There always appeared to be this blind spot of a cycle where you have men who take PUA classes and ideas, the core of which is usually getting you to approach women on a numerical basis in order to build confidence and increase your chances, while at the same time it seems this extremely conscious breakdown of social interaction also produces more active situations where women are likely to feel harassed by men who approach them, also on a numerical basis.
It seems to have an individual benefit for a few people while likely causing discomfort for a larger majority. However I recognise this as a generalisation and I know that PUA tactics, if we're being fair, can help some people without causing undue problems.
I'm very interested in the 'mechanising' effect of reducing one's understanding (of the information they take in of the world around them) to the most simplistic and direct interpretation. This can actually be very useful for getting through tough or intimidating situations and seems to be an in-built instinct in most people, which is useful for fending off doubts and worries.
Even if the doubts and worries are correct. There's a reason unreasonable or disagreeable people tend to come out of deals with the better end of the bargain, generally speaking, as a true belief based on a false premise (in this case an inaccurate image of yourself) is still a powerful motivator.
Jon Elster made an interesting argument in his book 'Sour Grapes : Studies in the subversion of rationality'. This argument uses the example of assuming a cynical motivation of say, religious elites, who press the populous for money under, what would appear to be, a false impression of piety and spiritual leanings, but he claimed that such a person would have to possess some degree of belief in order to genuinely convey their religious leanings so as to influence the people in the first place. Now I'm paraphrasing the passage for brevity and I don't necessarily agree fully with him on this point, but it is fair to say that one can be a swindler and yet still hold a true belief (despite it being false in demonstrated behaviour) that brings them gains In their swindling and these are not essentially contradictory elements, although it depends on context.
With regards to pick up artistry, my outside observation is that it carries an important lesson about the implicit in behaviour and nature; PUA tactics are an explicit representative of behaviour that would normally be implicit. But the lesson, or hidden (unintentional) wisdom if you want, is that once that confidence is raised, a person usually recognises that it is their implicit instincts and unspoken 'flowing' interactions that really determine a lot of human relations and once that is understood, the methods they were using to become more confident look jarring and disjointed by comparison.
This is where most average people outside of that community actually reside. It's like going full circle.