[darknesspua]

(11-30-2018 01:25 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 09:13 PM)Jozi Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 01:55 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

True game is knowing wherever you go in this world, you'll never be alone.

If you want to be honest, you can say that "game" is what you do until you find the self-confidence and masculinity of knowing who you are.

Advanced game is not approaching 5,000 women on the street. Advanced game is when you've developed your game around your personality and there is no on/off switch, there are no masks to wear, and there are no "games." You're enjoying life and writing your own script.

Once and "if" a man finds masculinity, confidence, and an understanding that life is abstract and mortality is real. Game is no longer needed beyond it's basic level of saying hello and letting her know what you want.

Actually that's not game, that's being yourself. Game literally means manipulation. And it's still needed at any given level of human interaction, even if you do some of it unconsciously.

Actually, it's not.

A 300 lb man , with acne and hypertension, a who sits around on reddit all day posting pics of his cat and telling women they are pretty is "being himself."

Reread what I said " Once and "if" a man finds masculinity, confidence, and an understanding that life is abstract and mortality is real. Game is no longer needed beyond it's basic level of saying hello and letting her know what you want."

You don't find masculinity and confidence, without living a life full of lessons, change, and at times pain. It's not something you can just wake up and "be".

You can be a PUA that walks into a bar and tries to act "alpha" based on a few things you read on blogs, but truthfully, we're all laughing at you, including the women, if you don't have the real confidence and masculinity to back it up.

I disagree. Game IS manipulation. Even a fag can get laid with a hot chick if he understand manipulation. Or a whale of guy with acne. (I have seen that with my own eyes)

Masculinity, confidence and ALL that stuff is mostly feel good marketing to sell men Self-development products repackaged to the seduction niche.

I am NOT saying it is not useful and important.

But it is not central to the process.

And even if you have those things, if you do not have game, you are pretty damn fucked.

[subterfuge]

Maybe you can do a post on what you call 'manipulation' with examples of what to say in order to override a girls lack of attraction and make her want to bed you even if she thinks you're repulsive looking or whatever? Would be interesting!

[darknesspua]

(11-30-2018 03:39 PM)subterfuge Wrote:  

Maybe you can do a post on what you call 'manipulation' with examples of what to say in order to override a girls lack of attraction and make her want to bed you even if she thinks you're repulsive looking or whatever? Would be interesting!

Will do.

But in the meantime you might want to consider that everything that you see the "gurus" doing is manipulation.

You may no understand what they are doing, but that does not means that it is not.

It seems that you and a lot of people HEAVILY UNDERESTIMATE the power of psychological manipulation.

If you are itchcing for examples that prove my position on the INCREDIBLE power of manipulation, please consider this small list of easily observable instances of the effects of skilled manipulation:

- Mothers mutilating their own children and permanently sterilizing them because they feel they should be other sex than what they were born with.

- Men & women self-mutilating and esterilizing themselves because THEY feel that they are another sex other than that which they were born with.

- Women (white women) who "choose" to not reproduce in an effort to help avoid "world overpopulation".

- The masses of women who will attack inocent men, motivated by a raging hate towards them only becaus ethey are men.

- Women who chant that logic & science are misogynistic and a result of the "patriarchy" which "opresses" them and they should destroy.

- The masses of idiots who become vegetarians in an effort to avoid "global warming"

- etc, etc, etc, .... ad naseum.

If you think that some psycho fucker elite bastard can make people mutilate themselves and their own children as well as to commit suicide by their own "volition" with use of manipulation and you cannot use that same force and knowledge to bang a hottie, you my friend REALLY have to reconsider your beliefs.

[BadBoyGamer]

darknesspua Wrote:

to get a girl (ANY girl) to have sex with you by means of persuasion.
...
Game is intended to get you laid with any kind of girl you have in front of you.

The idea that you can persuade every girl to have sex with you is a fantasy. Game is not magic. Neil Strauss talked about this. He believed that with tight enough Game he could get any girl. Later he became a bit more realistic.

darknesspua Wrote:

It seems that you and a lot of people HEAVILY UNDERESTIMATE the power of psychological manipulation.

You are overestimating the power of psychological manipulation. The highest form of manipulation and persuation can be found within media. Think about things like television, marketing and politics. These are the true masters of manipulation. And even they cannot make you buy a product you do not want to buy.

Think about it. Billions upon billions are being spend on this. Thousands upon thousands of people researching it. And still they cannot make you buy something you do not want. If a group of global corporations cannot do it, you cannot do it.

Do you remember the Obama campaign? From before he became president? This whole "Yes, we can!" chanting while people be holding candles and be crying in groups. Remember his speech when he was chosen president? Do you rmeember the emotions you felt? And you felt emotions because everybody in the world did.

This was one of highest forms of psychological manipulation that exist. Performed globally. Even people in freaking China cried.

And still plenty people did not vote for him.

[darknesspua]

(11-30-2018 07:33 PM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

darknesspua Wrote:

to get a girl (ANY girl) to have sex with you by means of persuasion.
...
Game is intended to get you laid with any kind of girl you have in front of you.

The idea that you can persuade every girl to have sex with you is a fantasy. Game is not magic. Neil Strauss talked about this. He believed that with tight enough Game he could get any girl. Later he became a bit more realistic.

It IS possible.

VERY unlikely in practice but still POSSIBLE.

It is POSSIBLE but HIGHLY UNPROBABLE.

Again the problem are the variables you cannot control - Logistics & time. (supposing that you have the skill, of course.)

(11-30-2018 07:33 PM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

darknesspua Wrote:

It seems that you and a lot of people HEAVILY UNDERESTIMATE the power of psychological manipulation.

You are overestimating the power of psychological manipulation. The highest form of manipulation and persuation can be found within media. Think about things like television, marketing and politics. These are the true masters of manipulation. And even they cannot make you buy a product you do not want to buy.

Think about it. Billions upon billions are being spend on this. Thousands upon thousands of people researching it. And still they cannot make you buy something you do not want. If a group of global corporations cannot do it, you cannot do it.

Do you remember the Obama campaign? From before he became president? This whole "Yes, we can!" chanting while people be holding candles and be crying in groups. Remember his speech when he was chosen president? Do you rmeember the emotions you felt? And you felt emotions because everybody in the world did.

This was one of highest forms of psychological manipulation that exist. Performed globally. Even people in freaking China cried.

And still plenty people did not vote for him.

You are mixing different situations and applications of persuasion.

You are talking about MASS manipulation. I am talking about INDIVIDUAL manipulation.

Different animals. Different results.

MASS manipulation CANNOT affect every single individual in a group because it is based on averages and assumptions.

*BUT*

TAILORED manipulation created specifically to affect a specific INDIVIDUAL CAN and WILL get the desired outcome. (Provided that the logistics, time and skill are provided)

Another thing that you are not taking into account in your argument is that of the precence of COUNTER PROPAGANDA.

All the examples that you mentioned above (product advertisement, obama propaganda, etc.) are not messages in Isolation. There is a LOT of persuasion OPPOSING to their message and that IS a BIG problem for them.

Why do you think they are heavy on censorship (facebook, twitter, etc)?

IF they had monopoly in the broadcast of their messages, and there was no competing messages, they would probably be able to manipulate the entire or at least the great majority of the population. (Think religion or culture)

That is why they are heavily trying to limit free speech. If they control what you can see and the information you have access to (school, media, etc.) they control your mind.

[Kieran]

Those that believe that game can't be used to build attraction in a woman that otherwise wouldn't fuck you, why are you on a game forum? Do you think game is necessary to fuck even women that are attracted to you from the outset?

You can't make all women that are not attracted become attracted through game, but you can certainly make some. Personally I've fucked women that I had no business fucking based on my looks, money and status because of game, and my game isn't even particularly good and not nearly what it could be.

[BadBoyGamer]

Kieran Wrote:

Those that believe that game can't be used to build attraction in a woman that otherwise wouldn't fuck you, why are you on a game forum?

Game works. No question about it.

Kieran Wrote:

Do you think game is necessary to fuck even women that are attracted to you from the outset?

Yes, absolutely. I have had naked girls right in front of me and failed to have sex with them, because I was entirely clueless about what to do. To me putting penis into vagina was more difficult than rocket science.

[subterfuge]

(12-01-2018 08:42 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

Those that believe that game can't be used to build attraction in a woman that otherwise wouldn't fuck you, why are you on a game forum?

Even people who write books and coach this stuff concede that 'game' isn't some black magic where you can force attraction in any girl. Obviously a 3ft tall guy with half a face and 90 years old isn't gonna have much luck banging teenage 10/10's no matter how many DHv stories he's memorised and how many negs her throws or how good his body langauge is etc etc. (Or, since everyone has their own definition of waht 'game' is, we'll just say 'no matter how good his game is'')
There are limits. Game is about amplifying attraction and not losing it, in girls that are somewhat 'into you'

(12-01-2018 08:42 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

Do you think game is necessary to fuck even women that are attracted to you from the outset?

Usually. Or at least not being weird and creepy or at least having enough knowledge to be able to escalate and show intent in a calibrated way etc. Most guys probably have just about enough 'game' to bang girls who think they are really good looking or whatever, but certainly some people have so little game that the girl will just move on to someone else. There's a few examples of this on the RDsforum of you read there

(12-01-2018 08:42 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

Personally I've fucked women that I had no business fucking based on my looks, money and status

So have I. I've banged girls who are 9's and i'm maybe a 5 i'd say. But it wasn't really about 'game'. Some girls just have weird taste in what they think 'hot' is lol. I know a stunner who thinks certain ugly celebs are like 10/10 in looks.

(12-01-2018 08:42 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

You can't make all women that are not attracted become attracted through game

Exactly.

[Kieran]

Using extreme examples like a 3 foot tall man with half a face is just ridiculous.

How long have you been going out for Subterfuge? You're so adamant that game can't cause attraction.

I banged a girl last year that flat out told me that she isn't attracted to white guys when I first approached her. My friend and I had approached their table, and her friend was into my friend so we ended up joining them which gave me time to work and eventually I had her qualifying herself to me. Of course I could be lying but I'm sure there must be others here on the forum with similar experiences. Or maybe you could say it's a shit test that I passed, but I know when a girl is attracted physically and this girl wasn't interested initially, and I could see her start to get attracted as the night went on.

Game can 100% get a girl to view you as a sexual option where otherwise she wouldn't consider it based on your looks, money and status.

[Kieran]

Another example I gave in the other thread that nobody addressed is the straight women that end up fucking disgusting looking bulldykes. Do you honestly believe that these women start off physically attracted to the bulldykes? Or is it their game, manipulation, and persistance that gets the deal done eventually.

[Sender]

Seems to me a slippage of definitions going on here. Isn't game just 'the things you do' that increase the chance of banging a particular girl?

Technically speaking, there's really no such as thing as a 'Yes girl' or a 'No girl'. They're all 'Maybe girls' because we're not psychic and can never know for sure why we get rejected. You can use terms like 'yes/no' girl as a shorthand but it really doesn't have any solid foundation to it. This just logically follows for me.

I approached a girl recently in a club and she just blanked me and carried on texting on her phone. I could say now that she was a 'No' girl but I don't know for sure. If I had approached with a different swagger or maintained a different kind of eye contact or waggled my eyebrows in a joky way before speaking etc. things may have turned out differently. To claim she's a 'No' girl implies that I'm 100% certain that my approach was perfectly calibrated. Can you ever really be certain of that?

What if I had approached and - instead of asking boringly 'do you speak English?' which worked with other bitches - had asked 'Hey, wtf is wrong with you?! Why are you on sitting here on your own like a loser?' Could the result have been different? I don't know and I'll never know because the moment is gone.

If you're ugly or not her type or she's not in the mood then you're probability of success is evidently gonna be lower but there is nothing that predetermines the outcome -- to your knowledge.

The stuff that Linux alludes to is more interesting because it implies that 'what you do' is inferior to 'what you are'. Again technically speaking -- if you really think about it -- this shouldn't lead to any difference of outcome because you could argue that if you game with enough conviction then the girl could never know the difference.

But I'm guessing that he means there's some unconscious process at work that can't be cheated. Not to mention all the other benefits of generally improving yourself.

[darknesspua]

(12-01-2018 10:53 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

Using extreme examples like a 3 foot tall man with half a face is just ridiculous.

How long have you been going out for Subterfuge? You're so adamant that game can't cause attraction.

I banged a girl last year that flat out told me that she isn't attracted to white guys when I first approached her. My friend and I had approached their table, and her friend was into my friend so we ended up joining them which gave me time to work and eventually I had her qualifying herself to me. Of course I could be lying but I'm sure there must be others here on the forum with similar experiences. Or maybe you could say it's a shit test that I passed, but I know when a girl is attracted physically and this girl wasn't interested initially, and I could see her start to get attracted as the night went on.

Game can 100% get a girl to view you as a sexual option where otherwise she wouldn't consider it based on your looks, money and status.

Exactly.

[darknesspua]

(12-01-2018 11:07 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

Another example I gave in the other thread that nobody addressed is the straight women that end up fucking disgusting looking bulldykes. Do you honestly believe that these women start off physically attracted to the bulldykes? Or is it their game, manipulation, and persistance that gets the deal done eventually.

I would lean for the manipulation.

[darknesspua]

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Seems to me a slippage of definitions going on here. Isn't game just 'the things you do' that increase the chance of banging a particular girl?

Yes.

I would say it like this:

Game is a set of tools, behaviors & beliefs that help you get a girl into bed.

Tools: Wearable props, a car, an apartment, etc.
Behaviors: Voice tone, kino, verbal responses, etc.
Beliefs: "Women love sex", "Sex is good", "Girls want to feel pleasure", etc.

Game/Seduction is NOT a means for "improving yourself", "becoming a better man", etc. Those outcomes belong to the self-development discipline.

Game's only purpose is to get you laid by any means necessary with a given girl in a given situation or with a given number of girls (your choice) within your life time.

In other words, Game is the means to get girls into bed. Period.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Technically speaking, there's really no such as thing as a 'Yes girl' or a 'No girl'. They're all 'Maybe girls' because we're not psychic and can never know for sure why we get rejected. You can use terms like 'yes/no' girl as a shorthand but it really doesn't have any solid foundation to it. This just logically follows for me.

The Yes/Maybe/No classifications for girls are well founded and are VERY useful.

They are a result of 3 crietria:

1. The girl's interest level.
2. The girl's availability.
3. Your desired outcome with the girl.

So, once you decide upon a desired outcome with a girl (say a SNL), the you proceed to test the chick for interest level and availability.

The Yes/Maybe/No classification is then assigned to her based on her responses to your tests.

You are not being psychic at all, because you are not assuming anything.

You are TESTING her and classifying her based on her responses (the Yes/Maybe/No classification).

For example a Very high ineterst girl, who is fully available and DTF for a one night stand would be a "yes girl".

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

I approached a girl recently in a club and she just blanked me and carried on texting on her phone. I could say now that she was a 'No' girl but I don't know for sure. If I had approached with a different swagger or maintained a different kind of eye contact or waggled my eyebrows in a joky way before speaking etc. things may have turned out differently. To claim she's a 'No' girl implies that I'm 100% certain that my approach was perfectly calibrated.

You are touching an important element of the whole Yes/Maybe/No classification which is the importance and essentiality of having a standard for judgemnt.

There are two standards:

1. The model-outcome based standrad.
2. Your personal minimum standard.

1. The model based standrad.

The model-outcome standard would be relative to the model you are using and the outcome you have for the girl.

So if you are looking for quick lays (SNL), and want to find the girls that are interested enough in you to fuck you and are DTF you that night, you will be able to quickly determine that if a girl does not gives you her attention at the beginning of the approach she ain't passing the above mentioned crieteria.

Why isn't she?

It doen's matter. It is her responses that count, not what she is thinking or feeling.

So within the above criteria, she is a "no girl".

That you could use perhaps persuasion to turn her over to a different classification?

Of course, but that would be the case of having a different outcome and criteria from the above.

In this case, your desired outcome would be something like "Getting THAT SPECIFIC CHICK into bed, no matter what."

2. Your personal minimum standard.

The only standard for the Yes/Maybe/No classification relative to YOU specifacally can be determined only by the fully direct approch style of game.

That style will give you YOUR minum standard. What you can get without persuasion. Because it forces girls to quickly show what is their dealio and therefore allows you to classify them effectively.

That will give you your basic "girl getting power" metrics.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Can you ever really be certain of that? (Yes/Maybe/No classification)

Yes. You TEST her and clasify her according to her responses.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

What if I had approached and - instead of asking boringly 'do you speak English?' which worked with other bitches - had asked 'Hey, wtf is wrong with you?! Why are you on sitting here on your own like a loser?' Could the result have been different? I don't know and I'll never know because the moment is gone.

Yes. Obviously you would get different responses for making a different stimuli.

It is not a failure from your part if that was not your outcome.

You can do many things with a girl, but only those that are aligned with your desired outcome are important. Everything else is just a waste of YOUR time and energy.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

If you're ugly or not her type or she's not in the mood then you're probability of success is evidently gonna be lower but there is nothing that predetermines the outcome -- to your knowledge.

With the Yes/Maybe/No classification we are not talking about predetermining the outcome. That would be assuming.

We are just determining where the girl lies in the probability of succesfully achieving our desired outcome continum.

The closer she meets the criteria of the type of girl that would succesfully get you your desired outcome, the most probable it is that you will achieve your desired outcome.

So, it can be said that indeed there are factors that predetermine the outcome you will have with a girl, and the Yes/Maybe/No classification process is a way of finding out what those factors are and having reliable data to base your future actions with her.

You are not imposing or assuming those limiting factors, you are discovering them.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

The stuff that Linux alludes to is more interesting because it implies that 'what you do' is inferior to 'what you are'. Again technically speaking -- if you really think about it -- this shouldn't lead to any difference of outcome because you could argue that if you game with enough conviction then the girl could never know the difference.

No.

You can game with the greatest conviction of the world, but if you do not know what you are doing and what you are doing is wrong you ain't getting the nookie.

(think the swarm of betas who write poetry and whole books for girls without getting even a makeout or those who express their feelings with all their beings just to be dumped or ridiculed.)

The character traits ideology of game ("masculinity", "dominance", "a true man", etc.) is BULLSHIT.

Game is manipulation. Period.

You can be "masculine", "a true man", etc. but if youy are a game retard you ain't getting shit of nookie.

"What you are" is infenitely INFERIOR to "what you do".

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

But I'm guessing that he means there's some unconscious process at work that can't be cheated. Not to mention all the other benefits of generally improving yourself.

Improving yourself is GREAT and it certainly will help to get chicks, BUT that is not game.

Self-improvement will not get you chicks without game.

[Jozi]

(11-30-2018 01:25 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

Actually, it's not.

A 300 lb man , with acne and hypertension, a who sits around on reddit all day posting pics of his cat and telling women they are pretty is "being himself."

Reread what I said " Once and "if" a man finds masculinity, confidence, and an understanding that life is abstract and mortality is real. Game is no longer needed beyond it's basic level of saying hello and letting her know what you want."

You don't find masculinity and confidence, without living a life full of lessons, change, and at times pain. It's not something you can just wake up and "be".

You can be a PUA that walks into a bar and tries to act "alpha" based on a few things you read on blogs, but truthfully, we're all laughing at you, including the women, if you don't have the real confidence and masculinity to back it up.

I didn't say one shouldn't develop masculinity and confidence. The part about learning life to be "abstract" and that mortality is real is your view of the world however and has no correlation to being good with women (although I do think it is a good way to think in general).

My response was that confidence and masculinity are not "game". They are states of being. Something that you indeed build up/obtain/develop (hopefully) as you go through life and its obstacles. But it's not "game". Game is the manipulation part, or the way you choose to broadcast and show that character you've built up in the best and most efficient way possible. It's the image that you portray (your car, the way you dress and speak), or the way you handle going from work colleagues to fuck buddies with a woman. A sales person will do much better if he's confident, true, but the words coming out of his mouth are strategic. He chooses them based on what will produce the most favorable response in his prospect. That's game. A good product can sell itself, but the marketing behind it can make it sell 100x more. And in that example, "you" (your looks, your money, your state of being etc) is the product while the "marketing" (the way you sell yourself) is game.

Game can feel like it's natural after a while, after you have internalized its concepts. I do not often have to think about what to say when I talk to a girl, I can intuitively know the best approach. So in a way I am my game. But that came from first reading, hearing or thinking about it. And then practicing it. Learning by trial and error over a long period of time.

So to conclude, I never said things like confidence wasn't important. And no, you cannot weigh 300 pounds with acne and hypertension and be a ladies man. Doesn't take away from anything I said however. Game is not everything, just one half of the equation. What you talked about is the other half of it. And a good product always has the potential to sell a lot more than a bad product, even if the bad product has slightly better marketing behind it. So, in that sense developing yourself and your life is the most important thing, while learning game is second. But even the greatest product in the world still needs marketing to sell, or people won't even know it exists.

[subterfuge]

(12-02-2018 11:34 AM)darknesspua Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Seems to me a slippage of definitions going on here. Isn't game just 'the things you do' that increase the chance of banging a particular girl?

Yes.

I would say it like this:

Game is a set of tools, behaviors & beliefs that help you get a girl into bed.

Tools: Wearable props, a car, an apartment, etc.
Behaviors: Voice tone, kino, verbal responses, etc.
Beliefs: "Women love sex", "Sex is good", "Girls want to feel pleasure", etc.

Game/Seduction is NOT a means for "improving yourself", "becoming a better man", etc. Those outcomes belong to the self-development discipline.

Game's only purpose is to get you laid by any means necessary with a given girl in a given situation or with a given number of girls (your choice) within your life time.

In other words, Game is the means to get girls into bed. Period.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Technically speaking, there's really no such as thing as a 'Yes girl' or a 'No girl'. They're all 'Maybe girls' because we're not psychic and can never know for sure why we get rejected. You can use terms like 'yes/no' girl as a shorthand but it really doesn't have any solid foundation to it. This just logically follows for me.

The Yes/Maybe/No classifications for girls are well founded and are VERY useful.

They are a result of 3 crietria:

1. The girl's interest level.
2. The girl's availability.
3. Your desired outcome with the girl.

So, once you decide upon a desired outcome with a girl (say a SNL), the you proceed to test the chick for interest level and availability.

The Yes/Maybe/No classification is then assigned to her based on her responses to your tests.

You are not being psychic at all, because you are not assuming anything.

You are TESTING her and classifying her based on her responses (the Yes/Maybe/No classification).

For example a Very high ineterst girl, who is fully available and DTF for a one night stand would be a "yes girl".

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

I approached a girl recently in a club and she just blanked me and carried on texting on her phone. I could say now that she was a 'No' girl but I don't know for sure. If I had approached with a different swagger or maintained a different kind of eye contact or waggled my eyebrows in a joky way before speaking etc. things may have turned out differently. To claim she's a 'No' girl implies that I'm 100% certain that my approach was perfectly calibrated.

You are touching an important element of the whole Yes/Maybe/No classification which is the importance and essentiality of having a standard for judgemnt.

There are two standards:

1. The model-outcome based standrad.
2. Your personal minimum standard.

1. The model based standrad.

The model-outcome standard would be relative to the model you are using and the outcome you have for the girl.

So if you are looking for quick lays (SNL), and want to find the girls that are interested enough in you to fuck you and are DTF you that night, you will be able to quickly determine that if a girl does not gives you her attention at the beginning of the approach she ain't passing the above mentioned crieteria.

Why isn't she?

It doen's matter. It is her responses that count, not what she is thinking or feeling.

So within the above criteria, she is a "no girl".

That you could use perhaps persuasion to turn her over to a different classification?

Of course, but that would be the case of having a different outcome and criteria from the above.

In this case, your desired outcome would be something like "Getting THAT SPECIFIC CHICK into bed, no matter what."

2. Your personal minimum standard.

The only standard for the Yes/Maybe/No classification relative to YOU specifacally can be determined only by the fully direct approch style of game.

That style will give you YOUR minum standard. What you can get without persuasion. Because it forces girls to quickly show what is their dealio and therefore allows you to classify them effectively.

That will give you your basic "girl getting power" metrics.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

Can you ever really be certain of that? (Yes/Maybe/No classification)

Yes. You TEST her and clasify her according to her responses.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

What if I had approached and - instead of asking boringly 'do you speak English?' which worked with other bitches - had asked 'Hey, wtf is wrong with you?! Why are you on sitting here on your own like a loser?' Could the result have been different? I don't know and I'll never know because the moment is gone.

Yes. Obviously you would get different responses for making a different stimuli.

It is not a failure from your part if that was not your outcome.

You can do many things with a girl, but only those that are aligned with your desired outcome are important. Everything else is just a waste of YOUR time and energy.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

If you're ugly or not her type or she's not in the mood then you're probability of success is evidently gonna be lower but there is nothing that predetermines the outcome -- to your knowledge.

With the Yes/Maybe/No classification we are not talking about predetermining the outcome. That would be assuming.

We are just determining where the girl lies in the probability of succesfully achieving our desired outcome continum.

The closer she meets the criteria of the type of girl that would succesfully get you your desired outcome, the most probable it is that you will achieve your desired outcome.

So, it can be said that indeed there are factors that predetermine the outcome you will have with a girl, and the Yes/Maybe/No classification process is a way of finding out what those factors are and having reliable data to base your future actions with her.

You are not imposing or assuming those limiting factors, you are discovering them.

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

The stuff that Linux alludes to is more interesting because it implies that 'what you do' is inferior to 'what you are'. Again technically speaking -- if you really think about it -- this shouldn't lead to any difference of outcome because you could argue that if you game with enough conviction then the girl could never know the difference.

No.

You can game with the greatest conviction of the world, but if you do not know what you are doing and what you are doing is wrong you ain't getting the nookie.

(think the swarm of betas who write poetry and whole books for girls without getting even a makeout or those who express their feelings with all their beings just to be dumped or ridiculed.)

The character traits ideology of game ("masculinity", "dominance", "a true man", etc.) is BULLSHIT.

Game is manipulation. Period.

You can be "masculine", "a true man", etc. but if youy are a game retard you ain't getting shit of nookie.

"What you are" is infenitely INFERIOR to "what you do".

(12-02-2018 04:23 AM)Sender Wrote:  

But I'm guessing that he means there's some unconscious process at work that can't be cheated. Not to mention all the other benefits of generally improving yourself.

Improving yourself is GREAT and it certainly will help to get chicks, BUT that is not game.

Self-improvement will not get you chicks without game.

Certainly sounds like you know what to say to get any girl into bed no matter your looks, so i'm sure i'm not the only one who is looking forward to your follow up to this post with the nuts and bolts of what to say to manipulate any girl into desiring you. I'm assuming it's stuff that isn't in any other game book out there as i'm pretty sure i've read just about every single one, and none have given me anything remotely close to this super power, so try to get this post up before Christmas as a festive treat!

[El Padrone]

^With real Game you are pushing a womans emotional buttons via what you are saying to her. Its not so much *what* you say, but the emotional reaction from her as a result of what you said/saying. I've seen where a guy talking about the weather got a girl hot for his dick. Her words "([redacted name]you're making me horny". I was talking to another on a long distance call over some emotional crap and she asked me to stop cos "you're making me feel like having sex". I was exploring her mind. The common thread in these interactions and many others in going from a no spark social chit chat to animated back and forth that leads ultimately to sex is how you made her feel by plumbing the depths of her emotional mind. Real game is not manipulation per se, it is an exploration of her emotional mind. How do you do this? Well, how do you talk with someone you've known for years? You make an *observation* or whatever but which invites a reply from which the emotional hook/hole gets dug. You don't say "whats your name?"

[Pointer]

(11-27-2018 05:18 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

The promise of Game is that you can get a near unlimited amount of sex from near unlimited girls.

Modern Game has not been developed to get a girlfriend. If you desire a girlfriend or a good wholesome wife you should not learn Game. You need dating advice. If on the other hand you want to have plenty of sex with hotties, you are best of learning Game.

You can get unlimited sex if you're a short ugly Hollywood celebrity. That's not game.
In fact, game is exactly the opposite of what you said in the second paragraph: a set of tools to find the right girl.
You can use it to get laid or to find a wife, it all depends on your priorities but the ultimate goal is reproduction. The promise of game is seducing a girl out of your league (not just physically) and making babies with her. In places like North America the sexual market is so fucked up that you need game just to get laid, that's not the case in a healthy society though.

Also, game is a lot about saying the right thing at the right time in the right way.

It's not just about saying a story, it's about the delivery (tone, body language), the proper length, the right time. A lot of guys read Mystery Method and didn't understand shit, they just remembered DHV story = sex. That's a caveman approach. Same thing with the people who say be confident, be yourself, be a man etc. Some girls will be naturally attracted to you and will bang even if you say shit, that doesn't mean you have game. The more common scenario you'll find yourself thrown into is a girl will show interest but you'll have to work for it. Just showing up, being confident and working out in the gym 5 hours a day will not cut it. She may have 20 other dudes just like you lined up (if she doesn't then she's not worth chasing), mastering some seduction techniques will make you stand out.

As an average dude, you know you have game when you can consistently pull attractive girls and make them go crazy after you.

A player with basic game will get ghosted by girls after a ONS, will spam approach dozens of girls each day and will bang an 8+ once in a blue moon.
A player with amazing game will have girls chasing after him even if he's not a celebrity, rich or handsome.

[The_e_man]

(12-02-2018 11:34 AM)darknesspua Wrote:  

"What you are" is infenitely INFERIOR to "what you do".

You had me until there. When discussing what "game" is then, yes, what you do is what game is.
But what you are is SUPERIOR in the long run. "What you do" is simply putting on a mask and hoping it works (and sometimes it does), but it doesn't lead to high quality or good retention.
Mark Manson made the distinction between Fake Confidence and True Confidence in his book and it's basically the same concept of what you are vs what you do.

Despite all the feel-good, self-improvement, slightly blue-pill bloat that's in that book - it still does have some good nuggets of truth like that above.

[BadBoyGamer]

I dislike Manson with a passion.
All his words sound very good (I only read Models).
I learned to distrust nice sounding words.

[Anchor Man]

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

I dislike Manson with a passion.
All his words sound very good (I only read Models).
I learned to distrust nice sounding words.

I dislike Manson too and this book Models is garbage

[tomzestatlu]

There are girls who are potentially willing to bang with you, but you don´t handle the situation.
..and..
There are girls, who have no interest in you, but you end up banging them.

The goal is to minimalize the first and maximilize second statement.

[MoultrieScout]

First post.

I can post qualify my own experience with the "Game" from a few years back. In as few words as is possible, technique and confidence and IDGAF and move on works. With some looks, a great job, and in the right place.

Back on topic, I agree with Darkness. Game=Persuasion.

Persuasion is the game of life. Almost every interaction you have, not just trying to slay the P.

Thing is, most of the same techniques and skill sets required to be even marginally successful at "Game" with women have far more reaching impacts in even more important areas of life.

[Donfitz007]

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

I dislike Manson with a passion.
All his words sound very good (I only read Models).
I learned to distrust nice sounding words.

Why is Models so bad?

[MathGuy]

"Why do you dislike Mark Manson?"

let me copy&paste what I wrote on some other site months ago. Sorry, but this is going to be really long.

----

I will say this: there are a lot of things in that book that are good, namely - not caring about rejection, not being needy, the fact that radical honesty is an attractive trait, and the fact that polarization can be both effective (faster sex) and saves you time&frustration.

On the other hand, it's easily the most OVERRATED book in the community. It doesn't have enough actionable advice, it reads like Manson wrote it to appeal to female fans, and it can be characterized as "what guys want to hear so they could give it 5 stars on Amazon and recommend it to their friends" rather than "what they actually need to hear to actually improve themselves in an efficient manner." The worst things about Models and Mark Manson's fanbase is that they like to encourage the sentiment that "you should only stick to Manson's advice, all other stuff is bullshit or overly complicated or will make you hate women, I was into PUA but everything got better when I read Models so I left it behind." That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in my opinion.

I recommend reading Magic Bullets instead as an introduction to game/PUA in general. At the same time, go read Daygame Nitro by Krauser for an introduction to daygame, and watch JMULV's stuff on YouTube as an introduction to nightgame. For online game, check out Alex Vilenchik's website "playingfire"

Then form an action plan to deliberately practice pickup on a regular basis, write field reports, learn from your experiences, cross reference it with the guides you've consumed, and so on.

-

here are a couple Amazon reviews that further explain my grievances:

"I was not impressed with this book.

What I found distasteful were the incessant anti-PUA (pickup artist) references which seriously undermines the credibility of this book. The author's "my method is better than their method" strikes me as a childish, dick-measuring exercise. He claims to have removed much of it since the previous edition, but it's still far too many.

I am definitely neither a PUA nor want to be one. But since reading Neil Strauss' book back in 2008, I've followed PUA literature and YouTube videos because I find much of their material interesting, humorous or ridiculous. So I definitely understand where Mark Manson comes from when he heaps contempt on some of its teachings.

The problem is, he’s speaking from some sort of time warp. The ridiculous PUA tactics like wearing goofy costumes and reciting lines and routines are no longer in the PUA mainstream and haven’t been for almost a decade. Instead, the mainstream mostly focuses on "natural game" and "inner game". And surprise, 80% of it is identical to what Mark teaches in his book. Since he was a successful PUA coach, he should know this. So for him to trash the PUA community when its teachings are mostly identical to his is blatantly dishonest and textbook hypocrisy.

Another thing I disliked about the book is him trying to place all behavior into a simple, two-headed paradigm even when it makes no sense. He marks all good behavior as non-needy and honest; and all bad behavior as needy and dishonest.

In two of countless examples, he said if you don't approach a woman you find beautiful, you're being dishonest. (Huh?) He also said if you stereotype women ("all women are gold diggers"), you're being needy. (WTF?) These assertions don't even make sense. Succumbing to approach anxiety is not dishonest and stereotyping people is not neediness. Yet, he makes these outlandish claims out of a uber-desperate need to sort all male behavior neatly into his paradigm to present an airtight argument.

If you've read Robert Glover's book No More Mr Nice and followed his YouTube interviews, you don't need to read Mark Manson's book. Dr Glover makes similar points more directly, more convincingly and without the agendas or hypocrisy.

I would have liked Models more if the author only followed his own advice and be more honest, more humble, more vulnerable and more straight-forward."

-

"I'm not going to go through a big review because this is really all you need to know. Mark is part of the new "Post-PUA fatigue" movement. It basically consists of advanced guys who have went through the classic PUA cycle (i.e. read "The Game", then "Mystery Method", then other books on PUA). Then once having graduated from AFC to PUA the author is now trying to separate himself from the whole PUA community and teachings and discard, with visceral disgust, the exact vehicle that has brought him his success. This is a very common phenomena with successful PUA gurus now looking for moral absolution. Unfortunately it will do nothing but help the AFC flop by guiding him on a facile course of "just being yourself" which will lead to total PUA failure.

The practical result of this phoney moral equivalency is the book offers a lot of advise that will be useless, and more likely counterproductive, to the AFC and new guy looking for success with woman. He suggests honesty and vulnerability and all these nebulous and amorphous concepts that will cause the AFC to absolutely fail in the field. It is very easy for the advanced PUA , like the author Mark, to say all this stuff as he already has internalized the proper mindset, attitude, frame, and techniques for success and executes them unconsciously now. However the methods he advises wont work for the AFC and will lead him to even more failure. The book is appealing to the unknowledgeable, would be PUA because it doesn't require any hard work or actual change.

What the AFC needs to know is DHV, confidence, and framing techniques; not this silly vulnerability, honesty, and "just being yourself" hackneyed nonsense. The author seems to forget these are the exact characteristics that have lead the AFC to be a failure with woman his entire life. Just because the author has "grown" past such trifling things he does the entire PUA community a complete disservice by advocating his touchy feely, specious, feel good, easy and honest approach which will firmly ensconce the would-be PUA into the perpetual AFC zone.

For helpful material look at "How To Become An Alpha Male" by John Alexander, Or "77 laws of success with woman" or "advanced dating" by David Deangelo or "Way of the Gun" by Gunwitch. Those are actual solid books with practical techniques. Discard this easy, non-helpful, silly book as an exercise in self-indulgent moral absolution."

-

Oh, and one final comment.

Self-improvement helps, but it's no substitute for actually interacting with women and learning from your experiences with women in a thoughtful manner. That is....

Getting healthier, more muscular, and more fashionable will help (tremendously!), but a muscular well-dressed adonis who doesn't interact with women (which often entails going out of their way) will not get them. It won't magically make girlfriends appear. They will get more IOIs, they will get many more matches on Tinder, and they will come across girls who require practically no skill to bed, but until they actually interact with them, they'll remain sexless (kissless, dateless, childless,etc).

Getting more money will help. It's still no substitute for interacting with women, and at the same time, men with a lot of money but no game often end up getting women who later divorce them, take half their money, take the kids, make their well-meaning ex husbands work like dogs for alimony payments, and well...I don't want to go on with that spiel in this subreddit. Don't let it make you paranoid. Oh, and money will help in that you'll be able to afford better clothes, will be able to afford better places for logistics (a n00b who lives in the Meatpacking District of Manhattan which is near all these high end clubs will easily have more sex than an intermediate or even advanced guy who lives in a small town in bumfuck Idaho), afford a car, uber rides, etc.

My opinion on money: You don't have to be rich, you just need to have enough money for food, rent, transportation, and clothes. That being said, it is still possible to be a successful player while being a broke loser, but that's not something you should strive for.

Using self-help guides to become a more emotionally healthy person will help, but (like money and muscles) is no substitute for interacting with women. There are kindhearted, non-needy, non-moody, likeable saintlike beings who don't get laid, and there are cruel, desperate, irascible, pathetic dipshits who belong in jail who do get laid.