Talk:Mystery Method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mystery Method article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 12 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] WEBSITE

The Mystery Method website has moved to www.themysterymethod.com so I updated it here. This can be confirmed by calling the phone number on record for Mystery Method Corp (who owns the trademark) at 323 836 0150 or 800 680 0821. Currently there is a redirect from mm.com to themysterymethod.com because mm.com has been the target of attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clockworkorange101 (talk • contribs).

Hey remember to sign your stuff after you have written it. Anyway.. not going to call the number because I'm not in america, but if you can point to anywhere online they have mentioned this change of address? Mathmo Talk 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Clockworkorange101 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)In addition, the "external references" section seems to be cut off...is there a limit to how much gets displayed on a page?

Clockworkorange101 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry, trying to learn how to sign things. Let's see if this works. I believe it was mentionned in their newsletter of last week. They've also redirected mysterymethod.com to themysterymethod.com and all links on the website and in outgoing communications are to themysterymethod.com.

Saw the change over in address mentioned in the newsletter, but only just got it a few hours ago. So recent news, but anyway I'm definitely agreeing with you now (though suspected you were right). Mathmo Talk 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
hi there again, a tip for you. The convention is to sign your posts at the end not the start, do this and in future people will find it a lot easier to read your comments on a talk page. Mathmo Talk 07:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mathmo for all your help. I appreciate it an I'm learning. Hopefully this signature works. Now some people were suggesting before that we update this page because Mystery hasn't really been teaching any MM programs or making any of their products. I'm scared to start this by myself since I don't know how. Any ideas? Clockworkorange101 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101

Have you seen WP:BB? Though what exactly do you think needs changing? Mathmo Talk 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were giving me advice on how to add Savoy and Sinn to the page. I'm not even sure where to start. Want to do this together? Clockworkorange101 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101

I'll do a couple of things and then let you know about it on your talk page, also you should skip putting "Clockworkorange101" at the end of your posts. The 4 ~'s is automatically doing it for you, so if you write it yourself there ends up being two which looks a little odd. Just see the difference between the end of mine and others to the end of yours and you can probably see what I'm referring to. Mathmo Talk 13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The current NPOV tag relates to if we should include descriptions of Mystery Method's figure-head (Mystery) from Neil Strauss' 'The Game' on this page. User:Keepitneutral has argued consistently that quotes from Strauss's book should NOT be included on his competitors (of which Mystery Method is one) pages, on Talk:Real Social Dynamics. He was able to get a group consensus there that quotes from Strauss's book were not permitable Wikipedia sources for competitor pages. He is now arguing that in fact, they are allowable for this page, but not Real Social Dynamics'. WoodenBuddha 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be removing the POV notice unless someone specifically addresses the point above in the next three days, as I really don't see this as a POV issue. WoodenBuddha 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Neil is definitely not a "competitor". He routinely makes appearances at Mystery Method bootcamps in support of Mystery and the company...

Clockworkorange101 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Neil has not appeared at any Mystery Method program since a 2hr appearance in February. He appears to be launching his own seduction business.

[edit] How much content is allowed

So I like to think I've updated the page with enough information at this point that it gives a reader a feel of what MM is about, and on what it's based (rather than MAGIC PHEROMONES), without crossing over in to MM's intellectual property. Any thoughts on that?

Do I need to specifically cite any of what I've written? It's all available in the eBook, and a fair amount in the free chapter of the book available from the website.

Is it worth moving the part on 'Peacocking' from the general Seduction Community page to here? Should I add in a piece about 'negs' as they're the bit the media always seems to go for? Suggestions please :-)

WoodenBuddha 08:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about this being his "intellectual property". You can't patent technology for seducing women. As you can see, I am beginning to expand the article based on what I've read in his book. I don't think we need to go into great detail, but it doesn't hurt to tell people what this stuff is all about. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the purpose of this article is to give an overview of the Method, not to act as teaching material for those already interested - if people want to learn the Mystery Method, it's only fair that they buy the materials sold! However, as I've mentioned above, if we provide a 10,000 ft view, it allows people to get a feel for what's going on. Some of the information I've removed is plain wrong, or out-of-date with current MM canon - ie, C1 to C3 are now taught as being effectively the same thing, with only the location changing. I'd be interested to hear what other have to say here, but I'm a big believer in keeping this short and sweet - none of the other 'guru pages' have anywhere near this much specific information on what's taught. Reason #1 is that most don't have such an exact syllabus - RSD takes the approach that their instructors are experts, and can teach what they want, and it's been a long time since I took a BB workshop, but a lot of what he did was mostly interactive learning, and focussing on delivery. WoodenBuddha 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh well. The comfort building thing I took right out of the manual. And in the videos he says that, for example, C1 should occur in the attraction location. I don't really care though and to be honest I'd rather this stuff didn't get too public anyway. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delaney, did you write, "I'd rather this stuff didn't get too public anyway"? I think you don't understand the purpose of WP. I see you going around deleting and censoring a lot of information on these pages. If the information is accurate and notable, it stays. DutchSeduction 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I removed a section of criticism because it was way too POV:

Some people believe that Mystery is successful with women largely due to his array of magic tricks (which he coaches in his seduction magic seminars). Even though he is successful with women personally, some people struggle to believe the average guy in the street could learn to successfuly copy what he does. Neil Strauss, author of the Game, made a thinly veiled assault on Mystery Method with a famous seduction community post called 'social robots'[1], a ground breaking seduction community post.

"Some people"? That is incredibly vague. "Some people," say lots of things, but that doesn't mean they are encyclopedic. Also, it is POV speculation that the "social robot" post was intended as an assault on the Mystery Method. I am not against a criticism or controversy section in this article, like the one in the Real Social Dynamics article; in fact, I think such a section would improve it. But such a section needs to be less POV, and cite its claims rather than vague references to "some people," and biased speculation. --SecondSight 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually false, too. Mystery doesn't teach any magic tricks in his seminars and explicitly states that they are only part of his persona and irrelevant to pickup. I reverted this criticism section by the anon earlier but I expect to see it cropping up again. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the hard push of some users on here to search for anything they might be able to try to include as criticism of RSD, I'm arguing for reinstatement of the MM criticism section. Its unfair for some users here to insist so strongly for an RSD criticism and at the same time remove criticism from the MM page. I'm getting the impression that many users here are slanted to MM and I beleive the neutrality and quality of the seduction articles suffer because of this. MM is a much larger article than the RSD one and should have a criticism section of equal proportion.Keepitneutral 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please write one! :-) Until then, I don't really think you can say the page is POV, as no-ones put forward any cited or feasible differing points of view... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WoodenBuddha (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 June 2006.

First, MM is a much larger article because there are simply more sources available on it. Second, it does not necessarily warrant a criticism section of "equal proportion." What determines the length of a criticism is the amount of critical sources that are available. I suggest that you go find some sources that are critical of Mystery and cite them on the page, if that is what you want to see. Just because harsh criticism of RSD are easier to find than harsh criticism of MM, it doesn't mean that people are biased against RSD and pro-MM (btw, I've been accused of being anti-MM in the past, so I really take that accusation with a grain of salt; I could just as easily accuse you of being slanted towards RSD, but accusations like that are a waste of time)--SecondSight 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing all criticism of MM from the Mystery Method page. Mystery is the founder, figurehead, and chief instructor of MM. His mental instability is relevant to a MM page because it shows how even using his MM concepts he was dumped by his GF and had a mental breadown. A page without criticism protrays MM as only positive. A criticism section allows a more balanced and fair look at how MM plays out in practice at times. Moreover, in terms of fairness, users here have already argued extensively that criticism of Tyler Durden by Strauss and the times writer is appropriate on the RSD page. If that is so, then criticism of Mystery is appropriate on a MM page. You guys claim not to be biased, show it. Either remove the criticism of TD from the RSD page or allow the criticism of Mystery to remain on the MM page. You can't have it both ways.Keepitneutral 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've argued extensively that criticism of his competitors by Strauss shouldn't be quoted. Lots of times. Are you saying you've changed your mind? If you are, there's a whole bunch of stuff we can put back on the RSD page. WoodenBuddha 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if Strauss quotes are to be included than people need to know that he is a competitor in the industry. Feel free to add information about Strauss as a competitor to MM within the MM page. Woodenbuddha has already argued that TD is inextricably linked to RSD and that criticism of him is appropriate on an RSD page. So be it. Criticism of Mystery therefore belongs on a MM page. You guys argued extensively that Strauss is not biased, SecondSight said because he is a competitor that doesn't mean hes biased. Right now we info about Strauss's business ventures to temper his criticism of RSD on the RSD page. The quotes about Mystery can also be tempred if you like by explaining Strauss's bias but removing them from the MM wikipedia page only shows that you are committed to keeping the Mystery Method page free of criticism even that from someone SecondSight and Woodenbuddha have argued extensively is unbiased.Keepitneutral 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't mind us adding the quotes that you've repeatedly argued about, over and over, from Strauss's book, on the RSD page? If you are, then say so here add by all means add Strauss quotes to this page. If you're not, then find some other source. You can't have it both ways, and you've written pages of text on why Strauss's quotes shouldn't be allowed on competitors pages. I'm having trouble seeing any consistency here. Careful not to break 3RR, again. WoodenBuddha 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're the one removing criticism from the MM page. The RSD page has been vandalized repeatedly and now is a relatively short and crappy article. You already have a mention about Strauss which had to be neutralized by explaining his business ventures. The article is short and adding more Strauss quotes unfairly adds weight to Strauss's criticism. The Strauss quote on the MM page is relatively short for the length of the article and adds a fair amount of criticism. Theres a mention of Strauss' criticism and a quote about TD on the RSD page. So be it. But you shouldn't have a problem with allowing a relatively short quote about Mystery and his failings despite MM on the MM page. If you look at the lengths of the articles, the criticism on the MM page is fair when guaged against the current criticism of RSD. Please explain why you refuse to allow criticism of MM but go out of your way to find criticism for RSD.Keepitneutral 18:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Keepitneutral, it's dishonest of you to pretend that I am "removing all criticism of MM;" I didn't remove it from Wikipedia, I moved it to Erik von Markovik where it belongs. That quote from The Game is about Mystery's past mental health issues, not about his method. Since Mystery has a personal page, anything that is more about his personal life than about his method belongs on his personal page. Remember, I supported Strauss' quote about TD and Papa being kept out of the RSD article, because it was about the people, not about the company. I wasn't one of the people trying to insert that quote, so you can't say that I am trying to have it both ways. By the same logic, the quote on Mystery's mental health belongs in his article, where it is perfectly easy to find for anyone reading the Mystery Method article (it's one click away). As for whether Mystery's mental breakdowns are an example of how MM plays out in practice, I don't think that's true. Note that Mystery got Katya as a gf in the first place, which is a testament to his method. As I recall, he dumped her for lying to him that she was pregnant. Mystery then told Herbal that he could go after her, but Mystery got incredibly jealous. So yes, Mystery Method can't promise perfect long term relationships, or to fix people's underlying mental health issues or tendencies to choose people who are bad for them; yet I don't think it tries to promise any of those things, so that really isn't fair criticism.
Since I've already moved the quote to Mystery's article, I am going to remove it from Mystery Method again. I'm sure there are other criticisms that actually target Mystery's method; if you are still working on a criticism section for the MM page, I recommend checking out news articles.
WoodenBuddha, I think we should leave the quote I moved from The Game up on Erik von Markovik for now. I don't think the consensus was that we weren't going to use Strauss at all, but rather that we weren't going to use his specific quote on RSD. --SecondSight 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're drawing a distinction between MM and Mystery? The Strauss criticism of TD and Papa which is still noted on the RSD page is not about RSD but only two members. Likewise, the criticism from the Times article is about the action's of Tyler Durden that we cannot be certain was even on an RSD bootcamp. If that quote is relevant to an RSD article because of TD's relationship with RSD then the Mystery quote should be allowed to remain on the Mystery Method page. If you want it the other way around, then move the criticism section of RSD to a TD page. Right now its really unfair to have the amount of criticism in the RSD page considering the length of the article and staunchly refuse to keep ANY criticism of MM. All I'm asking is for fairness. Why must RSd have a criticism section and MM have none?Keepitneutral 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this isn't a distinction I draw. In answer to why we're allowing the criticism on the RSD page, and not the MM one - because YOU have repeatedly argued against the source you're using for the MM one. If you can find criticism not written by his competitors, please add it! WoodenBuddha 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

SecondSight - TBH, I'm happy for it to appear on the MM page too, along with the many positive things Strauss says about Mystery. However, I think it's only right that if we're adding specific, person-based criticism from Strauss' book to one of his competitors, it should be allowed on all of them. Keepitneutral has said, and you have agreed, that Strauss is not a trustable source on his competitors. Why two different rules? I don't care if we do or don't count him as a reliable source - just that he is a competitor to MM AND RSD, so if he's considered a reliable source for one, he should be considered the same for the other? Do you see what I'm saying here? WoodenBuddha 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the relative difference in the links of the article and the fact that the criticism of RSD is criticism of TD. RSD has a lot of instructors and TD isn't even active as an instructor to my knowledge. Fairness warrants at least some criticism on the MM page if we're going to have criticism of TD on the RSD page.Keepitneutral 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to call the section controversy, thats fine but I don't think you can attribute the idea that canned routines are unethical but effective to the author. The author suggests that as MM canned lines and routines like the example he gives become known to women, that the response will be a slap to the face. The point seems to be that if a woman knows you are using a canned line, that she will respond poorly. A slap to the face doesn't sound like the author is saying that MM canned routines are unethical but not ineffective. That statement is completely unsupported.Keepitneutral 14:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, did you read the article? --Ryan Delaney talk 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. If you'd like to add that the writer also beleives that MM canned routines are unethical, thats fine with me. I didn't add that part. But the quote suggests that using known canned routines and lines could get you slapped. Thats what the writer said. That speaks to ineffectiveness which I just put as "problematic" to be fair. A wikipedia user can go to the article to gain more information.Keepitneutral 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor the point, but the article seemed to be driving at more of a "Mystery Method is unethical" than "Mystery Method is ineffective" effect. That particular quotation, taken out of context, seems to miss the point of what the author intended, I think. I assume that's what Tlogmer was attempting to clarify. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All the criticism on the page is verifiable and attributable to the authors. Just because WoodenBuddha does not agree with it does not mean he can remove it. The section is for criticism and criticism has been added from the authors. The sources are clearly listed and Woodenbuddha's opinion as to the quality of the sources is irrelevant. The sources are cited and a wikipedia user is welcome and encouraged to investigate the source of the criticism and make their own assessment. Moreover, in regards to WoodenBuddha's personal opinion that an author is not accurately quoting or describing MM, than I suggest that Woodenbuddha take that up with the author. The fact remains that regardless of Woodenbuddha's desire to remove crticism of MM, the criticism is valid, sourced, and verifiable and should not be removed.Keepitneutral 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism Section

Checking on the edits made by user Ryan Delaney, it looks like he's attempting to sanitize the criticism section.

This was the criticism he removed:

There is also broad criticism from within the [Seduction community] as well. A number of Mystery's competitors and colleagues, like [Juggler] and [Badboy] consider Mystery's approach too theoretical, indirect and lacking in spontaneity. The critics feel that being natural and spontaneous are extremely important, and that Mystery's approach can be considered counter-productive in many cases. [Neil Strauss] himself referred to many of Mystery's students as "social robots" who became overly reliant on memorized stories and tricks.
The critics generally acknowledge many of Mystery's contributions but believe that he has gone too far in encouraging scripted behavior at the expense of relaxed, spontaneous and natural interactions. They also note that many of Mystery's students develop problems in actually expressing or acting on their sexual intentions toward women. One non-commercial organization [2] in the [Seduction community] has observed that Mystery's method owes its popularity in part to the fact that a seduction "system" that includes canned stories and "negs" while easy to package and market commercially will be prone to many disadvantages and pitfalls for beginners.

The above is fair and accurate criticism of Mystery Method and should be added in some form IMO. DutchSeduction 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • According to recent rulings by the Arbitration Committee, "It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)"[1]. Please do not insert opinions cited to websites that you maintain or are otherwise affiliated with personally. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Delaney, the accusation is completely untrue. A review of your editing history gives the impression that you're doing marketing for some of these companies and keep trying to sanitize and remove fair criticism. Please put some criticisms back into the article and prove me wrong. The criticism you removed were factual NPOV. DutchSeduction 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Delany, it is good that you've accepted the recent additions to the criticism section. DutchSeduction 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Delaney: Badboy is mentioned in The Game. Neil and a number of his American friends visited him on the Croatian coast one summer. DutchSeduction 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Ryan Delaney, no offense, but many of your edits are not particularly helpful. I know you mean well, but simply Googling and double-checking the sources would save you from making a lot of mistakes.

"One of Style's main mentors was Mystery, a suicidal PUA that uses magic and various attention-getting techniques to

seduce girls." [[2]]

This reference is cited all over the web, and at least one suicide episode is mentioned at the beginning of Strauss's book. DutchSeduction 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some "community members" in Japan....

"Some community members in Japan believe that Mystery's tactic of delivering negs "[only] works for the Westerners who already have advantages like good looks or are used to frank conversations with strangers of the opposite sex. But for the below-average Japanese guy, offending someone you've just met only turns the woman off and blows the guy's chance forever."" Really don't see what is so specific here about japan, heaps of people think that mystery's methods don't apply to their special case. When in reality everybody is a human! Sure there might be slight variations between groups of people, that is one of the main reasons for calibration. This however doesn't change the fact the basic underlying ideas hold true. Thus as such I'll be removing this section from the article. Mathmo 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal for the time being. I don't mean to be condescending here (really!), but our own personal opinions about the validity of a criticism do not weigh on its value for inclusion. The objective of a Wikipedia article is to present all relevant viewpoints fairly and neutrally, whatever we think of them. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I realise that merely my own personal opinions shouldn't have an impact, however this is not merely my own yet basically the entire community. Did you actually check out the link? I'd certainly not call him a Japanese pick up artist (let alone a master/guru worthy quoting. If you are going to merely quote somebody on this page for being a pua then you might as well quote me, and that certainly isn't right), his "advice" is merely conventional dating advice. So to call him here a pua is waaaaay off the mark. Do a search for Satoshi Fujita pua, the only relevant result I could see is this page here. In other words there is NOTHING else. Even if you believe nothing else that I've said before simply that one result should be way more than enough evidence to see he simply can not be seen as criticism from within the community. Mathmo 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You would probably have to search for his name in Japanese if you wanted to pick up anything about him. Translations of Japanese newsmedia into English aren't exactly easy to come by. Anyway, I don't think it hurts the article to have this criticism in there. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's criticism, so it stays unless and until we find better criticism to replace it. DutchSeduction 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

if you notice i'm primarily arguing against him being called a member of the community, as such i'll correct the statement by removing that small section and leave the rest to stand as it currently is.Mathmo 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is why Japan has a low birthrate. -Iopq 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
lol, if he is an example of a pua then yes that must be the reason! Mathmo 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some independent links please?

Most of the references on this page appear to be to websites with a relationship with the subject matter. Such references are NOT independent and need to be replaced with ones which are.

Stuartyeates 08:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/y/s/Talk%7EMystery_Method_83c1.html"