[littleG]

I think the difference between Game and Lifestyle is the same as the difference between:

1) Having Money
&
2) Knowing how to leverage it

As well as the difference between

A) Efficiency
&
B) Effectiveness

Having game is like having an investors mindset; but, without an attractive lifestyle as your vehicle, your skills will not generate any marginal value.

I believe it comes down to a question of effectiveness versus efficiency. Having game will augment your efficiency and thus influence your yield (i.e. output to inputs). While, on the other hand, I believe having an "attractive" lifestyle will influence the caliber of woman you can attract (i.e. the quality of outputs.) without any extra effort.

[Nomad77]

A very accurate scientific explanation PJ - Good job

[Therapsid]

I disagree with those who argue that with age, game is overshadowed by lifestyle and wealth.

Yes, it declines in value but for all but the uppermost echelon of women, game is more important for men under the age of say 50.

Think about it. The average fortysomething year old man in America has some measure of assets. But does he get even just barely cute twentysomething year old women? No way.

That same middle aged man who is living paycheck to paycheck in a studio apartment but has serious game - that man will still pull 7's at least.

To put it another way, money has a diminishing marginal utility vis-a-vis game. Pound for pound, game is worth more well into middle age.

[damngringo]

I've been reading a lot of Robert Greene lately, and come to realize that that game & lifestyle go hand in hand. A player with a 2 custom shirts and ripped body but nothing much for it is boring in a different way than a rich beta, but both are boring if you look deeper.

A lot of seduction & power techniques can be successfully used in business & career. Learn to read people and uncover their undisclosed desires and suppressed emotions, nurture them, and you will have power & influence over them.

Speaking of game specifically, feminization of the Western society, middle class consumerist lifestyle subdue the will of men to be manly. Why bother when you can have fuuuun staring at your huuuuge plasma and listen to catchy pop tunes on the way to your white suburban house in a nice neighbourhood?

Thus, being an aloof alpha / practicing amused mastery / displaying charisma brings out the feelings that are hard-wired in women's brains. Players exhibit the behaviors women really want, as opposed to that they say they want, and the same principle can be successfully employed in business.

[snoop]

(11-28-2012 07:57 PM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Basketball shoes is not a good analogy because they are not critical to the success of a player. Having an apartment outside of the city or living with your parents on the other hand can make a significant difference in your closure rate.

With that said, of course, the better game you have the better chance you have. But that goes for everything, the better apartment, car, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with your point necessarily, I guess I was pointing out that there really isn't a good analogy for it (although shoes absolutely can make a huge difference in basketball performance)

Personally I think money is the #1 resource because of the power, flexibility and utility you get from it.

[dulst]

I'd go for 2 just because it has a wider range of benefits.