Bounty Ended with 500 reputation awarded by Community
    Bounty Ended with 100 reputation awarded by Community
3 corrected title of "Tao of Badass" (not Badness)
source | link

For completeness, I'll include a few quotes from the Oesch paper to directly address some of the claims listed in the question (I haven't read the Tao of BadnessBadass, nor have any intention to read it, so just going by what's provided). Notice that even though Oesch doesn't review Pellicer specifically, many of the same themes are found in other works reviewed. And while evidence does seem to support some of Pellicer's claims (as you have reported them), there is a clear difference in the rigour, detail, and language used in a scientific paper, which is typically much less confident than what someone like Pellicer would write.

For completeness, I'll include a few quotes from the Oesch paper to directly address some of the claims listed in the question (I haven't read Tao of Badness, nor have any intention to read it, so just going by what's provided). Notice that even though Oesch doesn't review Pellicer specifically, many of the same themes are found in other works reviewed. And while evidence does seem to support some of Pellicer's claims (as you have reported them), there is a clear difference in the rigour, detail, and language used in a scientific paper, which is typically much less confident than what someone like Pellicer would write.

For completeness, I'll include a few quotes from the Oesch paper to directly address some of the claims listed in the question (I haven't read the Tao of Badass, nor have any intention to read it, so just going by what's provided). Notice that even though Oesch doesn't review Pellicer specifically, many of the same themes are found in other works reviewed. And while evidence does seem to support some of Pellicer's claims (as you have reported them), there is a clear difference in the rigour, detail, and language used in a scientific paper, which is typically much less confident than what someone like Pellicer would write.

2 deleted 10 characters in body
source | link

Many years ago, I listened to a few episodes of the The Tom Leykis Show, yet another highly sexist advice columnnist for men. Josh Pellicer is not the first, and certainly not the last, in a long line of dating coaches, pick-up artists, seduction scientists, romance advisers, and other non-scientists claiming to know secrets of human sexual behaviour. If you are not very familiar with scientific literature in general, then here are a few tips for spotting pseudoscience:

The reality is that human dating and relationshipsexual behaviour is still largely a mystery. So anyone claiming to know its secrets is not basing that on available evidence.

Many years ago, I listened to a few episodes of the The Tom Leykis Show, yet another highly sexist advice columnnist for men. Josh Pellicer is not the first, and certainly not the last, in a long line of dating coaches, pick-up artists, seduction scientists, romance advisers, and other non-scientists claiming to know secrets of human behaviour. If you are not very familiar with scientific literature in general, then here are a few tips for spotting pseudoscience:

The reality is that human dating and relationship behaviour is still largely a mystery. So anyone claiming to know its secrets is not basing that on available evidence.

Many years ago, I listened to a few episodes of the The Tom Leykis Show, yet another highly sexist advice columnnist for men. Josh Pellicer is not the first, and certainly not the last, in a long line of dating coaches, pick-up artists, seduction scientists, romance advisers, and other non-scientists claiming to know secrets of human sexual behaviour. If you are not very familiar with scientific literature in general, then here are a few tips for spotting pseudoscience:

The reality is that human sexual behaviour is still largely a mystery. So anyone claiming to know its secrets is not basing that on available evidence.

1
source | link

Bottom line: No, Josh Pellicer's work is not based on science, not tested, nor peer-reviewed. However, I will qualify this statement slightly below.

Many years ago, I listened to a few episodes of the The Tom Leykis Show, yet another highly sexist advice columnnist for men. Josh Pellicer is not the first, and certainly not the last, in a long line of dating coaches, pick-up artists, seduction scientists, romance advisers, and other non-scientists claiming to know secrets of human behaviour. If you are not very familiar with scientific literature in general, then here are a few tips for spotting pseudoscience:

  • No citations / bibliography of peer-reviewed research
  • Heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence (personal experiences)
  • Broad statements / lack of rigour, especially failing to quantify assertions
  • Use of non-scientific terms such as "proven"
  • Appeal to authority rather than evidence

Although Pellicer's "theories" (note that they don't qualify as scientific theories as they stand, so the term is in quotes) haven't been tested specifically, there have been several reviews of the industry in general. Scientific research does occasionally slowly trickle down to public media and becomes part of general knowledge, so inevitably, some of Pellicer's assertions are bound to be based on science, while others are opinions or conjectures with no basis, and yet others contradict available evidence.

One of the more favourable reviews of the industry is by Nathan Oesch of the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford (from 2012). If you are truly interested in the scientific basis for claims about dating and relationships, then I would recommend reading that paper. Personally I think Oesch is too kind - much of the research supporting dating preferences comes from self-reports, that other research demonstrates to be practically useless, so any claims made on this basis are speculative at best.

The reality is that human dating and relationship behaviour is still largely a mystery. So anyone claiming to know its secrets is not basing that on available evidence.


For completeness, I'll include a few quotes from the Oesch paper to directly address some of the claims listed in the question (I haven't read Tao of Badness, nor have any intention to read it, so just going by what's provided). Notice that even though Oesch doesn't review Pellicer specifically, many of the same themes are found in other works reviewed. And while evidence does seem to support some of Pellicer's claims (as you have reported them), there is a clear difference in the rigour, detail, and language used in a scientific paper, which is typically much less confident than what someone like Pellicer would write.

1)

... in a study of 37 cultures around the world, Buss (1989) and his collaborators found qualities such as having an exciting personality, intelligence, adaptability, and creativity as among the top ten most desirable traits for both men and women. Bale, Morrison, and Caryl (2006) has further shown that “pick up” lines that demonstrate qualities such as helpfulness, generosity, cosmopolitanism and wealth are significantly more attractive than straightforward propositions for sexual activity.

2)

... from a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.

3)

... Place et al. (2010) found an increase in male attractiveness among women who observed mutually interested romantic couples, while Jones, DeBruine, Little, Burriss, and Feinberg (2007) found a similar effect if other women were observed smiling at male faces; a reverse effect was found for unsmiling faces (Jones et al. 2007) or uninterested romantic couples (Place et al., 2007).

4)

... psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review). For example, many studies have demonstrated the importance of honesty, niceness, agreeableness and nonviolence (Boon and McLeod, 2001; Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, and Angleitner, 2005; Botwin et al., 1997; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003), both in the early stages of a romantic encounter for soliciting Attraction, as well as later in the sequence of courtship for establishing Comfort and Trust. Still further, as an acquaintanceship develops, empathy, fondness, forgivingness, trust, perspective-taking, and kindness (Kilpatrick, Bissonnette, and Rusbult, 2002; Fincham, Beach, and Davila, 2004), , defined as emotional responsiveness to the needs of others (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, and West, 1995; Li, Kenrick, Bailey, and Linsenmeier, 2002), have been shown to be critical for both establishing and maintaining an intimate relationship.

5)

... research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al. 1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women ...

6)

... women typically require more time and intimacy to develop the same amount of passion as men (Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999).