Fin,

I think my point has been slightly misconstrued on this thread--something that is partly my fault. I have a slight tendancy to get diverted onto tangents that don't address my main point and then get locked into defending something that I don't necessarily agree with. I'm working on it.

Neither true nor false representations of oneself inherently imply a lack of censureship or behavioural modification. One can still censure or change one's own behaviour without presenting a false image of the self. (A common example--you have a coworker that you have to interact with and find that something you do annoys him/her. Changing that behaviour doesn't necessarily imply that you're presenting a false image of yourself, depending on what that behaviour is or on how deeply it is engrained in your character. If you're pretending to absolutely love Dancing with the Stars when you despise all forms of dancing, then you are presenting a false image of yourself. If, however, you realise that asking questions in a particular way, or explaining something from the getgo annoys her and you change the behaviour, I don't think that you're presenting a false image of yourself because, most of the time, it's purely a superficial matter. No one is a monolithic, who engages with all people in the exact same way--choosing to engage in one way rather than another so long as the only changes are superficial is irrelevant.)

Every person is complex, and inherently has multiple social beings. You act differently with some friends than others (often particularly noticeable when the groups themselves significantly diverge), typically act differently around your parents and family when compared to how you act around your friends, and so on. That doesn't neccesarily imply any manipulation or dishonesty. People bring out different personality traits in us, and different traits and modes of behaviour are appropriate in different settings.

Given that we are not monoliths, the distinction that I draw between an honest and false presentation of self can be a difficult one to make. The other important thing to note is that this definition is contingent upon how the individual in question sees him or herself, not how others see this person. Thus, if you are really terrible singer and believe that you're God's gift to the music world, presenting yourself as a wonderful singer is an honest presentation of self even though this honest presentation may be a bit misguided.

Honest and false presentations of self should also not be confused with the difference between honesty and full disclosure that I listed earlier. Since the honest presentation is based upon how the individual sees him/herself, you have to take that individual's own personal narrative into account. Everyone has a personal narrative running through their heads, and each one of them is inherently biased. So playing off of one's strengths and minimzing one's weaknesses is also not necessarily a false presentation of self, so long as it is line with one's own personal narrative.

As I understand false presentation of self, it involves presenting yourself in a way that you do not believe yourself to be in order to gain some advantage. In addition, this false presentation of self has to involve some feature or aspect of your deepest personality, your innermost self, if you will. Small dishonesties--ie. smiling at a joke you don't find funny, being polite but not overly friendly to some that you actually dislike--do not qualify as a misrepresentation of self unless they somehow speak to some deeper aspect of your personality. If you consider humour to be art form and view bad jokes as an absolute travesty against mankind, then you are presenting a false image of yourself by laughing at a bad joke. If you don't have any such hangups and value the commaderie that jokes provide, then it isn't a false presentation of self, because you value the joke not for what it is, but for what it represents.

Hopefully that helps clarify. I should mention, when I get into discussion like this, I do from a search-for-truth standpoint rather than a wrong-right/win-lose standpoint. Thus, my ideas are constantly evolving, something else that can make them difficult to pin down.

Edit: Realizing that the paradigm I have just constructed is self-defeating, I feel that I must add a further element. It also depends upon the depth of the deception/misrepresentation.

Realitically, society owes its relatively stable existence to the proliferation of small lies. These allow us to get through our daily lives without terribly offending everyone that we meet. These don't reach the level of honest vs. false representation because, in most cases, they don't misconstrue our core values strongly enough to matter. Unless, of course, you happen to value radical honesty in all situations, something that, depsite appreances, I do not endorse.

Apart from the accurate representation of values dimension of honest vs. dishonest presentations of self, there is a further element that deals with the effect that your representation has upon other people. As per my definition above, a false representation of self involves presenting yourself in a way that you do not believe yourself to be in order to gain some advantage. Is it always wrong? In an ideal world, yes. We, however, do not live in ideal world. False presentations of self are wrong in proportion to the extent of what you are hoping to gain from another--the more that you hope to exploit, the more loathsome that your behaviour becomes.

Fuze,

Awww, are you still in a snit that I wouldn't be Facebook friends with you?

Melissa (I doubt thats your real name) you are not who you claim to be .

If you were you would provide proof.

Bravo on your trollin and getting this passionate bebate going.

But without any hard proof your just a bunch a typed up words.

RVAIS,

My name isn't Melissa, something that I have already admitted on mulitple occassions. Somehow, I highly doubt that RVAIS is your name either.

Exactly who do I claim to be, pray tell? And who are you to tell me whether I am this person or not?

We're on the internet--proof is a relative term. There is almost nothing that I couldn't fake did I possess the skills and were I so inclined.

And why do you ask me alone for proof of who and what I am?

PU is the baring of ones true self, by following or practicing it your are openly displaying who you really are and persuing the betterment of your goals - A Male looking to fulfill his natural programming. Since we do this to a better or worse degree as per norm I dont see the problem, with trying to improve.

Eh, not one to say this, but, back on point....


...Is Pickup right?

Answer: You tell me...is it?

Just cause I know your not a female, and you show that not only by the way you express yourself but by the fact that you got upset that I called you on it.

Dont feed the troll!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NMGsRmZTFQ

As a PUA I and (I believe) many others believe in the ethos you have presented.

Maybe you didn't really have as much of a problem with PU as you thought you had?

dont we all play roles in life? you act a certain way at work,home or at a bar no one ever acts the same way in any environment i dont believe in a 'true self' maybe its because i dont believe in a spiritual enlightenment i act in a way that my environment requires me to,

_________________
life sucks and then you die! deal with it

Fin,

Not necessarily. Although PUAs may have the self-regarding aspect accurate representation down, that doesn't mean that they aren't misrepresenting themselves to others. There have been multiple examples of it on the site alone, one of which is still the RJ video. He is being maniuplative via a false presentation of himself to the woman that he talking to.

I don't deny that there are probably PUAs that I would consider to be relatively moral people. Given what I have seen of the system, however, I will treat any known PUA with extreme caution and susipicion until such point as he demonstrates himself worthy of trust. Of course, since I also tend to be susipicious of the entire male population that approaches me without a reason (being introduced by friends, through work, mutual membes of a club, ect.), it's arguable whether or not I view PUAS more negatively than the average guy when meeting them in person. I will say, however, that certain typical PUA techniques (and I'm not talking about highly scripted techniques here) instantly provoke distrust and suspicion on my part, and did even before I knew about PU.

RVAIS,

If that's your view of what upset looks like, I pity the poor unfortunate who actually has the audacity to get upset in your presence--you won't know what has hit you.

Crazyoney2k,

I never said one true self, I said multiple selves. There is a difference.

THIS ^^

Is exactly why there is so much confusion in this thread.

There is no system, there is no unifying creed, in fact there are very few "laws" or notions in PU that the majority of informed people agree with.

-----
You've been here a very short time, and probably only enaged with a few people (many of whom will be forum lukrers) in what I would imagine to be a very linear line of inquiry.

I had no idea how broad and complex PU was until somewhere halfway through my second year of asking people, of reading, of practising, of discussing, thinking and analysing.
------

The word "A pick up artist" is someone who goes out and with some relative skill seduces people for a certain end.

What this persons goal is and how they achieve it, is impossible to know from the title "Pick up artist"
------

"Pick up tactics contain false representation of self"


^^ for that you will need to identify each school of PU, explain the core mechanics going on in that style, then provide 2-3 examples of why those core mechanics are "false representations of self".

Then repeate for all the schools of Pick up.

Fin,

Not entirely. That whole digression into a discussion about my relationship further confused the sitation was entirely irrelevant to my point.

I do realize, to some extent, that PUdom is far more extensive than I probably even want to know. I still reserve my right to be inherently distrustful and suspicious of it.

You do have reason to be suspicious, and you have your right to be. Possibly I would be too if I were a female. I understand that PU learns to give the good awnser to a girl in any (conversational) situation, even if they don't realy mean it, just to get the girl.

But if you ever meet a guy who could be a pua or he is just a natural, don't judge him directly. Don't say directly he is untrustable. Instead wait and see what he has to offer. Between all the people with their lines (and not only PUAs use lines. Other people who don't know about PU and the community do as well make and (over)use their lines), there are also a lot of genuine and honest people. Secondly, don't be affraid to be seduced. Instead be open to it. If the relation with your BF is strong enough, then them hitting on you won't do anything. If it does, don't blame yourself, it's all natural.

_________________
You WANT to make a change.
You CAN make a change.
You WILL make a change.

Ambitious to be succesfull => Shyler