I just got around to noticing.
Neil Strauss may be the most transparently socially intelligent person alive (there are people who I think are probably nontransparently more socially intelligent than Neil -George Soros, Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch, Brad Pitt). It's not that I think Neil is perfectly transparent, probably no one can be and survive, but among the community empirically investigating social intelligence, and sharing much of their findings with each other and the public, Neil seems to be the smartest of the cohort to me.
Further, many of my best epiphanies related to social intelligence (by my own ranking) Neil has in public musings either beat me to them, came up with them simultaneously, or came up with them independently shortly thereafter.
Now with his latest book, his transparency has extended from social intelligence to maximization of persistence odds. I haven't read the book yet, but I heard an inteview on opie and anthony radio, and he seems disappointedly focused on more cartoonish aspects of survivalism -- not on more statistically intelligent approaches that some combination of Aubrey de Gray and Nick Bostrom would come up with. But his books tend to be journey books -perhaps he ends up in more enlightened territory by the end of the book.
Its interesting that Neil never has cited Erving Goffman to my knowledge, because it occurs to me Neil may be his truest intellectual heir.
Although I haven't met Neil yet, I have a very close degree of separation from him, and actually was recruited to be a professional pick up artist by people close to the Mystery Method circle. I came close to going that route, but opted to more traditional paths of social status and wealth-building instead.
Nevertheless I try to keep tabs on the seduction empiricism community. I'm not interested in banging hotties more than transient horny periods we get as healthy primates, but social intelligence does seem vital to me, and much like the first transparent empiricists on human productivity, these guys have set off a bit of an arms race. Unfortunately its probably wasting social resources at the macrosocial level (we're using resources to compete in building personality plumage with their technology, rather than competing in ability to reduce communal catastrophic existential risk) but I'm not a macrosocial entity, I'm an individual human, and as such I wouldn't choose to disarm on principle. So ... who do you think lies more, men or women? ;-)