Stop Negging Them On!
My musings on the “pickup artist community” are now officially the most gratifying blog posts I’ve ever written. This is partly due to fascinating responses from folks who’ve e-mailed me, interesting conversations it has spurred with friends, and the opportunity to amuse myself by responding to angry e-mails on that subject by replying, “Wait, I’m confused, are you actually upset about what I’ve written or are you just trying to neg me?”
But mostly I am delighted that I’ve prompted Reihan, Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus to expound on their respective pickup codes of ethics — and they’ve all done so in video clips!
I’ll first address Reihan’s comment that “the neg or the tease is a really useful thing.” Do watch the video. His monologue is characteristically insightful. What I’d object to is the parallel he draws between teasing and “negging” — the former seems to me a perfectly defensible kind of human interaction, and one that is quite distinct from the latter. Teasing can be good natured. We’ve all affectionately teased someone in a way that they’ve enjoyed, and been teased ourselves in a way we didn’t mind. Social skill plays a role, as does the intention of the teaser. Friends can tease one another more easily than strangers due to the knowledge that they’re generally fond of the person being teased. In a pickup situation, however, it takes far greater social skill to tease successfully because one’s opening comment is the entirety of the relationship between the man and the woman.
The pickup artist community, composed mostly of males who’ve turned to its techniques because they don’t have finely tuned social skills, in fact teases people with bad intentions, or so I’m led to believe by the e-mails that they’ve sent me. It isn’t that they’re intending to tease a woman as a friend might in a spirit of affection, or as a suitor might as a flirty way to simulate a friend’s affection, or as Reihan suggests, as a way to gauge how seriously a woman takes herself as a proxy for whether he ought to be interested — by their own account, the “pickup artist” uses the neg to “knock a woman off her pedestal” so that she’s “on the same level” as the beta male trying to pick her up. This is evidenced by the fact that “pickup artists” recommend “negging” more intensely the prettier a woman is. The intention is to reduce her self-esteem, or even worse to play on her insecurities with the knowledge that some women react to that technique by having sex or hooking up as a coping mechanism.
Put succinctly, the difference between “teasing” and “negging” is that “the neg” is by definition and design a technique of negativity. When Reihan says that the neg is a poor simulacrum of the tease, I’d say that maybe that is the theory behind it, but that in fact the two differ not just in degree but in kind. There are crappy ways one could tease a friend about being small, and other, better ways, Reihan says, and I’d agree, adding only that one crappy way is the neg.
On to Bob and Mickey, whose exchange I’ll embed:
Mickey rightly points out that it’s creepy to lower someone’s self-esteem, then adds “because serotonin is good, and people generally perform better when their serotonin is high.” I’d say it’s creepy for Kantian, Christian, and maybe even Aristotelian reasons.
Bob asks, “What is the ethical difference between the neg and playing hard to get,” presumably because both involve calculated attempts to manipulate someone in a way that makes them feel less good than they otherwise would. The answer seems obvious to me. Would you rather have a person of the opposite sex play hard to get, or make negative comments about your appearance and/or personality?
It is one thing for a woman to conclude that, for some unknown reason, a man isn’t interested in her. This happens to everyone. It needn’t be a self-esteem lowering experience, or at least not a significant one, since no one expects that everyone they encounter is going to be attracted to them, and general social experience teaches that de facto rejection is a common enough thing.
Far less common is for someone to actively comment negatively on some aspect of your appearance or personality. That act can lower self-esteem in a significant way. The neg entails commenting on something specific to the person you’re trying to pick-up, which makes it particularly pointed, and because it is so unusual to be insulted — the fact that it is unexpected is cited by the pickup artist community as an explanation for its effectiveness — it is easy to conclude that you possess a flaw that is unusually noticeable or extreme, or else that unlike other people your feelings aren’t worth sparing. Contra Mickey, it is quite consistent to abhor the neg and accept playing hard to get.
I do think Mickey is right when he notes that if you’re trying to pickup women in bars you’re “in a select group” and “playing a weird game” — I imagine most men have tried to talk to a female stranger in a bar sometime, as have I, but that contra conventional wisdom this is actually the exception rather than the rule for where men meet women.
“What is the meaning of pickups?” Bob asks.
“Well you get her number and go on dates,” Mickey replies.
Either I am cynical or that is charmingly naive, because I’m pretty sure a lot of guys in the “pickup artist” community would say that the meaning of pickups is that you take a woman home from the bar and have sex with her. Anyhow, Mickey then says, “If you read Conor’s stuff, it’s almost as if he actually goes around meeting women in bars, and that’s the only way he’s thought of meeting women. It seems to me that it’s only ten percent of men and women who meet each other in bars. You can go to blogger parties, for example.”
Oh sweet Jesus, I hope the general response to my “pickup artist” posts isn’t to assume that I meet women in bars exclusively, and haven’t thought of any other way — my travels abroad excepted, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a woman in a bar who I didn’t already know through friends (indeed I recently dated someone for over a year who I met at what could be termed a blogger party — the birthday celebration of Megan McArdle, as it happens). If pressed, I’d say my approach to women who catch my eye is to talk to them. Given a book deal I could explain at length how this technique works sometimes!
But our time is better spent on Mickey’s keen observation that the “pickup artist” community is obsessed with making beta males into alpha males, even though there are perfectly good ways for beta males to successfully meet women while being themselves. (See Hugh Grant, Adam Brody, Michael Cera, etc.) In response, Bob notes that there are some men who get shut out of the reproductive sweepstakes altogether. True! Mickey then encourages Bob to write “The Beta Male Pickup Handbook.” If a blog post I wrote inspired that undertaking I’d count my journalistic career a success, retire to California, and open a burrito stand on a pier somewhere.
Though they defend “the neg,” I actually find it impossible to imagine Reihan, Bob or Mickey employing the technique, despite the fact that they are all quick-witted men adept at good-naturedly teasing others in social situations. But I hope our disagreement persists and spreads, ultimately growing into a Slate spinoff called The XY Factor, where Michael Lewis, Ross Douthat and Rick Hertzberg expound on their domestic habits, James Poulos and Will Wilkinson argue about how marriage should be rightly conceived, Jim Manzi writes the first quantitatively informed advice column and James Lileks is given the Web magazine equivalent of the back page.
I find it creepy, personally. It doesn’t matter how noble your intentions; it’s wrong to manipulate people in that way, especially if your express intention is to get in their pants.
And, you know, people have been known to get laid without some scheme or whatever. I mean I’ve said in the past that if being the douchebag in the bar doing magic tricks was the only way to get laid, I’d just as soon do without, thanks. Luckily enough, you don’t have to.
— Freddie · Aug 8, 02:01 PM · #
The first step is to establish the otherness of women. They are mean, vindictive little creatures who don’t give a shit about humiliating you in public; they think they have all the power; they think they have the right to judge and reject you, even though they don’t even know you, etc.
Once you buy into the idea that they are on the other team, the ‘hook-up’ becomes a contest of power and will. Calculation is not only allowed, it’s crucial if you want to win. Fuck Kant and all that.
In other words, the “art of the pick-up” is for losers, uglies, neurotics, wallflowers, or betas. All the winners have to do is show up and show off.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 8, 03:54 PM · #
I think Reihan made some good points. And I think, Connor, you’re missing Reihan’s point which seems to me to be that there’s a very very fine line between “teasing” and “negging”, a practically indistinguishable line. Perhaps because Reihan uses the language of friendship to make his point, the pick-up artists use – I don’t know? – a tone where they seem to be objectifying women, the two seem different but they’re really not – they spring from the same impulse, a desire to connect more (in whatever way) with a different person. And after all, isn’t negging the bona fide lingua franca of screwball comedies? The more the protagonists argue, the more they say things to hurt each other, the more we know they’re going to end up together, no? Think of Cary Grant and Hepburn in the Philadelphia Story.
— scritic · Aug 8, 04:32 PM · #
Okay, I read a few prior posts after reading this one. I made it as far as “self esteem” and then had to bang my head against the wall. I didn’t know people were still using that term. What the hell is self esteem? And to couple it with an article about ethics…it’s just so perfect I’m in danger of eating up my whole Saturday writing about it behind the computer. But alas, I don’t know that anyone would be interested. Reader’s Digest Digest version: it’s the watchword of the incredibly conflicted scientific godless. Now c’mon, who wants some?
— Doug · Aug 8, 05:28 PM · #
I don’t think Conor is missing Reihan’s point. Reihan’s argument rests on the idea that negging or something like it can “simulate” the sort of teasing that goes on in real friendships, and eventually lead to real friendship, but he is clear that it is artificial. In Conor’s model as I understand it teasing is the result of an already existing friendship, not a way to bring one about. I think both are clear on the subject of the disagreement; I don’t think Reihan is trying to define the neg out of existence.
— Aaron · Aug 8, 06:42 PM · #
The difference between ‘teasing’ and ‘negging’ is obvious. Teasing is bluffed intimacy; it’s object is the pleasure of repartee; it is essentially social behavior. ‘Negging’ is artifice — calculated speech pursuing an ulterior motive; it’s object is self-gratification at another’s expense and manipulation for sex; it is essentially anti-social behavior.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 8, 08:38 PM · #
The point of “game” is for guys who are stuck in subordinate positions to other men at work to learn techniques to pretend to women in bars that they are dominant over other men during the daytime (at least until the woman figures out that the guy isn’t making alpha male bucks at work).
So, many of the game techniques are ones that dominant men use on subordinate men at work, such as negging.
Consider the relationship between George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Obviously, Rove was smarter and harder working than Bush. So, why was he subordinate to Bush? In part, because Bush carried out classic dominant male behavior of alternating between praising Rove, holding out the vision of how far he could go as Bush’s subordinate, and negging him, calling him “Turd Blossom” and the like, to undermine his self-confidence. Bush always negged Rove with a smile on his face, but neg him he did.
The really interesting question about game is this: if some percentage of subordinate males can actually, through practice, can start fooling women in bars into believing they are dominant males, why not use the same self-improvement techniques to fool men at work? After all, if men believe you are an alpha male, then you are an alpha male. And if men think you are an alpha male, and give you money and power like they think you are an alpha male, then women will think you are an alpha male, too.
So, if these techniques really work, why restrict yourself to getting just Women when you can get Women, Money, and Power?
— Steve Sailer · Aug 8, 10:11 PM · #
Conor, I must say your constant discussion and references to your sex life in this and other posts have crossed the line into open boasting. Very unattractive.
— josh · Aug 9, 03:19 AM · #
Josh,
Really? I thought I’ve been reasonably discrete. I’ve revealed that I met someone at a friend’s party who I dated for roughly a year, that I typically don’t try to pick up women in bars, and (implicitly) that I don’t use the neg. Is that boastful? Seems pretty anodyne to me.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 9, 08:46 AM · #
Conor, your dismissive attitude towards game deeply saddens me. I wish to convert you.
Your,
Josh.
— Josh Xiong · Aug 9, 04:59 PM · #
“In other words, the “art of the pick-up” is for losers, uglies, neurotics, wallflowers, or betas. All the winners have to do is show up and show off.”
“The point of “game” is for guys who are stuck in subordinate positions to other men at work to learn techniques to pretend to women in bars that they are dominant over other men during the daytime (at least until the woman figures out that the guy isn’t making alpha male bucks at work).”
Two winners on this thread. It’s no accident that the guys who go into “the game” are usually fairly low on the food chain. I mean, would any self-respecting jock, executive or member of anything remotely resembling an elite take tips from an obvious tool like this guy?
— Mark in Houston · Aug 9, 08:11 PM · #
“In other words, the “art of the pick-up” is for losers, uglies, neurotics, wallflowers, or betas. All the winners have to do is show up and show off.”
I find this disturbing. Is it somehow wrong for those low on the food chain to try to rise above and compete with the big boys? Must the loser accept his rank forever? Game allows men who aren’t born with social savvy to learn it. Those who oppose that seem mighty reactionary to me, like the social elites who want to ossify an old caste system.
“The point of “game” is for guys who are stuck in subordinate positions to other men at work to learn techniques to pretend to women in bars that they are dominant over other men during the daytime (at least until the woman figures out that the guy isn’t making alpha male bucks at work).”
Are we to assume that being alpha requires making big bucks? Some of the most alpha males I’ve known make diddly squat. If you have to bribe a woman with your money, you are not alpha.
— Josh Xiong · Aug 10, 01:31 AM · #
I thought I’ve been reasonably discrete. I’ve revealed that I met someone at a friend’s party who I dated for roughly a year, that I typically don’t try to pick up women in bars, and that I don’t use the neg. Is that boastful? Seems pretty anodyne to me.
— jordan 6 rings · Aug 10, 03:15 AM · #
Josh X, I think anybody who can get laid, should. And only young alpha’s can get away with making or doing diddly squat. To remain alpha past thirty you gotta play The Game.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 10, 04:35 AM · #
I’m still astonished that negging works. It’s like behavioral economics, but more so — it just blows the doors off a lot of my cherished assumptions.
I guess it might display my age or beta status, but what I want most is some advice about how to condition my daughters to kick gamers in their junk rather than go home with them.
— J Mann · Aug 10, 01:54 PM · #
Anxiety about PUAs—whether manifested in disbelief that they are as successful as they say they are, or moralizing about their tactics—is easily as interesting as the PUAs themselves. But no one ever died from (safe) sex they later regretted, let alone from being “negged”. A little less concern about the fragility of the damsels in the pickup bars would go a long way towards dissipating the PUA mystique/notoriety.
Basically Samuel Johnson’s rule—never be amazed at anything, or word for word, “all wonder is the effect of novelty upon ignorance”—is universally useful advice, but particularly applicable here.
— kth · Aug 10, 02:57 PM · #
I want most is some advice about how to condition my daughters to kick gamers in their junk rather than go home with them.
Perhaps not as effective as trauma to the epididymis, but if you teach your girls The Art and why it works, they should be inoculated.
On a side note, ‘why negging works’ is an interesting question. The ‘neg’ is an unusual form of signal mimicry, at least if you look to nature. The theory of honest signalling implies that it’s usually too costly for an inferior animal to imitate a supersematism (signal of quality) like stotting or peacocking. But not so with negging.
So how does it work? Negging signals relative status by imitating how a higher male speaks to an inferior female, that is, by imitating the higher male’s mood and utterances. The receipt of the signal by the female activates a fixed action pattern: validation-seeking. Almost uniformly the signaled mood is nonchalance, and the utterances are observation sentences, like “Ha, your noise wrinkles up when you laugh.”
And why do these signals activate that fixed action pattern? And why is validation-seeking so effective at increasing the near-future probability that this girl will sleep with that man?
Someone should figure this out.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 10, 03:36 PM · #
Oh, and in my Aug 10, 12:35 AM comment that to remain alpha past thirty you gotta play The Game . . .
I did not mean PUA. I meant the much older game of Benjis and Status.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 10, 03:50 PM · #
It’s curious that the notion that there actually exist “alpha” and “beta” males is an unquestioned assumption within this conversation. From this (female) vantage point it seems like an overly reductionistic way of categorizing a small segment of behaviors that are about male perceptions of their relationship to other males. This is boys talking to themselves; I’ve never heard (or read) women refer to “alpha” and/or “beta” males.
I suppose I enjoy the naive world I inhabit, where men and women treat each other as people, first, rather than as objects for potential conquest (sexual, financial or otherwise) via a series of deceptive maneuvers. I don’t worry about the status of the men I date on the barometer of alphaness; I’m more concerned about the status of the men I date on the barometer of decent-human-beingness.
— jbc · Aug 10, 05:21 PM · #
For those who find this so terrible – these tactics were not invented from scratch, but observed and copied. The number of calculated negs that go on in the real world is probably very, very small when compared against the number of negs that are simply delivered naturally, without a calculated strategy, without knowing this has a name. So it looks like your problem is the calculated nature of it.
Have you ever seen someone lose a game, such as chess, to someone else, and then try to spin their loss into a win by saying something like, “At least my entire life isn’t spent on this game.” It looks like that’s what’s going on here. Anybody who puts any effort into anything you don’t have to, or don’t want to, is pathetic, and we don’t have to respect their success at something in which you yourself chose to compete.
If you have ever had casual sex, you have probably done this without knowing it. So if your problem is really with hurting someone’s self-esteem, you should be on watch from now on. If your problem is with purposefully hurting someone’s self esteem, then I don’t know how avoiding learning these behaviors so you can claim ignorance, and therefore innocence, is justifiable.
— bcg · Aug 10, 08:00 PM · #
Leave the ethics till you’ve mastered orthography. It’s “discreet”, not “discrete”, boyos.
— Barryaran · Aug 10, 08:46 PM · #
Negging is essential behavior in the formation of all-male and all-female social spheres.
Females tend to form small cliques and make catty remarks to drive away lower-status females.
Males negging other males can lead to violence, but it’s often less vicious than female negging. It can go on pleasantly for a lifetime: watch how four retired buddies insult each other on the golf course.
The main function of male vs. male negging, however, is hierarchy building. It’s a test of dominance to see who has the personality to be a leader. Leaders encourage it in social settings to check out which younger males have the attributes of quick-wittedness and aggression to become subordinate line managers within his hierarchy, and which would be better suited for staff roles.
The question, therefore, remains: Why not use Game not just in the bars but in the boardrooms to win not just women, but the power, money, and prestige that naturally attract women as well?
Presumably, Pick-Up Artistry works best for aggressive, quick-witted men who have flaws that prevent them from becoming leaders of men (e.g., laziness, need for instant gratification, and so forth).
— Steve Sailer · Aug 10, 08:50 PM · #
What about negging someone just because you generally find them neg-worthy, i.e. they suck? Is it creepy to straightforwardly neg a person without ulterior motive? Are there other ethical considerations for such a course?
— Mike · Aug 12, 11:39 AM · #
“I’m not sure I’ve ever met a woman in a bar who I didn’t already know through friends”.
Oh dear…
— js · Aug 18, 07:14 PM · #
Bad examples. It’s easy to successfully meet women being yourself when your “self” is internationally famous A-list movie star.
— Hm · Aug 18, 07:57 PM · #
So people go out to a bar and a guy says something to a woman and eventually they end up in bed.
Conor Friedersdorf does not approve. He says that a guy shouldn’t say things to women that cause them to go to bed with the guy because that would be wrong. Those women should go to bed with other guys who don’t put effort into figuring out what women find attractive but simply do things that come naturally.
This is one weird moral argument.
— Steve Johnson · Aug 19, 05:41 AM · #
The concepts of “Game” are increasingly being supported by quantifiable data:
Study Supports Important concept of Game
— OneSTDV · Aug 19, 04:00 PM · #
“It’s curious that the notion that there actually exist ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ males is an unquestioned assumption within this conversation.”
Amen. I’m not a biologist, but from what I can gather, the terms don’t even have much of a basis in animal behavior, where the “beta” is the one in the herd who will eventually (and often successfully) challenge the alpha for dominance, not a permanent lowly subordinate. Pop science (or any pop academic field) is rarely to be trusted.
— James Kabala · Aug 19, 06:36 PM · #