I really like this post. It's a good summary of the "be yourself" vs "play the game" argument. But it is not a dichotomy. As Famm said, your personality is, to a huge extent, learned. However, by adulthood it is largely static. That doesn't mean that new behaviors can't be learned, but it does mean that you can't wildly change who you are to fit some archetype of "attractive male."
However, I argue that, by playing the game, putting up this fake persona to attract girls, you are in effect teaching yourself adaptive behaviors that will
become part of who you are. For every neg you throw or "body rock" away because it said to do it in a book, each time it works you are reinforcing that behavior to yourself. It's operant conditioning. Over time, that becomes your default reaction, and suddenly it's now "you." A lot of the stuff may still seem artificial to you after a while, but I'm sure some of it is compatible with your "real" personality, and those things you can integrate. For example, PUAs have/had some line about horoscopes but I get angry at even the mention of horoscopes, so I could never use that naturally. On the other hand, I'm a teaser and like a little back and forth, so that type of stuff I can naturally incorporate. I would argue that even the stuff that is the complete opposite of your personality teaches you intrinsic lessons about optimal behavior that you can naturally incorporate into your personality.
This all goes on the assumption that you are using PUA stuff as a temporary measure. That's how I see it. A training, so to speak. The PUAs will say "become a master, then go natural." I say use it to get to a point you're satisfied with, then go natural, because few ever truly become a master, and every bit of time spent on some artificial formula is, to some extent, time lost.
You know the whole availability thing is interesting to me. I was actually talking with my old man about this the other day. He was telling me when he was "courting" my mom he would go days without calling her. Now that's not really news or anything, but I think in this day and age it's a bit more difficult to pull that off with so many different avenues or communication, at least imo. Case and point, with the suicide girl we talk on google chat, fbook messages, texts, skype, etc. etc. She knows when I'm like working throughout the day when I'm on google chat that if I don't respond to her it's not me not being available, but it's like why didn't you respond. The same goes with texts and everything. To me trying to go a day without responding doesn't look unavailable, just not interested / playing a game.
I think immediately from the get-go these communication barriers need to be set and if you try after the fact to play the less available card it just looks like you're not interested.
Just because you're technically available doesn't mean you have to be available, imo. If someone texts me a lot and I get tired of responding, I just don't. If they ask why, I kind of ignore the question because I feel justified in not always being accountable to someone. "Why couldn't you answer?" is an intrusive question for anyone except a spouse/family. It's none of your business. I'm sure that'd go over like a lead balloon with suicide girl though.