When neither bow nor bank balance are available for demonstration, behaviour will be used to assess suitability for mating. No, appearance (which is a proxy for genotype) is used to assess suitability for mating and is the key determinant of attraction. Appearance is reliable (it is hard to fake) and female humans — like humans of many species — have evolved means of avoiding deception in the context of mate selection. Behavior is too easy to fake and if it were the determinant of attraction men would have evolved elaborate means of deception (not unlike the many insects that pretent to be another, more dangerous insect). Natural and sexual selection over thousands of years effect an exhaustive brute force search of the design space for effective solutions to problems that threaten the propagation of desirable genes. Behaviour, that is to say fakery as you are arguing, would have been discarded very early in the evolution of humans because it would have produced inferior offspring. Of course, persistence is required to learn anything, and here’s a trait not everyone possess — hence not everyone may become a PUA, as much as not everyone may become a good dancer. Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. You don’t appear to appreciate the concept and process of sexual selection and its effect on the gene gool. Sexual selection would have produced a huge population of these fakers and their ability to fake would be highly developed. https://codimd.caa-ins.org/s/B1lVUWWhll https://md.renjikai.com/s/_QgCY6gDG https://pad.eisfunke.com/s/Q6s27Y4WW https://notes.simeonreusch.com/s/3QYvE-csQ https://pad.leinelab.org/s/1MjlcHTlI https://pad.wdz.de/s/iU_xOECsk https://zapiski.nejckrasevec.si/s/WiDnktMpS https://md.gafert.org/s/WKPGI4ZGt https://doc.sonoj.org/s/na9IlaEEU https://docs.localcharts.org/s/YXhkG2ha7