate greg

- An extract from a chatroom conversation between members of the now-closed PUAHate forum, as transcribed by Jezebel’s Erin Gloria Ryan

Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista shooter, was a member of the PUAHate forum. It was nominally a place for those who felt conned by the pick-up artist promise, and many of its members were rightfully suspicious of what they had come to see as snake oil. Yet PUAHate.com is now a dead link because many of its members reacted the other way - they blamed the women for not doing as they should, instead of the broken models of human interaction that they paid money for. They blamed women with a bile that gave Elliot Rodger a sense of belonging.

A "perfect gentleman", Rodger was driven by an immense sense of entitlement, and yet the surprising thing about his women-hating autobiographical manifesto is how little time he ever spends with any of them. Again and again he sets out to find a girlfriend by going to a local mall or park, sitting on a bench, and waiting. Apart from the female counsellor his parents pay to spend an afternoon with him, he never has a full conversation with a woman; he goes to a party, and stands in the corner, waiting for someone to talk to him first. His expectation was such that he felt his designer clothes, his BMW, even his bone structure marked him out as "a descendent of British aristocracy", a person who women should be uncontrollably attracted to for his obvious social value. He was, as he described himself in his final video, "the superior one, the true alpha male", and every woman in the world was thus in violation of his natural rights for ignoring him.

This attitude might seem alien to pick-up artists - by now, a recognisable pop culture stereotype, the subject of reality TV shows and bestselling books - and to those inside the community it might seem unfair to link them to a mass shooter. Pick-up artists, after all, are all about structuring as many opportunities to meet and seduce women as possible, in every kind of possible social situation. Yet it's not a coincidence that PUAHate was the first and only place where Rodger felt as if he was among people capable of understanding him.

Pick-up artists sell an ideology about women, and an odd one at that - cod evolutionary psychology and pop anthropology mashed together into a kind of brute forced seduction, or a quantified romance that approaches women like mechanical devices that can be debugged and reprogrammed. It takes the phrase “press her buttons” too literally, and assumes there’s a de facto biological Konami code that any man can use on any woman. Not for nothing has Neil Strauss, author of The Game, called it “the revenge of the nerds”.

(Arthur Chu’s “Your Princess Is In Another Castle” is also good at expanding on the nerd-romance trope of women as characters to be “won” by a determined hero, rather than being autonomous beings both capable of choice and deserving of respect.)

If you want to buy into this ideology, you can, for example, pay Erik von Markovik of Venusian Arts (better known as “Mystery”, perhaps the founding father of the modern industry) for literature, classes and boot camps that explore his patented Mystery Method. It uses something called the “M3 Model” of seduction:

Each step, broken down into further constituent steps, is designed to ease a woman into the idea of sleeping with a man she’s just met. (And I hope I’m not the only one appalled by the implicit threat in the penultimate step: “last-minute resistance”.) This is what is known in the business as “structured game”, though even proponents of the more improvisational “natural game” accept the need for some adherence to an overarching methodical narrative, some combination of attract/comfort/seduce.

The sine qua non of this narrative, or ideology, is “social hierarchy”. Much of it is framed by the idea of becoming the “alpha” within a group, or at least of understanding the hierarchy of a social situation enough to make sure that a man is valued enough to be a potential mate, literally by "demonstrating value". A PUA proceeds through his routine with the aim of ascending the hierarchy, which in turn inevitably gives a go-ahead for using further seduction routines.

As “encyclopaedia for pick-up artists” PUALingo.com describes it:

In animal hierarchies, the Alpha Male is the most dominant, and typically the physically strongest member of the group. For example, in wolf packs, the “alpha wolf” is the strongest member of the pack, and is the leader of the group. This position of leadership is often achieved by killing or defeating the previous Alpha Male in combat. Alpha wolves have first access to food as well as mating privileges with the females of the pack.

Social status among human social groups is less rigidly defined than in the animal kingdom, but there are some recognizable parallels. Although people don’t often engage in physical violence to achieve dominance, there are still recognizable leaders in different fields who have wide access to material resources and women.

Here’s Mystery laying out the same concept in one of his many, many training videos:

The apes are still living that way. They have complex social hierarchies, and so do we. If you can systematically demonstrate those three characteristics - again, they are leader of men, pre-selected by women, protector of loved ones - if you can convey and systematically demonstrate those characteristics, you will be the tribal leader. A woman’s brain is designed to align with the tribal leader of her community. Why? Because it improves her chances of survival and replication dramatically. She doesn’t even have to be with the tribal leader, she just has to hook up with one of his friends.”

Even when not explicitly citing this evolutionary psychology, most other pick-up artists will implicitly accept it by reference to concepts like “alpha behaviour”. Through concentration, meditation and training any man can shed his earthly beta skin and attain alpha enlightenment, like a horny Bodhisattva - motivated not by empathy for all living things, but a hard-on.

What makes someone alpha depends upon who is asked, but the rule of thumb seems to be it’s related to whatever constitutes mainstream, attractive heterosexual masculinity in Western society: standing up straight, wearing clean clothes, no spitting, presenting as physically and emotionally “normal”. It’s not necessarily about being physically strongest or smartest, but being strong or smart enough to usurp a rival’s position or to make oneself the only attractive option in the club. All the other stuff - the negging, the manipulation, the codification of body language into categories like “bitch shield” or “indicator of interest” - is built upon this idea.

This is an error of pseudoscience, as much a cousin of skull shape determining personality as it is an unloved child of the neoliberal doctrine of rational self-interest. It’s dangerous, too. It bleeds into the wider “men’s rights movement”, and to places like reddit’s nightmarish r/theredpill sub, where terms like alpha are a bedrock of the lingo and women are seen (without apparent awareness of the contradiction) as both intentionally disrespectful of men and witless automatons in thrall to their genetic programming. Women who deny men their due are feminists, and they must be feminists not because they value themselves but because they're broken, and hate men. It's a catch-all justification that reframes any female action that isn't male-centred as morally wrong: women are bitches, because they are.

It’s a mess, of course. At its root is the idea that the hunter-gatherer societies that existed before the Agricultural Revolution reflect our primitive, and undeniable, nature. That the mating rituals of 200,000 years ago are still there, in our bones.

There is, though, no rule for ape social structure. Gorillas live in troops of around a dozen individuals with a clearly-defined male leader, who earns his position based on strength. Chimpanzees have larger communities of twenty or more individuals, each with a position in a hierarchy that is subject to a kind of ape politics. Orangutans live alone. Bonobo society is polygamous - they mate with each other near-indiscriminately, bonding with each other through both heterosexual and homosexual sex. Males get their social status from the status of their mothers, and some believe that bonobo society is matriarchal. They are capable of empathy and altruism.

In contrast, we can be reasonably sure that prehistoric human societies were non-hierarchical, egalitarian and cooperative, as are the majority of today's hunter-gatherer societies that have survived, and that human nature still tends towards these instincts. They - and we’re not only talking homo sapiens here, but possibly also antecedents like homo erectus - are believed to have had strong ties beyond their bloodline, with individuals in a group caring for children who were not their own. Members of a society who were reproductively useless - such as women too old to bear more children - would have still been valued, as humanity was apparently not synonymous with reproduction or social status. Early art venerated the female, not male, form, and so matriarchal societies may have been common. As kinship was not the main motivation for cooperation, it meant language, technology and friendships spread within and between groups more easily. From computer modelling of social interaction, it appears that egalitarianism may be an inevitable consequence of human-level intelligence.

All of which is to say that if you’re going to do a dumb thing like resort to an is-ought fallacy to justify your sexism - should we start calling it scientific sexism, or is that too formal and dignified a label? - then at least get the first part right.

Research into what makes a human attractive is a bit strange, actually. Spraying yourself with a love phermone isn't going to work, but there is some element of smell involved. There's the aesthetics of body shape, and the degree to which intelligence plays a role. A model of the 1930s looks very different to a model of the 2010s - to say nothing of the myriad norms of gender and sexuality that exist in different communities around the world - so there must be something that shapes how we fancy people, but the nature/nurture interaction here is a foggy one. Weird Science's compliant superwoman is, I'm afraid to say, a fantasy.

(If we ever invent time travel, let's use it for something productive: drop pick-up artists in 17th century London, 7th century Pyongyang, 8th century Caracol and 14th century Timbuktu, give them a phrasebook, and let them test what really works.)

This might seem a bit of a fool’s errand, pointing out that self-help gurus - gasp - make stuff up. Yet, it bleeds. The days after the Isla Vista shooting, as PUAHate closed down and its members spread out to colonise other chatrooms and forums, there was debate about whether it was either a result of mental illness or a misogynist hate crime influenced by social pressures. The two are not mutually-exclusive. The widespread acceptance of the inferiority of other human beings can have terrible, unforeseen effects in shaping the people who grow to believe it. Reduce Africans to stupidity and strength, and it is a short leap to asserting a claim over them; reduce women to their genitals and "tribal" impulses, and it is a short leap to asserting a claim over them. After all, that's what an alpha has every right to do.

Amateur pick-up artist meetings, where they can swap tips and tricks, are known as "lairs". I've never been sure if it's really tongue-in-cheek or not.

Ian Steadman is a staff science and technology writer at the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @iansteadman.

Flickr: Alex Brown
Show Hide image

The rise of the racist robots

Advances in artifical intelligence are at risk of being held back by human ignorance. 

As far as dystopian visions of the future go, you can’t get much worse than the words “Nazi robots”. But while films, TV and games might conjure up visions of ten-foot titanium automatons with swastikas for eyes, the real racist robots – much like their human counterparts – are often much more subtle.

Last night, Stephen Hawking warned us all about artificial intelligence. Speaking at the opening of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (LCFI) at Cambridge University, Hawking labelled AI “either the best, or the worst thing, ever to happen to humanity.” It’s an intelligent warning – many experts are already worried that AI will destroy the world of work – but it homogenises humans. What is the “best thing” for some may be the “worst thing” for others, and nowhere is this clearer than the issue of race.

It started with the Nikon Coolpix S630. In 2009, Joz Wang, a Taiwanese-American, bought the camera for her mother, and was shocked when a message on the screen asked “Did someone blink?” after she took a picture of herself. In July 2015, Google Photos came under fire after its image recognition software tagged Jacky Alciné and his friend, both of whom are black, as “Gorillas”. In September of the same year, a video showing an automatic soap dispenser refusing to respond to a black hand went viral. You might dismiss these examples as harmless bugs or honest mistakes, but they still tell us a lot about the way the technology industry tests its products – and therefore, which customers it values.

But then it got worse. This year alone, the first beauty contest judged by AI had only one dark-skinned winner out of 44, Princeton academics discovered that a popular language-processing algorithm found “black” names unpleasant, and an American software used to predict future criminals rated black people as higher risk. And who can forget Microsoft’s ill-fated chatbot Tay? The bot – which was taught to converse by mimicking other Twitter users’ speech – was taken offline after 16 hours because it began spurting sexist and racist messages.

We could sit here and debate whether an AI can truly be considered racist, but it wouldn’t change the outcome of events. Even though these algorithms and machines aren’t explicitly programmed to be racist – and their designers usually aren’t prejudiced themselves – it doesn’t change the consequences of their use. The more and more dominant AI becomes in our world, the more problematic this will become. Imagine the consequences of racial bias in AI job-screening tools, dating sites, mortgage advisers, insurance companies, and so on.

“Bias in AI systems is a vital issue,” says Calum Chace, the best-selling author of Surviving AI and a speaker on how the technology will affect our future. “We humans are deplorably biased – even the best of us. AIs can do better, and we need them to, but we have to ensure their inputs are unbiased.”

To do this, Chace explains, we need to figure out the root of the “racism”. Pretty much no one is deliberately designing their AI to be racist – Google’s chief social architect, Yonatan Zunger, responded quickly to the “Gorillas” incident, Tweeting “This is 100% Not OK.” But the fact that only two per cent of Google employees are black is perceived as part of the problem, as in many of these instances the technology was designed with white people in mind. “The chief technology officer of the company that ran the beauty contest explained that its database had a lot more white people than Indian people and that it was ‘possible’ that because of that their algorithm was biased,” says Chace.

There are also technical solutions. Chace explains that machine learning systems work best when they are fed huge quantities of data. “It is likely that the system was trained on too few images – a mere 6,000, compared with the many millions of images used in more successful machine learning systems. As a senior Googler said, machine learning becomes ‘unreasonably effective’ when trained on huge quantities of data. Six thousand images are probably just not enough.”

Now more than ever, it is important to straighten out these issues before AI becomes even more powerful and prevalent in our world. It is one thing for intelligent machines to drive our cars and provide our insurance quotes, and another thing for them to decide who lives and dies when it comes to war. “Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) will increasingly be deployed in war, and in other forms of conflict," says Chase. "This will happen whether we like it or not, because machines can make decisions better and faster than humans.  A drone which has to continually “phone home” before engaging its opponent will quickly be destroyed by a fully autonomous rival.  If we get it right, these deadly machines will reduce the collateral damage imposed by conflict. But there is plenty of work to be done before we get to that enviable position.”

Whether or not this vision of the future comes to fruition in 10, 20, or 100 years, it is important to prepare for it – and other possibilities. Despite constant advances in technology, there is still no such thing as a "concious" robot that thinks and feels as humans do. In itself an AI cannot be racist. To solve this problem, then, it is humans that need fixing. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.